Topica Email List Directory

Welcome Guest!

Detaxarchive

	Previous Message	All Messages	Next Message

Canada - Court Update: Dave Lindsay takes on the BCSC Kamloops on Transcripts	SJG
	Jul 13, 2003 14:59 PDT

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_006E_01C3494F.3A840340
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

This is an amazing message in terms of Court Proceedings.

-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Lindsay
Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2003 11:48 AM
To: cle-@hush.com
Subject: transcripts fees challenge

After several months of delays, (no complaints on my part), my challenge to
the governments' incessant and exhorbitant transcripts fees was heard
yesterday in Kamloops before Justice Powers of the BC Supreme Court. Rob
Bruneau was the lawyer hired by the Attorney General.

BRIEF HISTORY

I had originally been charged with several offences for travelling through
the Coquihalla toll highway (gov't run) without paying. At trial, Judge
Rhromoser was seen walking and having lunch with a defence lawyer who was
appearing before him at that very time!!! Right in the middle of cross
examinations! This judge was incredibly rude, inconsiderate and ignorant.
As such I requested an adjournment, told him he was biased and that I had no
way of knowing if he had spoken to the Crown about my case. Although he
attempted to assure me that he hadn't, I assured him in no uncertain terms
that I didn't believe a word coming out of his mouth, if we hadn't seen him
having lunch with this defence lawyer, certainly it would never have been
brought to our attention at court. When he refused to adjourn, I walked out
on him and was convicted in absentia. I then appealed. Then the court of
course demanded transcripts fees. Yesterday's challenge was the result of
this request for these fees.

ARGUMENT

As noted in s. 813 of the Criminal Code, it is a right of appeal, not a
privilege. In common law, there was no right of appeal per se, except in
extremely limited circumstances, and then usually by use of a prerogative
writ such as certiorari or mandamus. I can only argue that because the laws
were fairly few up until the past 100 years or so, judges were presumed to
know the law and probably did know the law, thus the need for appeals were
not necessary. In theory at least, this does not however deal with
corruption amongst the watchers. Today however, with 1000's of law,
regulations, OIC's, etc., at every level of government, it is impossible for
any judge to know the law. Thus the need for appeals to ensure that
innocent are not convicted, and to fulfill the duties of the judge which is
to obtain the truth of the matter before him as well.

Being a right of appeal, one has everything necessary to exercise that
right. If the gov't is going to require transcripts for an appeal, then
these come with the appeal. Period.

The issues before the court are as follows:

1. Is Parliament (or the legislatures) supreme?

2. Are Magna Charta 1215 and 1225 constitutional documents? (s. 40, "to
no one will we sell, deny or delay right or justice.")

3. Does stare decisis apply? (precedent case law)

4. Does the selling of transcripts for purposes of an appeal constitute
the selling of justice?

5. Does the Charter of Less Rights and Less Freedoms apply?

 There is no statutory law prescribing for fees to be charged. I wrote
the A.G. last year requesting to know the law being relied upon and he would
not respond. I learned yesterday it is some obscure regulation pursuant to
some official reporters regulation, which was not provided. In any event,
then this is the law which I was attacking.

 I began by informing the judge of his primary duties. Too often I
believe we go into court assuming the judge knows his duties. Many judges
have forgotten that their primary duties are to obtain the truth and the
protection of "individual rights". (R v Hall, SCC 2002, amongst many other
cases, authorities and common law). So this was the foundation of my
argument, advising the judge that he was here today to protect and preserve
my rights and freedoms from stealthy (or direct) encroachment by the
government.

 I then launched into my argument that Parliament was not supreme and
could not pass any law that it wants. I had much law to this effect and
probably talked for about an hour on this issue alone. (the case went from
10 am until almost 5 pm). Several quick quotes put to the judge establishes
this principle:

"Everyone again knows as a matter of common sense, that whatever lawyers may
say, the sovereign power of Parliament is not unlimited, and that Kings,
Lords, and Commons united, do not possess anything like that 'restricted
omnipotence'..which is the utmost authority ascribable to any human
institution. There are many enactments and these laws not in themselves
obviously unwise or tyrannical, which Parliament never would and never could
pass. If the doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty involves the attribution
of the unrestricted power to Parliament the dogma is no better than a legal
fiction and certainly is not worth the stress here laid upon it."

