Bail only works IF police can SEE what it is. For that, they look into CPIC computers where every police force stores bail terms.
Right there, you can see the flaw. Police do not want to be limited in who they can arrest, so they do not update CPIC when they should. They “forget” or they “did not get given the newest orders.”
York Police Dep[uty Cjeof Andre Crawford is in charge of CPIC updating. An officer under his command has that job title. It is on the YRP web page.
What is NOT on their web site is the name of the job or person in Eagle Street courts who is to provide the accurate copy of the CURRENT order.
Yorkies have an office on the second floor for that purpose, I cannot say, But officers work there every day, right across from court rooms generating new orders every day.
In my case, Deputy Chief Crawford has not had ANY officer input my CURRENT order. I know this because police see only the March 6, 2020 version on CPIC. On November 30, 2020 2 cops came to investigate me for breaching the March 6, 2020 orders.
He makes it very clear… I am not even supposed to use Google search.
It took me a lot to time to file motions and get a bail review by Justice Dawe, and now a consent change of surety. I did all the work as “advised” by the legal experts. I even hired counsel.
Yet, despite complying with the law and what the Crown suggested, police STILL have all the “proof” they need that I am breaching as I type these words.
Every time parliament tries to patch up our very broken court system, police and the Crown connive to defeat the changes.
They ignored Bill C-75 for over a year now. Just plain ignored trains cops on Judicial Referral Hearings.
Cops like breaches because it is as if they have their own, private Criminal Code. They can literally make up ANY bail release term they like and it becomes “law”. NO parliament has oversight. They simply arrest at will. And the Crown in turn approves of ANYONE police want to arrest. After all, they need work.
So, police craft the very first release terms THEMSELVES with no one having oversight. As you sit in jail and they dangle your release, they tell you you will NOT be released unless you agree to a few “conditions”. They will give you a copy and read them out to you and eatery you sign and agree for you stay in jail. They make it very clear, I have the video of mine.
When they DO release you, because of course you WILL sign anything to get out… those terms are know ONLY to them and CPIC, the national police computer system. Your first appearance date is months away and you live ny their order AT LEAST until then unless you gave money to hire a lawyer to get you a “variation” to your release terms.
You must pay a lawyer to get any changes because the Crown will refuse a self represented person “consent” for the smallest change. They just say NO and advise that you to get legal advice. If they like the lawyer you hire, you get consent.
But the change you get will NOT get into CPIC as your new. current order. Police themselves control that. They can choose to input the new order or they can choose to leave the old one there. And because CPIC is “private”… no people OUTSIDE of police forces can look inside CPIC to see how accurate it is.
My CPIC file is over 6 months old, and it is used to arrest me.
Plausible deniability is the ability of people, typically senior officials in a formal or informal chain of command, to deny knowledge of or responsibility for any damnable actions committed by others in an organizational hierarchy because of a lack or absence of evidence that can confirm their participation, even if they were personally involved in or at least willfully ignorant of the actions. If illegal or otherwise-disreputable and unpopular activities become public, high-ranking officials may deny any awareness of such acts to insulate themselves and shift the blame onto the agents who carried out the acts, as they are confident that their doubters will be unable to prove otherwise. The lack of evidence to the contrary ostensibly makes the denial plausible (credible), but sometimes, it makes the denial only unactionable.
The term typically implies forethought, such as intentionally setting up the conditions for the plausible avoidance of responsibility for one’s future actions or knowledge. In some organizations, legal doctrines such as command responsibility exist to hold major parties responsible for the actions of subordinates who are involved in heinous acts and nullify any legal protection that their denial of involvement would carry.
In politics and espionage, deniability refers to the ability of a powerful player or intelligence agency to pass the buck and to avoid blowback by secretly arranging for an action to be taken on its behalf by a third party that is ostensibly unconnected with the major player.
“…deniability refers to the ability of a powerful player or intelligence agency to pass the buck“
Police, when faced by a judge or Crown which detects the mistaken arrest, simply say “Well, thats what CPIC says!” and they blame nameless, faceless people who, it ironically turns out, WORK FOR THE DEPUTY CHIEF OF YORK REGIONAL POLICE.
It is a perfect con. Bait and switch. And for people without much money, it is a show stopper. They can and will be arrested by police who develop “an opinion” that their reason for arrest is “currently” valid, when it is not.
And no one fixes the broken system because no one knows it is broken.
I can prove to you it is broken in my case.
My CPIC release order TODAY is dated March 6, 2020 and I am not allowed to use the internet for ANY purpose. That order says I cannot even use a telephone which uses the internet in anyway. I cannot order food. Pay bills. Do banking. Get my pension cheque cashed.
And, in York Region, a Deputy chief like Andre Crawford commands the person whose job it is to put my “consent surety change” version of my bail release order into CPIC.
