Friday, 29 July 2016

i- Murder, Torture & Brutality in Canada by Corrupt Agents of Whore Elizabeth II AND Bastard William دویست سال قتل و شکنجه و خونخواری ملکه فاحشه انگلیس پسر حرامزاده دیانا، ویلیام بیشرف

Autobiography
Major Mourhaghighi
July 19, 1990 to January 4, 2019
Canadian Counter-Dictionary, and Human Rights' Violations in Canada
A   B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z
قسم نامه ثبت شده در دادگاه تورنتو که چگونه نه پاسبان
و نگهبان او را شکنجه کردن و دندههایش را شکستند
و ۲۵ جراحت به او وارد کردند

https://ohip.blogspot.ca/2016/08/1-canadian-corrupt-doctors-conspiracy.html اسناد و مدارک شکنجه و اقدام بقتل سرگرد نورحقیقی توسط وکلا و قضات و پلیس قاچاقچی تورنتو پس از ۲۰ سال از امروز بتدریج منتشر خواهد شد تا جهانیان بر صورت کثیف ملکه انگلیس و پسر حرامزاده دیانا ویلیام تف و کثافت پرتاب کنند This photo was taken After 20 days when Major finally released from Toronto Jail. However it still shows some evidence of injuries on his throat after Choking by Police. Its important to note that the corrupt Black Slave Judge Vilbert Lampkin Made Order" Major be kept in Jail, no Doctor should see him, and be given particular Drug for to clean all bruises. Police must intercept him after release that he can't get medical service in any hospital in Canada. ". December 11, 1996; Nine Members of Toronto Police Tortured Major Nourhaghighi; Offender Detective Edward Follert tried to kill Major by choking. Major Suffered 25 injuries including broken ribs that document will be posted



"...today's human rights violations are the causes of tomorrow's conflicts"-U.N.
On August 9, 2000 immigrant killed, AGAIN, by the Toronto Police brutality

Theft, torture, forgery, perjury, conspiracy of Police Pigs in Major Nourhaghighi's Actions
On November 22, 2000, Eight Members of Toronto Police Pigs arrested for the same cause
On December 11, 1996, Major Nourhaghighi was tortured by nine members of Metro Toronto Police, in accordance to a plan of conspiracy by the corrupt Attorney General of Ontario, the Law Society of Upper Canada and the corrupt Canadians judges.
The following court documents are related to Major's lawsuits against the said Police Offenders who were involved in the aggravate assault and torture against him.
The corrupt Canadians Judicial Systems, by different tricks have forced all Major's lawyers to conspired with them.  Therefore, he has prepared documents, in accordance to the Ontario Civil Rule Practice.  Major does not have study in Law, however the Canadian Courts do not operate with law, therefore, there is not any worry in this issue.
The corrupt Canadian Police
FORGERY
The Canadians are expert in forging the documents, and the corrupt Canadians Judicial Systems, the Attorney General of Ontario, the Metro Toronto Police, and the Lawyers who are members of the corrupt Law Society of Upper Canada, are leading the forgery technics.
According to the Canadians Criminal Law "Code", the Forgery is a serious offence.
Section 367 of the Code has instructed that: "367.[325](1) Every one who commits forgery is guilty of indictable and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years. Fourteen years imprisonment! And Canadians "Police" and "Lawyers" are accused of forgeries in my actions, and there is no one in Canada to look after the said serious crime!?

In this section, three documents will be provided against the corrupt Canadians Justice System.  The First Document would be my forged photo by the corrupt Metro Toronto Police;  the Second Document, is a forged document by the Condo 935, Lawyer, Mark Arnold, and the Third Document, is a forged document by my Lawyer, Henry Gertner.
First Document...against Metro Toronto Police
On December 11, 1996, Major was tortured by nine members of Metro Toronto Police. Several days after the Police has taken some photos from him.  The following, photo has been replaced with the original photo that was taken few hours after the said torture. However, the injuries were so visible that the Police has forged the said photos too!
The following photo is a forged photo that has been made by the Metro Toronto Police.
All head injuries altered, and has forgotten to draw a right ear!
And if you look to the hears on left side, the Canadian Police has drawn it like a "T", and on the right side it is like a "Chain"!  However still document has a lot of materials that everyone could find injuries on left side of my forehead, left said of face, right side of the chin, and my neck , that the Criminal Police Office, Edward Follert, that tried to kill me by squeezing my neck.  And we know, that only the genuine criminals are killing their victims by their hands!
Court File No: 97-CV-125773
BETWEEN:
KEYVAN NOURHAGHIGHI, Applicant
-and-
EDWARD FOLLERT, DARRYL MORRISON, DAVID BOOTHBY, THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO POLICE, Respondents
FACTUM
PART I
INTRODUCTION