 Dicey

“The divine right of kings was not rejected in order to put in its place a
doctrine of the divine right of Parliament or the Executive..”

 Justice O’Halloran, BC Court of Appeal Justice,
Obiter Dicta, 1949

“The great constitutional struggle which saw the passing of an absolute
monarchy would be of little avail if in its place we now had an absolute
ministry.”

 Queen v CBC Ont. Court of Appeal 1958

 Having now established Parliament is not supreme (I had other
arguments as well to this effect in addition to just authorities and case
law), I then turned to whether Parliamentary legislation supercedes Magna
Charta and whether the Great Charters were and are constitutional documents.

 There have been some judges who have ruled that 1215 is not
constitutional. Very few however. There are many authorities to support
the law that it is constitutional. The Crown took the position that even if
it was constitutional which it denied, it was to be given less weight than
other constitutional documents!! In other words, some constitutional
documents have more weight than others and Magna Charta has very little!
This is a new theory upon me. The Crown further argued that R v Jebbitt
from the BC Court of Appeal earlier this year ruled Magna Charta could be
over ruled by the Legislature.

 This leads to the argument of precedent law I put forth and
briefly, the law is that case law precedence is fine unless and until one
has new arguments and new evidence to put forth. Case law is only binding
upon the principle decided and most importantly, it must be a “right”
principle!!

“..but it is not sufficient that the case should have been decided on a
principle if that principle is not itself a right principle, or one not
applicable to the case…in that case the prior decision ceases to be a
binding authority or guide for any subsequent judge, for the second judge
who lays down the principle in effect reverses the decision.”

 Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, on stare decisis

 I copied the factums from the Jebbitt case the A.G. was relying
upon. Mr. Jebbitt, with no disrespect intended, had no case law, no
authorities or anything else to support his argument. Judges are bound by
the case and pleadings before them.

 R v Jebbitt decision was only one page! Not very long for such
an important question. I believe that the Court of Appeal, hearing an
unrepresented man who had never been before that court before and with no
authorities, simply took a recess and came back out with an oral decision
which was later transcribed after they did a quick check on some law (not a
complete one either).

 As I pointed out to Justice Powers, I had hours worth of
argument and documentation, law and authorities never put to the Court of
Appeal and never considered by them and thus their decision was not binding.
He replied that there is some law to the effect that he would still be bound
by this decision and may have to decline to over rule it in order to send it
to the higher court for them to clarify.

 This also because the 1949 Rex v Hess case I relied upon by the
BC Court of Appeal already decided that Magna Charta was constitutional in
this province and actually struck legislation on this basis!!!! Now the
Court of Appeal was trying to say that it isn’t and he felt that I may need
a panel of 5 C.A. judges to hear the matter.

 In any event, the A.G.’s argument was weak and virtually
unsupported except for the Jebbitt case.

 The Supreme Court of Canada at least twice has upheld the
applicability of Magna Charta as being “the” law, not just a law.

“Its force as a statute is analogous to the status of Magna Charta which as
always been considered to be the law throughout the Empire. It was law
which followed the flag as England assumed jurisdiction over newly
discovered or acquired lands or territories.”

 Calder v A.G. of B.C. 1973 34 DLR (3rd) 145 @ 203

 Admittedly this was a dissenting opinion in respect of the
Proclamation of 1763, however that is not the issue here. The fact is, the
SCC recognized that Magna Charta is the law, even if the Proclamation is now
not. This was further upheld in the U.K. by Lord Denning in 1982.

 And of course we cannot forget Lord Coke’s spirited statements:

“Magna Charta is such that he hath no sovereign.”

