Wednesday, 20 January 2016


Several words bother me. Now I know this sounds as a ridiculous issue to blog about, going through what I and many others have, simple words or in a combination of words, sentence can make all the difference, thus it is called communicating.

There are several words used while being tried and these words can hold so much weight that they can alter someone's life, so in the end it really isn't foolish to blog about "words" and exactly what they mean or the lack of words that explain what a person endures while other words are being thrown around.So I guess the best way to describe what I am getting at is to directly challenge the Canadian Constitution, which is supposed to be the supreme law in Canada.,re written as such in 1982 and governs the conduct of not only a citizen and their rights but the affirmation that these laws are upheld by all provinces within Canada except the Province of Quebec.

Image result for picture of a guy confused

So I will place the unaltered Canadian Constitution up on my blog and then interject how my rights were violated, left un investigated, lied about or twisted and manipulated through the meaning of simple words by those that simply quite frankly have the power to manipulate our "supreme Law "that is to govern us all independently and in a cohabitant way.

My own interjections will be colored in a different way so as not to take away from the "supreme Law "that Governs us all.

Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:
Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms
Marginal note:Rights and freedoms in Canada

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
Fundamental Freedoms
Marginal note:Fundamental freedoms

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

Not so as they had placed a media ban on my case under the guise that my name would negatively affect the one they called the "Victim". Fact I reached out to the media but was told "We the media aren't into judging cases within the media until a judge rules on them" Which one would think it to be a conflict of interest or the media works for the Government since the Government does not inform the "media". Additionally It was my "Right" I believe to post the plea bargain deals on my Blog which one would think reasonably would be covered under the right "other media" Yet I was threatened with more charges if I didn't remove the posts because they "are secreted and not meant for viewing consumption to the populace"

(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

Not so, in fact anyone who supported the defence, which was myself. Was told to exit the courtroom either by judge or R.C.M.P. Later it would bug the shit out of them those that would assert their right to be there. Or those that simply would come in during court , that would be asked "who are you, what is your place here" , despite ongoing court proceedings several times. In a free and Democratic system, one would reasonably assume they would have no problem with whomever came and went as long as they were not disruptive to the process.

(d) freedom of association.

Again, I reiterate. Those that were on behalf of the defence were asked to leave until years later when my complaints about such a display as "Isolating an accused, portraying that he means nothing to anyone and has no one to back him or believe in him, yet allowing multitudes of government back witness protection, etc people to support and remain with the "victim" Despite their lack of knowledge or really any participation the proceedings then to back rub, encourage and tell "the victim "what to say. I'll use the word Portrayal. It is much easier to convince the courts that you have a maniac on your hands while no one but a state lawyer is off in the distance and yet many around the "victim" Proof in point, once the crown had the audacity to verbalise to the courts "that he had no idea why the "victim's mother was seated behind the defence and not the crown , the "victim" and her entourage." and another time while the mother and Grandmother were behind the defence, even talking to me.

Democratic Rights
Marginal note:Democratic rights of citizens

3. Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.

Any elections that had occurred during these 5 plus years I was NOT allowed to participate in any electoral election. Heck I wasn't even allowed to speak with the electorate for my area. Writing dialogue was also forbidden, written yet destroyed by the guards.
Marginal note:Maximum duration of legislative bodies

4. (1) No House of Commons and no legislative assembly shall continue for longer than five years from the date fixed for the return of the writs at a general election of its members. (81)

Marginal note:Continuation in special circumstances

(2) In time of real or apprehended war, invasion or insurrection, a House of Commons may be continued by Parliament and a legislative assembly may be continued by the legislature beyond five years if such continuation is not opposed by the votes of more than one-third of the members of the House of Commons or the legislative assembly, as the case may be. (82)
Marginal note:Annual sitting of legislative bodies

5. There shall be a sitting of Parliament and of each legislature at least once every twelve months. (83)
Mobility Rights
Marginal note:Mobility of citizens

6. (1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada

Not so, in fact my rights to leave the country let alone to another province were stripped from myself and I could do neither despite the rule of law "innocence until proven guilty" These rights are also recently been changed despite the constitution by the former Prime minister, giving the rights to the R.C.M.P to not allow persons and or citizens to travel abroad on nothing more than that the person was wishing to travel to a Nation that had been deemed "terrorists"

Marginal note:Rights to move and gain livelihood

(2) Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the right

(a) to move to and take up residence in any province; and

(b) to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province.