1.    This is an application brought by the Applicant , KEYVAN NOURHAGHIGHI for leave to institute a proceeding in tort law, at Ontario Court(General Division) against the Respondents, EDWARD FOLLERT, DARRYL MORRISON, DAVID BOOTHBY, THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO POLICE(the " Police"). The Applicant seeks an order that the whole or any issue proceed to trial and give such directions as are just; pursuant to provisions of Subsections 140(3)(4)(a) of the Court of Justice Act; and Subrules 38.10(1)(b(2)(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
Application Record, Affidavit of Keyvan Nourhaghighi, paragraphs 32  Exhibit S, page 65 Order of Wilkins J. Notice of Application, paragraphs 1a, b, c; and 2u, v, w. x.

2.    A group of Solicitors who were involved in tens counts of frauds over $1000 and of criminal wrongdoing have brought series of court proceedings against the Applicant at Ontario Court (General Division); that all their actions and application were dismissed. The Law Society of Upper Canada, who was defendant for abuse of the investigation process; has brought an irregular application under section 140(1) of the Court of Justice Act against the Applicant to delay all scheduled trials against its parties. Borden & Elliot who was accused of perjury in the Applicant’s action, has received the order against the Applicant and enforced it on the same day.
Application Record, Affidavit of Keyvan Nourhaghighi, paragraphs 31, 32, Exhibit R, page 56 Supplementary Affidavit of Keyvan Nourhaghighi, paragraphs 6, 7, 8, Exhibits E, F, G. RE: paragraph 7 and Exhibit F: " this 29TH, day of , 1996"
PART II
SUMMARY OF FACTS

3.   The Applicant is Iranian Senior Fighter Pilot who came to Canada with his children as a legal immigrant. The Employment and Immigration of Canada, had knowledge of the Applicant’s religion and backgrounds in the Military. The Applicant was graduated from the Air Force Academy directly under supervision of Her Majesty the Queen.
Application Record, Affidavit of Keyvan Nourhaghighi, paragraphs 2, 25, Exhibit A, inside documents numbers 7, 10, 13, 16, 20, 33

4.   The Police Budget, for public services and protections, has been supported by the public and the Applicant’s taxes. The Police was involved in creation of the fabricating evidences against the Applicant by uncountable malicious charges, and false statements under the oath in the trials. %99 of all charges brought by the Police were dismissed and withdrawn. The Police involved in pattern of assaults and trespasses against the Applicant.
Application Record, Affidavit of Keyvan Nourhaghighi, paragraphs 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, Exhibits K, M, N, O, P.  Supplementary Affidavit of Keyvan Nourhaghighi, paragraph 9 Exhibit H

5.   The Police, the Provincial Prosecutor, and their party [Condominium 935] maliciously prosecuting the Applicant at Ontario Court Provincial and General Divisions. Madam Justice Boland has declared bold allegation against the Applicant; and Mr. Judge Knazan declared miscarriage of justice for the wrongful imprisonment.
Application Record, Affidavit of Keyvan Nourhaghighi, paragraphs 3,  4 Exhibits B, C.

6.   The Police and the Provincial Prosecutor, vindictively accused the Applicant for assault before Mr. Judge Knazan declare miscarriage of justice. The prosecution’s witness did not confirm the allegation against the applicant. Since 1995, the Applicant involved in tens of proceedings for the said malicious accusation.
Application Record, Affidavit of Keyvan Nourhaghighi, paragraphs 5, 6, Exhibits D, E, O. page 45 and page 47, exhibit P. Supplementary Affidavit of Keyvan Nourhaghighi, paragraph 6

7.   In the middle of the cross-examination of the said malicious accusation from the Prosecution’s witness, Marcy Green; the Applicant, was charged for contempt. While, Green with different tricks, fraudulently avoiding the proper answers. The Respondent, Edward Follert, arrested the Applicant in front of Judge by using a handcuff. Follert, pulled the Applicant out of the Courtroom and seizure all his documents and properties.