“The highest and most binding laws are the statutes which are established by
Parliament; and by authority of that highest court it is enacted (only to
show their tender care of Magna Charta and the Charter of the Forest) that
if any statute be made contrary to the great charter, or the charter of the
forest, that shall be holden for none: by which words all former statutes
made against either of those charters are now repealed; and the nobles and
great officers were to e sworn to the observation of Magna Charta and
Charter of the Forest.”

 Lord Coke, Institutes of the Laws Of England, Part 2
1809

 In my view, having now established that Magna Charta was
constitutional, it was then unlawful to sell, deny or delay right or
justice. (alternatively, I told the judge that even if somehow he found that
it was not constitutional, I told him that it had still never been repealed,
impliedly or otherwise.) Does selling transcripts constitute selling
justice?

 I defined the word sell to the judge which is as we would all
anticipate it to mean, no special law meanings here. Then I defined
justice: the set and constant purpose which gives to every man his due.
Then I defined due: a man’s right, what is owed to him. The Criminal Code
s 813 defines an appeal as a right. So quite clearly, justice does
encompass the transcripts which are necessarily incidental to one’s right of
appeal. “A pretensed right is no right at all.” (Reg v Mackarty 1705 2
Raym. 1183)

 Coke was clear that s. 40 of Magna Charta meant that, “Justitiam
vel recfum neither the end, which is justice, nor the means, whereby we may
attaine to the end, and that is the law.”

“Recfum, right is taken here for the law, in the same sense that jus, often
is so called. Because it is the right line,…It is called right, because it
is the best birthright the subject hath, for thereby his goods, lands, wife,
children, body…”

 Coke, Institutes

 I further argued that the selling of justice = the offence of
barratry and thus the court could not condone the gov’t committing this
offence. No law can permit the government to commit an offence known to
law.

 I raised the issue of the non applicability of the Charter,
though I don’t think this is much of an issue. The Crown argued that some
constitutional documents have more weight than others, especially the
Charter having more weight. My sole argument of course is that once rights
are acquired, then they cannot be taken away. It is absurd to think that
one constitutional right has to given up in the exercise of another right,
statutory or otherwise. Also, it would foolish to think that our rights
suddenly regressed under the Charter, a contention which is wholly opposite
to the reality as to why the Charter was even brought in. A constitutional
document was not put in its place to deny us our rights and freedoms gained
until that point. (in law and in theory anyway!)

 And of course I had several authorities to show that economic
necessity is not a lawful excuse for denial of our rights and freedoms. I
don’t think there is much of a problem on this one.

 The Crown essentially relied upon R v Robinson from the Alberta
Court of Appeal. Robinson was seeking state funded copies of his appeal
book to the Court of Appeal pursuant to s. 7 of the Charter. Of course he
was going to lose!! The Court of Appeal in looking at s. 7 and realized the
actual fact that there were no appeals until just this century and thus it
was not a “fundamental” principle of justice. The court also held that
there had never been any cases of state funded payment of transcripts
therefore he could not have them. In essence, the Court analyzed the
history of the appeal process in England and did a not bad job. I don’t
deny that there were no appeals until just this past century, thus fees for
the transcripts were never an issue.

 However we now have that right and the common law progresses, it
does not regress. Further, the Court of Appeal in Alberta never considered
nor was it argued, that Magna Charta applied. Much of the authorities I
supplied were also never considered. So although an appeal may not have
been a fundamental right, it is and always was still unlawful to sell
justice, including the means of attaining it as Lord Coke correctly upheld.
Today the means of attaining justice includes the appeal process. It is my
right, statutory or otherwise.

 I also argued that today, the statutory right of appeal has now
become enshrined constitutionally into our common law. It has existed for
over 100 years to the point that today, the average man on the street now
expects to have an appeal as of right. Not a privilege nor with leave of
the court. But as of right. Judicial notice can and should be given that
this appeal process, with the number of laws on the books and the
impossibility of any judge knowing all the law, is now a constitutional
right and must stay that way.