All he has to do to keep me in jail is to have his person NOT update CPIC for me. He or she simply “loses” their copy of the new orders. Paper goes missing every day. No one cares about such errors, “shit happens” they say.
“The dog ate my homework.” is what police are saying is the reason they came to my house to investigate me. They knew they were investigating and they pout up a façade, an excuse, to come into my home to “maintain the peace” for 2 Aurora workers November 20, 2020.
How do we change that?
Only Parliament can change the laws, and anything they come up with is defeated by police union lawyers before the ink dries. Because union lawyers are paid top keep cops out of jail and getting a pay cheque.
So, police unions have the best lawyers, the clever ones. And if I were to sue the two officers of the false entry November 20, 2020 I would get an “opinion letter” from their lawyer saying the mistake was that CPIC had old orders in it. The officers were perfect, CPIC is not. Blame the Feds.
Police Union lawyers will NOT tell me their own members are the ONLY ones who INPUT ORDERS TO CPIC.
And for those who say this story is not believable, just go read any article on why Bill C-75 was created.
Charter Statement – Bill C-75: An Act to Amend the Criminal Code, Youth Criminal Justice Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to other Acts
Tabled in the House of Commons, March 29, 2018
The Minister of Justice prepares a “Charter Statement” to help inform public and Parliamentary debate on a government bill. One of the Minister of Justice’s most important responsibilities is to examine legislation for consistency with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms [“the Charter”]. By tabling a Charter Statement, the Minister is sharing some of the key considerations that informed the review of a bill for consistency with the Charter. A Statement identifies Charter rights and freedoms that may potentially be engaged by a bill and provides a brief explanation of the nature of any engagement, in light of the measures being proposed.
A Charter Statement also identifies potential justifications for any limits a bill may impose on Charter rights and freedoms. Section 1 of the Charter provides that rights and freedoms may be subject to reasonable limits if those limits are prescribed by law and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. This means that Parliament may enact laws that limit Charter rights and freedoms. The Charter will be violated only where a limit is not demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society.
A Charter Statement is intended to provide legal information to the public and Parliament on a bill’s potential effects on rights and freedoms that are neither trivial nor too speculative. It is not intended to be a comprehensive overview of all conceivable Charter considerations. Additional considerations relevant to the constitutionality of a bill may also arise in the course of Parliamentary study and amendment of a bill. A Statement is not a legal opinion on the constitutionality of a bill.
The Minister of Justice has examined Bill C-75, An Act to Amend the Criminal Code, Youth Criminal Justice Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, for consistency with the Charter pursuant to her obligation under section 4.1 of the Department of Justice Act. This review involved consideration of the objectives and features of the Bill.
What follows is a non-exhaustive discussion of the ways in which the Bill potentially engages the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Charter. It is presented to assist in informing the public and Parliamentary debate on the Bill.
Bill C-75 would amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and other Acts, to reduce delays in the criminal justice system and to make it more modern and efficient. These amendments would respond to the Supreme Court of Canada decisions in R. v. Jordan (2016) and R. v. Cody (2017), and also address concerns identified in the June 2017 Senate Report “Delaying Justice is Denying Justice”. Bill C-75 proposes broad changes, including with respect to modernization and clarification of bail, the way administration of justice offences are addressed, preliminary inquiries, the classification of a number of criminal offences, and judicial case management. Many of the issues that Bill C-75 seeks to address have disproportionate impacts on groups that are over-represented in Canada’s criminal justice system, in particular Indigenous persons and individuals from vulnerable populations including persons with mental illness and addictions. Bill C-75 seeks to address these issues while maintaining the safety of victims and the public.
The current Bill also includes the legislative amendments contained in Bill C-28, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (victim surcharge), Bill C-38, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (exploitation and trafficking in persons),and Bill C-39, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (unconstitutional provisions) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. Charter statements for these three bills have already been tabled and the content is reproduced below to assist in informing the public and Parliamentary debate on the current Bill.
The main Charter-protected rights and freedoms potentially engaged by the proposed measures include:
- Freedom of expression (section 2(b)) – Section 2(b) of the Charter protects freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication.
- Right to life, liberty and security of the person (section 7) – Section 7 of the Charter guarantees to everyone the right to life, liberty and security of the person, and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. These principles include the requirement that laws which engage these rights must not be arbitrary, overbroad or grossly disproportionate. An arbitrary law is one that impacts section 7 rights in a way that is not rationally connected to the law’s purpose. An overbroad law is one that is so broad in scope that it includes some conduct that bears no relation to its purpose. A grossly disproportionate law is one whose effects on section 7 rights are so severe as to be “completely out of sync” with the law’s purpose.