8.    The Respondents, Scott Stephens and Darryl Morrison, in sudden have attacked to the Applicant by striking his head to the wall and pushing him against the wall. Stephens, used the second handcuff against the Applicant, and tight it as hard as possible; causing injuries to nervous of the Applicant’s fingers. Follert, harassed the Applicant. Follert, strangled the applicant with all his force causing him hypoxia. In the Elevator, Follert, Stephens, Morison and Dave Aiken aggregately assaulted the Applicant by punching and kicking to all his body.

9.    In the Cell, Stephones and Morrison again struck the Applicant’s head to the wall; and used a shackles on his ankles. Morrison, insult to the Applicant religion, and sat on his back and pressed his knees intentionally till the Applicant’s ribs were broken. Than five Court Security Officers have attacked to the Applicants by punching and kicking to all his body. The Police refused to take the Applicant to the Hospital.

10.   The Toronto Jail did not take series of photos from all Applicant’s injuries with normal camera. The Toronto Jail has given evidence to Ombudsman that was running out of Polaroid Film. The Applicant’s injuries was visible in a Polaroid photo taken a day after assault. However, the Ministry of Solicitor General of Ontario forged the Applicant’s photo.

Application Record, Affidavit of Keyvan Nourhaghighi, paragraph 16, Exhibit G, 


Exhibit B, page 66, Exhibit C -enlarged- page 67

11.     The Police did not informed the Applicant’s children(single-parent) for injuries and sudden arrest. The Toronto Jail Physician, sec11Klar, has tried to cover up the crime of the Police. The Applicant’s son called 911, and requested medical care for his father.
Application Record, Affidavit of Keyvan Nourhaghighi, paragraphs 16, 17, 18, Exhibits H, I.

12.    The Respondent harassed the Applicant again during the continuation of the trial of the said malicious prosecution. The Police again has maliciously charged the Applicant.
Application Record, Affidavit of Keyvan Nourhaghighi, paragraphs 23, Exhibit K

13.   The Applicant was greatly injured in reputation in the community, credit and character.
The Respondent severely injured the Applicant’s feeling, dignity and pride. He suffered emotional and nervous upset. His character and reputation have been injured in eyes of his children, relatives and friends.

14.    In addition thereto, the Applicant have been injured through the application of direct force by the Respondents, Follert, Morrison, Stephenes, Aiken to all part of his body, particularly to the blood vessels of his throat. The Respondents, intentionally, have caused him more than 25 injuries including broken ribs, spines. He has suffered serious nervous shock; causing lost of hears in has face and head and his body. The Respondents have used excessive force for arrest and detention and the Applicant.

15.    The Applicant has suffered special and general damages due to the assault and battery by the said Respondents. He has failed in most of his proceedings at Ontario Courts; all his appeals files have been dismissed by the Registrar for failing to perfect; and most of his actions were dismissed and stayed; where he has suffered a great amount of costs of the said proceeding due to post pains of the battery. The Applicant has incurred expenses for drugs, transportation, lose of income from the management of the investments, clothing, and other expenses.

Application Record, Affidavit of Keyvan Nourhaghighi, paragraphs 30, 31, 32, Exhibits Q, R, S and Order of Wilkins J. page 61 



16.   The Respondents were acting in the course of employment at the time of battery; that the
Respondent, David Bootby, in responsible in law for act of the said Respondent. Non of the Respondent, has written any apology to the Applicant. While several WITNESSES have seen the humiliation of Senior Air Force Officer in attack by four undisciplined Constables. AN Injunction that the Respondents enter to recognizance to keep the peace from pattern of assaults is requested. The Applicant has been wrongly dealt by the Police and wrongly convicted.
The Respondents have tried to cover up the crimes that perform against the Applicant*.
Application Record, Affidavit of Keyvan Nourhaghighi, paragraphs 17, 24, 25, 26, Exhibits H, L, N- page 32- lines 11-13 Osborne J.A., & Exhibit O.