 The A.G.’s argument in R v Jebbitt won’t I don’t think, hold
much water. So much was never considered and the judge has the factums to
prove this fact that I can’t see it holding much weight.

 The Crown at one point opined that in his 26 years as a lawyer
he had never seen any case upheld on the basis of Magna Charta, until
suddenly Justice Powers interrupted him and pointed out R v Hess here in BC
where the Court of Appeal did overturn such a law based upon Magna Charta.
Mr. Bruneau had to apologize to the court that he had not read this case!!!!
Then after giving it a quick 5 minute glance when I was doing my rebuttal,
he said that the opening paragraphs did not reflect what actually was
decided in the case!!! Talk about grasping for straws, the A.G. had no
meritful response to this one.

 Anyway, I have a couple of authorities still to provide to the
court for next week sometime when I get to Vancouver to copy them. Then we
wait. I expect a decision probably in late August or early September. No
matter which way it goes however, I believe that we will be back before a
full panel of the Court of Appeal on this one.

 Let’s pray for the best!!!!

Dave

------=_NextPart_000_006E_01C3494F.3A840340
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML xmlns:o = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1170" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV>This
is an amazing message in terms of Court Proceedings.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left>-----Original Message----- From: Dave Lindsay Sent:
Sunday, July 13, 2003 11:48 AM To: cle-@hush.com Subject:
transcripts fees challenge </DIV>
<DIV align=justify>
After several months of delays,
(no complaints on my part), my challenge to the governments' incessant and
exhorbitant transcripts fees was heard yesterday in Kamloops before Justice
Powers of the BC Supreme Court. Rob Bruneau was the lawyer hired by the
Attorney General.<o:p></o:p>
 
<H1 style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">BRIEF
HISTORY</H1>
 
I had originally been charged
with several offences for travelling through the Coquihalla toll highway (gov't
run) without paying. At trial, Judge Rhromoser was seen walking and
having lunch with a defence lawyer who was appearing before him at that very
time!!! Right in the middle of cross examinations! This judge was
incredibly rude, inconsiderate and ignorant. As such I requested an
adjournment, told him he was biased and that I had no way of knowing if he had
spoken to the Crown about my case. Although he attempted to assure me that he
hadn't, I assured him in no uncertain terms that I didn't believe a word coming
out of his mouth, if we hadn't seen him having lunch with this defence lawyer,
certainly it would never have been brought to our attention at court. When
he refused to adjourn, I walked out on him and was convicted in
absentia. I then appealed. Then the court of course demanded
transcripts fees. Yesterday's challenge was the result of this request for
these fees.
 
 
<H2 style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">ARGUMENT</H2>
 
As noted in
s. 813 of the Criminal Code, it is a right of appeal, not a
privilege. In common law, there was no right of appeal per se,
except in extremely limited circumstances, and then usually by use of a
prerogative writ such as certiorari or mandamus. I can
only argue that because the laws were fairly few up until the past 100 years or
so, judges were presumed to know the law and probably did know the law, thus the
need for appeals were not necessary. In theory at least, this does not
however deal with corruption amongst the watchers. Today however, with
1000's of law, regulations, OIC's, etc., at every level of government, it is
impossible for any judge to know the law. Thus the need for appeals to
ensure that innocent are not convicted, and to fulfill the duties of the judge
which is to obtain the truth of the matter before him as well. 
 
Being a
right of appeal, one has everything necessary to exercise that right. If
the gov't is going to require transcripts for an appeal, then these come with
the appeal. Period. 
 
The issues
before the court are as follows:
 
1.
 Is Parliament (or the legislatures) supreme?
 
2. Are
Magna Charta 1215 and 1225 constitutional documents? (s. 40, "to no
one will we sell, deny or delay right or justice.")
 