Again, specifically stated was that I was not allowed to leave the country, nor was I allowed to leave the Province and even within the Province I had a territorial boarder that I wasn't allowed to enter the entire "county of Athabasca"

In regards to (b) That specifically prevented me from being , obtaining any gainful employment period as I was placed under 24 hour house arrest. After years of incarceration, 24 hour house arrest, I was allowed to work within the most obscene boundaries possible, yet then that was taken away for years again after I feel it was found out that I was running at the mouth about hiring a lawyer of extreme ethics and report.

Marginal note:Limitation

(3) The rights specified in subsection (2) are subject to

(a) any laws or practices of general application in force in a province other than those that discriminate among persons primarily on the basis of province of present or previous residence; and

(b) any laws providing for reasonable residency requirements as a qualification for the receipt of publicly provided social services.

These being the only restrictions or limitations. Do I fall under any of these categories?

Marginal note:Affirmative action programs

(4) Subsections (2) and (3) do not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration in a province of conditions of individuals in that province who are socially or economically disadvantaged if the rate of employment in that province is below the rate of employment in Canada.

This I am uncertain about, does it reflect me because if it does then although the Constitution is there Provincially as well (except Quebec) then there is obviously room for considering, mis interpreting, altering at will.

Legal Rights
Marginal note:Life, liberty and security of person

Yeah sure Bud! Better go have a dirty smoke before I dive into this.

7. Everyone has 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.
except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. So I looked this up

"In Canadian and New Zealand law, fundamental justice is the fairness underlying the administration of justice and its operation. The principles of fundamental justice are specific legal principles that command "significant societal consensus" as "fundamental to the way in which the legal system ought fairly to operate", per R v Malmo-Levine.[1] These principles may stipulate basic procedural rights afforded to anyone facing an adjudicative process or procedure that affects fundamental rights and freedoms, and certain substantive standards related to the rule of law that regulate the actions of the state (e.g., the rule against unclear or vague laws). The degree of protection dictated by these standards and procedural rights vary in accordance with the precise context, involving a contextual analysis of the affected person's interests. In other words, the more a person's rights or interests are adversely affected, the more procedural or substantive protections must be afforded to that person in order to respect the principles of fundamental justice.[2]A legislative or administrative framework that respects the principles of fundamental justice, as such, must be fundamentally fair to the person affected, but does not necessarily have to strike the "right balance" between individual and societal interests in general

Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty" or " the accused"? Again, we leave open to interpretation without "significant societal consensus" and where were my " The degree of protection dictated by these standards and procedural rights vary in accordance with the precise context, involving a contextual analysis of the affected person's interests. In other words, the more a person's rights or interests are adversely affected, the more procedural or substantive protections must be afforded to that person in order to respect the principles of fundamental justice." When not jailed, I held up by exclusion the same set of judicial affirmations or bail conditions although there can possibly be no excuse for "not being allowed to work, 24 hour house arrest", if such steps were merited ofr considered equally under law and considering my rights , then one would reasonably assume that I should have remained jailed in the "interest of societal interests"

Yet the more you can portray one's guilt the better for the crown. I certainly know that I was never involved in such debates, nor did I witnessed them but I can honestly say that I do believe these blanket, unconstitutional, unaugmented rules were applied in favor of the crown to prevent me from having the means to hire an actual ethical Lawyer. These restrictions also represent a portrayal of extreme significance unverbalized to those that watched over me, defended me, or could possibly support or have apathy towards me.