17.    The Respondents obstructing and interfering with the Applicant’s businesses at Courts and other offices. Since March 21, 1997, series of communications have been made for release of extracts from Medical Care file at Toronto Jail; However the request has been maliciously denied.
18. The Respondents have failed to serve Notice of Appearances to the Applicant.
PART III
ISSUES and LAW
19.    Section 140 of the Court of Justice Act is derived from the Vexations Proceedings Act. Subsection 140(3) instructed: " Where a person against whom an order under subsection (1) has been made seeks leave to institute or continue a proceeding, a person shall do so by way of an application in the Ontario Court (General Division). Subsection 140(4) instructed: " Where an application for leave is made under subsection(3),
" (a) leave shall be granted only if the court is satisfied that the proceeding sought to be
" instituted or continued is not an abuse of process and that there are reasonable grounds
" for the proceeding;
It is submitted that there are reasonable grounds- prima facie- that permit to this court to grant the leave seeking by the Applicant to institute the proceeding against the Respondents on the tort of Assault and Battery; where the Respondents have used excessive force on arrest.

20.     The Criminal Code of Canada(the "Code") has given right of reasonable exercise of the power of the arrest and detention to the Respondents. Thus, when excessive force was used in making the arrest and carrying out any other authorized action; the Respondents would be liable.
Ethier v. Vols (1989), 76 Sack. R. 164(Q.B.)
(defendant police officer liable for injuries suffered by plaintiff when defendant kicking plaintiff in knee area during course of arrest for impaired driving; although plaintiff using abusive language and passively resisting arrest, defendant’s actions not necessary for purposes of effecting arrest and constituting excessive force.)
D. Braaten v. Parry (1979), 5 Sask. R. 305(Q.B.)
(police officer punching plaintiff several times in face while plaintiff nearly subbed)
Degenstein v. Riou(1981), 129 L.R.(3d)713, 12 Sask. R. 253(Q.B.)
(excessive force used during search for narcotics; defendant police officer liable)
It is submitted that in the tort of Assault and Battery the onus of establishing both justification for the use of force during the arrest or other action taken and the reasonableness of force used is on the Respondents. Particularly, the court shall consider unprovoked nature of the assault into account in awarding general damages claimed:
Potvin v. Brassard,[1989]B.C.W.L.D. 2047(Co. Ct).
21.     It is submitted that, if police conduct, in all the circumstances , falls below the standard expected of "reasonable police officer" the court shall consider there is prima facie ground for the proceeding in negligence liability. The Respondents owes a duty to the Applicant for properties that seized in the courtroom;, to make such inquiries as may be reasonable to return them as they have seized.
22.    The Ministry of the Solicitor General had duty to disclose all the extracts in the Applicant’s Medical File. Forgery of the Applicant’s photo amount to fraud and misrepresentation; that will case harm to the Applicant. The Punishment for forgery is up to fourteen years imprisonment[ s.367 CCC]. This fact indicate the seriousness of the injuries; and all cover up crimes after the aggravated assault by the Respondents that intentionally injured the Applicant through the application of direct force.
Dodge v. Bridger (1977), 4C.C.L.T.83; varied as to damages 6 C.C. L.T. 71(Ont. C.A.)
(defendant prison guards liable for violent and unprovoked battery of inmate;
guards having ample opportunity to avoid confrontation; actions of defendants excessive and unreasonable; guards flagrantly abusing power not entitled to protection under
Penitentiary Act or Criminal Code).
23.     Section 26 0f the Code has declared: " Every one who is authorized by law to use force is criminally responsible for any excess thereof according to nature and quality of that constitutes the excess." R.S., c. C-34, s. 26. Section 229.[212] of the Code provide three definition of murder. Section 229(a) provide the primary definition of (actual) murder and requires proof of an ulterior intention to kill or closely related state of mind which combines elements of intention (to cause bodily harm), foresight or knowledge (that the bodily harm is likely to cause death) and recklessness(whether death ensues or not); R.S., c. C-34, s.212.