3.
 Does stare decisis apply? (precedent case
law)
 
4. Does
the selling of transcripts for purposes of an appeal constitute the selling of
justice?
 
5.
 Does the Charter of Less Rights and Less Freedoms apply?
 
 

There is no statutory law prescribing for fees to be
charged. I wrote the A.G. last year requesting to know the law being
relied upon and he would not respond. I learned yesterday it is some
obscure regulation pursuant to some official reporters regulation, which
was not provided. In any event, then this is the
law which I was attacking.
 
 I began by
informing the judge of his primary duties. Too often I believe we go into
court assuming the judge knows his duties. Many judges have forgotten that
their primary duties are to obtain the truth and the protection of
"individual rights". (R v Hall, SCC 2002, amongst many
other cases, authorities and common law). So this was the foundation of my
argument, advising the judge that he was here today to protect and preserve my
rights and freedoms from stealthy (or direct) encroachment by the
government.
 
 I then launched
into my argument that Parliament was not supreme and could not pass any law that
it wants. I had much law to this effect and probably talked for about an
hour on this issue alone. (the case went from 10 am until almost 5
pm). Several quick quotes put to the judge establishes this
principle:
 
"Everyone again knows as a
matter of common sense, that whatever lawyers may say, the sovereign power of
Parliament is not unlimited, and that Kings, Lords, and Commons united, do not
possess anything like that 'restricted omnipotence'..which is the utmost
authority ascribable to any human institution. There are many enactments and
these laws not in themselves obviously unwise or tyrannical, which Parliament
never would and never could pass. If the doctrine of Parliamentary
Sovereignty involves the attribution of the unrestricted power to Parliament the
dogma is no better than a legal fiction and certainly is not worth the stress
here laid upon it."
 
 

Dicey<o:p></o:p>
 <o:p></o:p>
“The divine right of kings was not rejected
in order to put in its place a doctrine of the divine right of Parliament or the
Executive..”<o:p></o:p>
 <o:p></o:p>


Justice O’Halloran, BC Court of Appeal Justice, Obiter Dicta,
1949<o:p></o:p>
 
 “The great
constitutional struggle which saw the passing of an absolute monarchy would be
of little avail if in its place we now had an absolute
ministry.”<o:p></o:p>
 <o:p></o:p>


Queen v CBC Ont.
Court of Appeal
1958<o:p></o:p>
 
 
 
Having now established Parliament is not supreme (I had other arguments
as well to this effect in addition to just authorities and case law), I then
turned to whether Parliamentary legislation supercedes Magna Charta and whether
the Great Charters were and are constitutional documents.
 <o:p></o:p>

There have been some judges who have ruled that 1215 is not
constitutional. Very few
however. There are many authorities
to support the law that it is constitutional. The Crown took the position that
even if it was constitutional which it denied, it was to be given less weight
than other constitutional documents!!
In other words, some constitutional documents have more weight than
others and Magna Charta has very little!
This is a new theory upon me.
The Crown further argued that R v Jebbitt from the BC Court of
Appeal earlier this year ruled Magna Charta could be over ruled by the
Legislature.
 <o:p></o:p>

This leads to the argument of precedent law I put forth and briefly, the
law is that case law precedence is fine unless and until one has new arguments
and new evidence to put forth.
Case law is only binding upon the principle decided and most importantly,
it must be a “right” principle!!
 <o:p></o:p>
“..but it
is not sufficient that the case should have been decided on a principle if that
principle is not itself a right principle, or one not applicable to the case…in
that case the prior decision ceases to be a binding authority or guide for any
subsequent judge, for the second judge who lays down the principle in effect
reverses the decision.”<o:p></o:p>
 <o:p></o:p>


Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, on stare decisis<o:p></o:p>
 <o:p></o:p>
 <o:p></o:p>

I copied the factums from the Jebbitt case the A.G. was relying
upon. Mr. Jebbitt, with no
disrespect intended, had no case law, no authorities or anything else to support
his argument. Judges are bound by
the case and pleadings before them.

 <o:p></o:p>

R v Jebbitt decision was only one page! Not very long for such an important
question. I believe that the Court
of Appeal, hearing an unrepresented man who had never been before that court
before and with no authorities, simply took a recess and came back out with an
oral decision which was later transcribed after they did a quick check on some
law (not a complete one either).