Marginal note:Search or seizure

8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.
Marginal note:Detention or imprisonment

Really, that is why they ransacked my original home yet without (admittedly)a warrant.Same thing went on while I was under 24 hour house arrest, bail. (admittedly) seizing several items and "disposing of them". Even years later while awaiting my day in court they responded to a "domestic abuse call, or loud noise complaint) depending on the officer's testimony all admitting that there was no abuse nor any signs of present or past abuse, in conjunction with the alleged complaintants words, witnesses. Yet although in peaceful possession of my dwelling, no criminality evident, they mustered together half of the dam police division to "talk" to me.
(admittedly) violate my rights without a warrant to illegally detain me and search my home, rather destroy my home and then obtain a search warrant. 

9. Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned.
Marginal note:Arrest or detention

So, although 3 months into this, DNA cleared me, years more of incarceration and or house arrest was warranted? Despite there not being a shred of physical, scientific evidence against me?
10. Everyone has the right on arrest or detention

(a) to be informed promptly of the reasons therefor;

I was advised over a few days.

(b) to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right; and
Well we know how the judge ruled on that, "despite asking for a lawyer every time he turned around you didn't oblige him" In fact It was weeks before my first contact with a lawyer, handcuffed for hours and hours as a judge concluded.(admittedly) Mr Harms was in severe pain due to the handcuffs and his back injury"

(c) to have the validity of the detention determined by way of habeas corpus and to be released if the detention is not lawful.
Marginal note:Proceedings in criminal and penal matters

No such "habeas corpus" was ever filed on my behalf by those sworn to uphold the law and be dutiful to their client. Hell if I knew about it I would have demanded it.

11. Any person charged with an offence has the right

(a) to be informed without unreasonable delay of the specific offence;

Does this mean in the moment or over days?

(b) to be tried within a reasonable time;
This one really get me. I once asked what reasonable time was and was told that "Normally it is 6 to 10 months" I asked why each of my cases had taken years, 3 years each and it was reiterated "normally" In fact ironically or coincidental the second trial although charged summarily had also taken years and was only ruled on after the statute of limitations had run out for me to sue for malicious prosecution that  started it all.
Reasonably speaking, one would consider once to fall under the category of acceptance as "normally", not twice.

(c) not to be compelled to be a witness in proceedings against that person in respect of the offence;
My original accuser said under oath ,in court several times that she "did not want to be here, did not want to answer", did not attend court, asked "what will happen to me if I just stop right now". Very compelled I would say and an obvious sign to a preluded confession that did infact take place at my trial years later.

(d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal;
We all understand the meaning of "fair and impartial", if not please return to school. What is fair and impartial mean when you violate so many constitutional rights that you might as well through the law out? These words in their application too severe constitutional rights that went on for years? The application of imprisonment before trial? 24 hour house arrest for years more and even after acquitted the same application of conditions applied for years more without merit or question?
"fair and impartial" meaning how the story changed so often, the fact that at every major court date the accuser attempted in vain to halt the proceedings from going further? Compelled to be a witness until openly admitting to perjury on multiple counts, nearly screaming out a confession and only then because of a jury that I "you're assured to be found guilty" was witness to such fiasco.
Maybe it I that needs to go back to school to learn to understand the meaning of "fair and impartial", I think not.

(e) not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause;
Well there is another, I was denied bail for over 9 months, 6 months past the date of the DNA results. released, jailed, released again, 24 hour house arrest, jailed, released, more charges , bailed , 24 hour house arrest, jailed again , released. Jailed before every major court date. I was literally in and out so much I cannot adequately give a number.

(f) except in the case of an offence under military law tried before a military tribunal, to the benefit of trial by jury where the maximum punishment for the offence is imprisonment for five years or a more severe punishment;

(g) not to be found guilty on account of any act or omission unless, at the time of the act or omission, it constituted an offence under Canadian or international law or was criminal according to the general principles of law recognized by the community of nations;

Yet for years I was treated as if I had.