It is submitted that the Applicant in his affidavit has given evidence under the oath that the Respondent, Follert strangled him with all his force[ Affidavit of Keyvan Nourhaghighi, paragraph 11]. Doctor M. Klar, the Toronto Jail Physician, has given evidence of tenderness, bruising and abrasions to right neck and pain on full range of movement of his neck [ Exhibit "I" to affidavit of Keyvan Nourhaghighi]. All evidences indicate that the Respondents were used excessive force with intention to cause body harm.
R. v. Cooper (1993), 78 C.C.C.(3d) 289(S.C.C.)
There is only slight relaxation in mental element require to prove murder
under s.229(a)(ii) compared to 299(a)(i).
The mental element in section 299(a)(ii) has two aspects:
i.. subjective intent to cause bodily harm; and,
ii. subjective knowledge that the bodily harm is such a nature that
is likely to result in death.
24.     Section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom has instructed clearly:
" EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT NOT TO BE SUBJECTED TO ANY CRUEL AND UNUSUAL TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT.". All evidences indicate that the Respondents have used the excessive force as to outrage standards of decency.
Smith v. R.
Punishment is "cruel and unusual" where it is so excessive as to outrage standards of
decency or is grossly disproportionate to the offence or is arbitrary imposed.
Lord v. Allison (1986), 3 B.C.L.R. (2d) 300(S.C.)
where the use of excessive force in making an arrest amount an arrest
amounted to a battery However damages were awarded on the basis of infringement of
the plaintiff’s rights under the Charter to be free from and unusual punishment.
25.     In addition thereto, the Respondents with bad faith maliciously prosecuting the Applicant in uncountable proceedings and have used excessive force against him in numerous pattern of assaults and batteries. Most of the charges laid by the Respondents were dismissed and withdrawn by the court; where the Respondents resorted to legal process against him solely for a purpose other than that which it was designed to serve[ Endorsement of Madam Justice Boland, Exhibit "B"]. The Respondents’ abuse of process and batteries constituted a wanton and  outrageous disregard of the Applicant’s rights. The Respondents’ employer would be vicariously liable for acts of the employees.
Doyle v. Garden of Gulf Security & Investigation Inc.(1979), 24 Nfld& P.E.I.R. 123, 65 A.P.R.. 123(P.E.I.S.C.) ( employer liable for battery of the security guards).
Osz v. Calgary(1987), 56 Alta. L.R. (2d) 435 (Q.B.)
(plaintiff throwing snowball splattering snow on defendant bus driver;
driver confronting plaintiff for interfering with driver’s performance of duties for municipality;
driver acting in course of employment at time of battery;
municipality liable for battery of plaintiff by defendant bus driver;
municipality also assuming responsibility for driver’s acts by suspending driver and
instructing him not to contact plaintiff or to issue apology on penalty of further discipline.
26.    Section 58(1) of the Police Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. 10; has clearly instructed:
" Any apparent or alleged misconduct by a police officer shall be investigated by his or her chieh of police.The fact of this case indicate that the Applicant’s children have registered a complaint against the Respondents on December 13, 1996[page 32]; However the Respondent, David Bootby, did not investigate the said complaint. Exhibit J-b[page 35], indicate that the Applicant on February 25,1997, has attended at headquarters of the police and addressed the Police Services Board for all his proposal against Bill 105, that prohibits relatives to register the complaint. This fact indicate that Bill 105 on December 13, 1996, was not enforced and the Chief of Police was responsible to investigate the said complaint. Exhibit J-a, indicate that the minute of the meeting was send to the Applicant.

27.    Rule 14.05(3)(g.1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure(the "Rule") has given full jurisdiction to this court for the remedies seeks by the Applicant under Sections 7, 12 and 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of the Rights and Freedom. The fact of this case has clear indication of the abuse of statuary power and court process. The Applicant has lost his total health and wealth due to continuous assaults and batteries. His total net family income in last eight years[ including 97] does not exists three thousands dollars per year. The Respondents directly responsible for all damages, and fraudulently up to this date have avoided the trials of their wrongdoing.