 <o:p></o:p>

As I pointed out to Justice Powers, I had hours worth of argument and
documentation, law and authorities never put to the Court of Appeal and never
considered by them and thus their decision was not binding. He replied that there is some law to the
effect that he would still be bound by this decision and may have to decline to
over rule it in order to send it to the higher court for them to clarify.
 <o:p></o:p>

This also because the 1949 Rex v Hess case I relied upon by the BC
Court of Appeal already decided that Magna Charta was constitutional in this
province and actually struck legislation on this basis!!!! Now the Court of Appeal was trying to
say that it isn’t and he felt that I may need a panel of 5 C.A. judges to hear
the matter.
 <o:p></o:p>

In any event, the A.G.’s argument was weak and virtually unsupported
except for the Jebbitt case. 
 <o:p></o:p>

The Supreme Court of Canada at least twice has upheld the applicability
of Magna Charta as being “the” law, not just a law.
 <o:p></o:p>
“Its force as a statute is analogous to the
status of Magna Charta which as always been considered to be the law throughout
the Empire. It was law which
followed the flag as England assumed jurisdiction over newly discovered or
acquired lands or territories.”<o:p></o:p>
 <o:p></o:p>

Calder v A.G. of B.C. 1973 34 DLR (3rd) 145 @ 203 <o:p></o:p>
 <o:p></o:p>

Admittedly this was a dissenting opinion in respect of the Proclamation
of 1763, however that is not the issue here. The fact is, the SCC recognized that
Magna Charta is the law, even if the Proclamation is now not. This was further upheld in the
U.K. by Lord Denning in 1982.
 <o:p></o:p>

And of course we cannot forget Lord Coke’s spirited statements:
<o:p></o:p>
 <o:p></o:p>
“Magna Charta is such that he hath no
sovereign.”<o:p></o:p>
 <o:p></o:p>
“The highest and most binding laws are the
statutes which are established by Parliament; and by authority of that highest
court it is enacted (only to show their tender care of Magna Charta and the
Charter of the Forest) that if any statute be made contrary to the great
charter, or the charter of the forest, that shall be holden for none: by which
words all former statutes made against either of those charters are now
repealed; and the nobles and great officers were to e sworn to the observation
of Magna Charta and Charter of the Forest.”<o:p></o:p>
 <o:p></o:p>


Lord Coke, Institutes of the Laws Of England, Part 2 1809
 <o:p></o:p>

In my view, having now established that Magna Charta was constitutional,
it was then unlawful to sell, deny or delay right or justice. (alternatively, I
told the judge that even if somehow he found that it was not constitutional, I
told him that it had still never been repealed, impliedly or otherwise.) Does selling transcripts constitute
selling justice?
 <o:p></o:p>

I defined the word sell to the judge which is as we would all anticipate
it to mean, no special law meanings here.
Then I defined justice: the set and constant purpose which gives to
every man his due. Then I
defined due: a man’s right, what
is owed to him. The Criminal
Code s 813 defines an appeal as a right. So quite clearly, justice does
encompass the transcripts which are necessarily incidental to one’s right of
appeal. “A pretensed right is no
right at all.” (Reg v
Mackarty 1705 2 Raym. 1183)
 <o:p></o:p>

Coke was clear that s. 40 of Magna Charta meant that, “Justitiam vel
recfum neither the end, which is justice, nor the means, whereby we may attaine
to the end, and that is the law.”<o:p></o:p>
 
 “Recfum, right is
taken here for the law, in the same sense that jus, often is so called. Because
it is the right line,…It is called right, because it is the best birthright the
subject hath, for thereby his goods, lands, wife, children,
body…”<o:p></o:p>
 <o:p></o:p>


Coke, Institutes <o:p></o:p>
 <o:p></o:p>


 
I further argued that the selling of justice = the offence of barratry
and thus the court could not condone the gov’t committing this offence. No law can permit the government to
commit an offence known to law.
 <o:p></o:p>