- Right to a fair trial and to make full answer and defence (sections 7 and 11(d))–Together, sections 7 and 11(d) of the Charter protect the right of persons charged with an offence to a fair trial and to make full answer and defence. This includes a right to engage in a full cross-examination of Crown witnesses, without significant and unwarranted constraint.
- Right to a trial within a reasonable time (section 11(b)) – Any person charged with an offence has the right to be tried within a reasonable time.
- Right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty (section 11(d)) – Any person charged with an offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal.
- Right not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause (section 11(e))–Section 11(e) of the Charter guarantees that any person charged with an offence has the right not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause. Section 11(e) enshrines a basic entitlement to pre-trial release for accused persons, rooted in the presumption of innocence and the right to liberty. The terms and conditions of such release must be “reasonable” in the circumstances. The right to bail can only be denied with “just cause”.
- Right to trial by jury (section 11(f))– Any person charged with an offence has the right to the benefit of a trial by jury where the maximum punishment for the offence is imprisonment for five years or a more severe punishment.
- Protection against cruel and unusual treatment or punishment (section 12) – Section 12 of the Charter guarantees the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. In the context of sentencing, section 12 prohibits grossly disproportionate punishments. The courts have found some mandatory minimum penalties to constitute grossly disproportionate punishment.
- Right to equality (section 15(1)) – Section 15(1) protects equality rights. It provides that every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination, including on the grounds of race or mental or physical disability.
For the purpose of this Statement the amendments in the Bill have been grouped into the following categories: bail; administration of justice offences; intimate partner violence; preliminary inquiries; reclassification of offences; guilty pleas; admission of routine police evidence and transcripts of police evidence; remote appearances; Youth Criminal Justice Act amendments; reforms to the jury selection process; and reintroduction of legislative amendments from other bills.
“Right not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause (section 11(e))“
“the amendments in the Bill have been grouped into the following categories:
- administration of justice“
Administration of Justice = My 19 Alleged “BREACHES”
Bill C-75 sought to de-criminalize BREACHES, but INSTEAD, Newmarket Court and Crown David Moull refuse to implement “Judicial Referral Hearings”
If police and Crown Moull implement the JRH, they lose thoer personal Criminal Code. They would NOT be allowed to assign vague or overly broad recognizances just as an excuse to arrest the accused over and over AT WILL.
if you do not think police can arrest me AT WILL, just read the list of my 7 arrests and 26 charges.
They do not need truthful witnesses. They just need a warm body to complain. Once they have their scapegoat signed on, in my case Woman #3, that same woman can make whatever NEW complaints she wants and I will be arrested.
There is no “feedback loop” on witnesses in York Region. As in, “lie to me since, lie to me in everything.”
A “witness” can make any outrageous claim for my arrest. Such as “I am fearful when I see my own name on a tiny photo in his blog.” Or, “He asked me when I changed my legal name and it is none of his business.”
Woman #2 claimed her stomach turned every time an email from me appeared in her Inbox. Nausea, it seems, is now a criminal code offence.
Woman #3 claimed that she became afraid when I filed a motion in Superior Court with her name as Defendant.
NONE of the following are in the Criminal Code.
Onomatophobia – dread of a name
…Means an abnormal dread of certain words or names because of their supposed significance. It is also a kind of the fear of hearing particular names. The origin of the words onomato (meaning word) and phobia (meaning fear) is Greek. Onomatophobia is considered to be a specific phobia.
” Someone suffering from this condition can expect to experience a very high amount of anxiety from merely thinking of hearing certain words or certain names, let alone actually hearing them. In fact, their anxiety may be so intense that they may even endure a full blown panic attack as a result of it. Although such an influx of anxiety will not always be the case for everyone suffering from onomatophobia, it is still very plausible to occur nonetheless.
For example, someone with this condition may isolate themselves from other people due to their intense fear of hearing certain words or certain names. Such excessive worry and irrational thinking is likely to be one of the main causes of their mental anguish.”
As is the case with virtually every other phobia that exists, someone with onomatophobia can expect anxiety to be the most prominent symptom of their condition. Also, as previously mentioned, their anxiety may be so extreme that they may even endure full blown panic attacks as a result of it. Depending on the severity of their panic attack, they may even need to be hospitalized. However, this will vary from person to person and will be dependent on many factors.
Furthermore, someone with onomatophobia may:
- go to painstaking efforts to ensure that they do not come into contact with their fear in any way.
- This may mean them not only avoiding areas where they may come into contact with their fear,
- but also that they may actively try to prevent it from happening by taking a more hands-on approach.
“…may actively try to prevent it from happening by taking a more hands-on approach.“
“a more hands-on approach” is having me arrested because of their fear.
The fear of opinions.
Optophobia is the fear of opening one’s eyes. Yes, there are people scared of opening their eyes.
How can I win if there is a fear of your own name?