28.   Rule 38.07 has instructed that the Respondents shall serve a Notice of Appearance to be entitled to receive notice and any further material. Affidavit of Service in page 81 indicate that the Notice of Application was served to the Respondents. The Solicitor for the Respondents,
Borden and Elliot claims that has prove of service to the Applicant; However refusing to send the extract to him; at the same time claiming the costs.
29.   Rule 38.10 has given full jurisdiction to this court to grant the relieves seeks by the Applicant. Trials of the issue as an action against the Applicant and directions in order that the
Ministry of the Solicitor General and the Respondent, Metropolitan Toronto Police, forward all
original evidence of the arrests, photos taken from injuries by the department of the police on or
about December 17, 1996, and all evidence in Medical Care file at Toronto Jail be forwarded to the Court for the examination; and the Applicant under the oath stated that photo was forged.

30. Rule 2.03 has given ability to this court to dispense with compliance with any rule at any time where the interest of justice is NECESSARY. It is submitted that this is a one of best condition to apply this rule against the powerful oppressive Respondents who have hired the biggest law firms in North America to cover up their wrongdoing which was serious criminal act in nature. The Court shall consider that the Respondents in last seven years maliciously have destroyed all the Applicant’s sources of income to cause a weak presentation as unprofessional in a battle zone with oppressive professional: Hon. Ivan Rand, one of Canada’s greatest judges for the goal of the Canadian Judicial Council, Independence of Justice, in the court expected:
" The guarantee of security to the weak against the strong and to the individual against the community"

31. The Order of Wilkins J. has clear indication of breaches of all fundamental of the commencement of the proceeding for such order. All errors of the Consent of the Attorney General without any reference to any file indicate that the Applicant was treated with injustice by irregularities. This court shall consider the fact of malice and fraud in the said order.
PART IV
ORDER REQUESTED

21.     The Applicant request that:
a. An order for leave be institute a proceeding by way of a application in Ontario Court (General Division) against the Respondents.
b. An Order under that the whole application or any issue proceed to trial and give such direction as are just.
c. An Order under that the Respondents enter to recognizance to keep a peace discontinuing the pattern of the assaults against the Applicant.
d. His cost of this motion.

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
DATED THIS JULY 27, 1997,
            Keyvan Nourhaghighi, 608 - 456 College Street ,M6G 4A3, Toronto, Ontario,
TO: Borden and Elliot, R. W. Traves, Solicitors for the Respondents RE#894567
40 King Street W. 44th Floor , Toronto ON, M5H 3Y4
Tel: (416) 367 6120; Fax No: (416) 361 2711
SCHEDULE A 

1- Ethier v. Vols (1989), 76 Sack. R. 164(Q.B.)
2- D. Braaten v. Parry (1979), 5 Sask. R. 305(Q.B.)
3- Degenstein v. Riou(1981), 129 L.R.(3d)713, 12 Sask. R. 253(Q.B.)
4- Potvin v. Brassard,[1989]B.C.W.L.D. 2047(Co. Ct).
5- Dodge v. Bridger (1977), 4C.C.L.T.83; varied as to damages 6 C.C.L.T. 71(Ont. C.A.)
6- R. v. Cooper (1993), 78 C.C.C.(3d) 289(S.C.C.)
7- Smith v. R.
8- Lord v. Allison (1986), 3 B.C.L.R. (2d) 300(S.C.),
9- Doyle v. Garden of Gulf Security & Investigation Inc.(1979), 24 Nfld& P.E.I.R. 123, 65
    A.P.R.. 123(P.E.I.S.C.) ( employer liable for battery of the security guards).
10- Osz v. Calgary(1987), 56 Alta. L.R. (2d) 435 (Q.B.)
 