I raised the issue of the non applicability of the Charter, though I
don’t think this is much of an issue.
The Crown argued that some constitutional documents have more weight than
others, especially the Charter having more weight. My sole argument of course is that once
rights are acquired, then they cannot be taken away. It is absurd to think that one
constitutional right has to given up in the exercise of another right, statutory
or otherwise. Also, it would
foolish to think that our rights suddenly regressed under the Charter, a
contention which is wholly opposite to the reality as to why the Charter was
even brought in. A constitutional
document was not put in its place to deny us our rights and freedoms gained
until that point. (in law and in theory anyway!)
 <o:p></o:p>

And of course I had several authorities to show that economic necessity
is not a lawful excuse for denial of our rights and freedoms. I don’t think there is much of a problem
on this one.
 <o:p></o:p>

The Crown essentially relied upon R v Robinson from the Alberta
Court of Appeal. Robinson was
seeking state funded copies of his appeal book to the Court of Appeal pursuant
to s. 7 of the Charter. Of course
he was going to lose!! The Court of
Appeal in looking at s. 7 and realized the actual fact that there were no
appeals until just this century and thus it was not a “fundamental” principle of
justice. The court also held that
there had never been any cases of state funded payment of transcripts therefore
he could not have them. In essence,
the Court analyzed the history of the appeal process in England and did a not
bad job. I don’t deny that there
were no appeals until just this past century, thus fees for the transcripts were
never an issue.
 <o:p></o:p>

However we now have that right and the common law progresses, it does not
regress. Further, the Court of
Appeal in Alberta never considered nor was it argued, that Magna Charta
applied. Much of the authorities I
supplied were also never considered.
So although an appeal may not have been a fundamental right, it is and
always was still unlawful to sell justice, including the means of attaining it
as Lord Coke correctly upheld. Today the means of attaining justice includes the
appeal process. It is my right,
statutory or otherwise.
 <o:p></o:p>

I also argued that today, the statutory right of appeal has now become
enshrined constitutionally into our common law. It has existed for over 100 years to the
point that today, the average man on the street now expects to have an appeal as
of right. Not a privilege nor with
leave of the court. But as of
right. Judicial notice can and
should be given that this appeal process, with the number of laws on the books
and the impossibility of any judge knowing all the law, is now a constitutional
right and must stay that way. 
 <o:p></o:p>

The A.G.’s argument in R v Jebbitt won’t I don’t think, hold much
water. So much was never considered
and the judge has the factums to prove this fact that I can’t see it holding
much weight. 
 <o:p></o:p>

The Crown at one point opined that in his 26 years as a lawyer he had
never seen any case upheld on the basis of Magna Charta, until suddenly Justice
Powers interrupted him and pointed out R v Hess here in BC where the
Court of Appeal did overturn such a law based upon Magna Charta. Mr. Bruneau had to apologize to the
court that he had not read this case!!!!
Then after giving it a quick 5 minute glance when I was doing my
rebuttal, he said that the opening paragraphs did not reflect what actually was
decided in the case!!! Talk about
grasping for straws, the A.G. had no meritful response to this one.
 <o:p></o:p>

Anyway, I have a couple of authorities still to provide to the court for
next week sometime when I get to Vancouver to copy them. Then we wait. I expect a decision probably in late
August or early September. No
matter which way it goes however, I believe that we will be back before a full
panel of the Court of Appeal on this one.

 <o:p></o:p>

Let’s pray for the best!!!! 
 <o:p></o:p>
 Dave
 <o:p></o:p>
 <o:p></o:p>
 <o:p></o:p>
 <o:p></o:p>
 <o:p></o:p>
 <o:p></o:p>
 <o:p></o:p>


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 <o:p></o:p></DIV></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_006E_01C3494F.3A840340--


	Previous Message	All Messages	Next Message

Concerned about privacy? Topica is TrustE certified.
See our Privacy Policy.