SCHEDULE B

1.   The Vexations Proceeding Act
2.   S. 140 of the Court of Justice Act
3.   Rules of Civil Procedure : Rule 14.05, 38.07, 38.10
4.  Criminal Code of Canada: Sections 26, 229, 605, 810,
5.  Canadian Charters of Rights and Freedoms Section 7, 12, 24
6.  Police Services Act, section 58

Part I
STATEMENT OF THE CASE

1. This is a Defence brought by unrepresented accused, Keyvan Nourhaghighi, in plea of not guilty in two counts of alleged assaults charges against Peace Officers, Edward Follert and Court Officer Dave Aiken; on December 11, 1996, in the elevator, at Old City Hall.
2. The Defence has objections to several violations from section 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 of the Canadian Charters of Rights and Freedoms that prejudiced the right of accused :
And the Prosecution shall answer to the breaches of the following:
Section 7: Everyone has right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principle of fundamental justices;
Does the injuries of the accused indicate that his right to life was put in danger by Metro Police Officers: Aiken, Follert, Stephence and Morison?
The fundamental justices; The quash of the Subpoenas by Judge Whealy itself was abuse of process when Affidavit of Folloert was not proper answer to direction of Mr. Justice Ewaschuch; while the Applications themselves were abuse of court process by ignoring the Rules 6.03, 6.04, 6.05, 43 of the Criminal Proceeding Rules. The accused right has been very seriously infringed full and Defence section 7 of the charter and has put the total principle of a fair trial under question of the deceleration mistrial.
R. v. O’Connor (1995),44 CR (4th) CCC(3d) 1(SCC)
[ Affidavit of Follert, November 18, 1997, paragraph
The Defence has presented evidences under the oath, that has clear indication of the police brutality. In Exhibit 4, Dr. Klar has admitted that on Examination of Dec 12/96 accused exhibited mild tenderness, bruising and abrasions to the right cheek, right forehead, right neck, right shoulder and ribs. Pupils were equal and reactive to right and accommodation. There was pain on full range of movement of his neck.
While the Toronto Jail itself is defendant in the accused action 95-CU-84058 His Honour Mr. Justice Norman Douglas Coo has heard the motion thereto.
Section 8: Everyone has right to secure against unreasonable search or seizure.
The Defence has presented evidences that the accused was searched by metal detector and Wand, immediately after entering to the Old City Hall Building. The Cursory Search of the accused at hallway was unreasonable and excessive when the Police Officers knew or ought to have been known that the accused would be searched completely at men cell with in two minutes distance from the hallway. Particularly, in accordance to all evidences before the court, all troubles have been raised immediately, after unnecessary stop for the excessive Cursory Search.
Section 9: Everyone has right to not to be arbitrary detained or imprisoned.
The Defence provided evidences that decision of Judge Lampkin in citation of the accused for contempt was arbitrary and unwarranted exercise of discretion; particularly that Judge Lampkin was named defendant in the accused action 96-CU-113026, and he was in conflict of interest with accused. A large numbers of Ontario Judges have accepted the fact of the conflict of interest in the accused cases such as: Mr. Justice Osborne, Mr. Justice Labrosse, Mr. Judge Khawly, and several others. Judge Lampkin in
a simple assault charge, at least six times seriously put the life of the accused in danger; by same kind of harassment; even in the last day of trial on November 19, 1997.
The judge to be more learned than witty; more revered than plausible; and more advised than confident, in Hallowed place of justice. A Judge should be studious to avoid controversies which are apt to obscure the merits of dispute between litigants, or witnesses he should avoid a controversial manner or tone! A judge shall avoid unconsciously falling into attitude of mind that the litigants are made for the courts instead of courts for the litigants."* Transcript, can not indicate all those hostility manners and tones of shouting of the Defendant Lampkin, in all his proceedings.
* The Corrupt Judge
An inquiry into bribery and other
High Crimes and misdemeanors in Federal Courts
By Joseph Borkin, Clarkson N. Porter, Inc, New York
Section 11: Any person charged with an offence has the right:
(b) to be tried within reasonable time;
The accused right of speedy trial was ignored when the three to five months is an averages waiting time for trial.
(d) a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal The fact that the accused has legal actions against some judiciary officers; in make necessary that the trial judge use Extreme Caution to be able to maintain impartiality:
Section 12: Everyone has right not to be subject to any cruel and unusual punishment
The Defence has presented evidences under the oath, that has clear indication of the police brutality. In Exhibit 4, Dr. Klar has admitted that on Examination of Dec 12/96 accused exhibited mild tenderness, bruising and abrasions to the right cheek, right forehead, right neck, right shoulder and ribs. Pupils were equal and reactive to right and accommodation. There was pain on full range of movement of his neck.
Smith, against  Her Majesty the Queen
Punishment is "cruel and unusual" where it is so excessive as to
outrage standards of decency or is grossly disproportionate
to the offence or is arbitrary imposed.
Lord v. Allison (1986), 3 B.C.L.R. (2d) 300(S.C.)
where the use of excessive force in making an arrest amount an arrest
amounted to a battery However damages were awarded on the basis of infringement of the
plaintiff’s rights under the Charter to be free from and unusual punishment.
CONTRADICTORY:
Follert: Nov 24: Female in elevator Nov 18: not said in affidavit. Follert did not talk at all about hands on my hands.
CONTRADICTORY:
Morison: Nov 25: No kick to Follert Sept 11: kicked Follert
CONTRADICTORY:
AIKEN: I was in left side Nourhaghighi
Morison: I was back to the door
STEPHENSE: Follert was standing on my right in elevator; so he could not see spat. Nourhaghighi , and one of the offenders
SO NO ONE IN MY RIGHT OR BACK;
CONTRADICTORY:
Aiken: Nourhaghighi Hands were on the wall. Ok! How did you put the hands?
CONTRADICTORY:
HOW MANY HANDCUFFS?
Follert: I put my own handcuff, on the hallway; I have got it man cell; it has not gone to Toronto Jail; There was one handcuff.
Aiken: I put my own Handcuff; and I tight it! Stephense : I put my own handcuff on Mr. Nourhaghighi! Total three handcuff ! Morison: I saw one handcuff!
WHERE MY HANDS WAS PUT AT HALLWAY FOR SEARCH!
Stephense: At door Jam! He pushed to the wall! " At door Jam there is no place to put the hands on the wall.
THE LAW
R. v. Cooper (1993), 78 C.C.C.(3d) 289(S.C.C.)
There is only slight relaxation in mental element require to prove murder
under s.229(a)(ii) compared to 299(a)(i).
The mental element in section 299(a)(ii) has two aspects:
i.. subjective intent to cause bodily harm; and,
ii. subjective knowledge that the bodily harm is such a nature that
is likely to result in death.
Dodge v. Bridger (1977), 4C.C.L.T.83; varied as to damages 6 C.C.L.T. 71(Ont. C.A.)
(defendant prison guards liable for violent and unprovoked battery of inmate;
guards having ample opportunity to avoid confrontation; actions of defendants excessive and unreasonable; guards flagrantly abusing power not entitled to protection under
Penitentiary Act or Criminal Code).
Ethier v. Vols (1989), 76 Sack. R. 164(Q.B.)
(defendant police officer liable for injuries suffered by plaintiff when defendant kicking
plaintiff in knee area during course of arrest for impaired driving; although plaintiff
using abusive language and passively resisting arrest, defendant’s actions not necessary
for purposes of effecting arrest and constituting excessive force.)
R. v. Elshaw(1991), 7 C.R.(4th) 333, 67. C.C.C. (3d)97(S.C.C.)
Police bad faith may strength the case for exclusion. Police good faith, however will NOT
Strength the case for admission to cure an unfair trial as a result of the admission of
self-incriminating evidence generated by Charter breach.
R. v. Power,[1994]1 S.C.R.601,89C.C.C.(3d)1,29 C.R.(4th)1
The principle of fundamental justice include the power of a trial court to
stay proceeding in exceptional circumstances and in the clearest of cases
where conduct of the police is so flagrant and shocking as to
constitute an abuse of the court’s process.

Chief Justice Howland had same order in 1979 and he was added: " The most serious problem in the administration of the courts at the present time is, I believe, the problem of the continuous adjournments in the Provincial courts…the public is seriously inconvenience because the witnesses have to be sent home and subpoenaed again at public expense for trial at a later date.
I realize that as far as possible an accused should be entitled to be represented by counsel of his own choice. The courts endeavour with in reason to accommodate counsel whose services are in heavy demand ……It is an urgent problem...After 18 years, still the most serious problem and an urgent problem has remain in the Provincial Divisions, and it will remain as a most serious problem for the appellant and the public!
 21, 2011
Posted by at
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Location: Toronto, ON, Canada

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)