(h) if finally acquitted of the offence, not to be tried for it again and, if finally found guilty and punished for the offence, not to be tried or punished for it again; and
All they did in court was bring up my record that I incurred as a stupid misguided youth that was well over 2 decades old, accept they presumably can get away with it by stating "however dated, the accused has a record"

(i) if found guilty of the offence and if the punishment for the offence has been varied between the time of commission and the time of sentencing, to the benefit of the lesser punishment.
Marginal note:Treatment or punishment

How does this fit in with the "treatment and or punishment" I received for years before my acquittal and even after my acquittal?

12. Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.
Such as rape in punishment for being an accused rapist? The whole handling of my case was "unusual and cruel".

Marginal note:Self-crimination

I was never allowed to Testify or defend myself period.

13. A witness who testifies in any proceedings has the right not to have any incriminating evidence so given used to incriminate that witness in any other proceedings, except in a prosecution for perjury or for the giving of contradictory evidence.

except my accuser was allowed to not only falsely accuse me but to admit to multiple numbers of matters related directly to PERJURY (self admitted)" that day and every other day relating to the matter in front of a jury. We were also not allowed to use multiple instances where she falsely accused others including 2 people after myself.

Marginal note:Interpreter

14. A party or witness in any proceedings who does not understand or speak the language in which the proceedings are conducted or who is deaf has the right to the assistance of an interpreter.
Equality Rights
Marginal note:Equality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law.

Unless you are the "accused "and an accused sexual fiend. then the burden of proof is on the defence and the rule book magically disappears.

15. (1) 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 and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

Does that include someone who is only "accused"?

Marginal note:Affirmative action programs

(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. (84)
Official Languages of Canada
Marginal note:Official languages of Canada

16. (1) English and French are the official languages of Canada and have equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of the Parliament and government of Canada.

Marginal note:Official languages of New Brunswick

(2) English and French are the official languages of New Brunswick and have equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of the legislature and government of New Brunswick.

Marginal note:Advancement of status and use

(3) Nothing in this Charter limits the authority of Parliament or a legislature to advance the equality of status or use of English and French.
Marginal note:English and French linguistic communities in New Brunswick

16.1 (1) The English linguistic community and the French linguistic community in New Brunswick have equality of status and equal rights and privileges, including the right to distinct educational institutions and such distinct cultural institutions as are necessary for the preservation and promotion of those communities.

Marginal note:Role of the legislature and government of New Brunswick

(2) The role of the legislature and government of New Brunswick to preserve and promote the status, rights and privileges referred to in subsection (1) is affirmed. (85)
Marginal note:Proceedings of Parliament

17. (1) Everyone has the right to use English or French in any debates and other proceedings of Parliament.(86)

Marginal note:Proceedings of New Brunswick legislature

(2) Everyone has the right to use English or French in any debates and other proceedings of the legislature of New Brunswick. (87)
Marginal note:Parliamentary statutes and records

18. (1) The statutes, records and journals of Parliament shall be printed and published in English and French and both language versions are equally authoritative. (88)

Marginal note:New Brunswick statutes and records

(2) The statutes, records and journals of the legislature of New Brunswick shall be printed and published in English and French and both language versions are equally authoritative. (89)
Marginal note:Proceedings in courts established by Parliament

19. (1) Either English or French may be used by any person in, or in any pleading in or process issuing from, any court established by Parliament. (90)

Marginal note:Proceedings in New Brunswick courts

(2) Either English or French may be used by any person in, or in any pleading in or process issuing from, any court of New Brunswick. (91)
Marginal note:Communications by public with federal institutions

20. (1) Any member of the public in Canada has the right to communicate with, and to receive available services from, any head or central office of an institution of the Parliament or government of Canada in English or French, and has the same right with respect to any other office of any such institution where

(a) there is a significant demand for communications with and services from that office in such language; or

(b) due to the nature of the office, it is reasonable that communications with and services from that office be available in both English and French.

Marginal note:Communications by public with New Brunswick institutions

(2) Any member of the public in New Brunswick has the right to communicate with, and to receive available services from, any office of an institution of the legislature or government of New Brunswick in English or French.
Marginal note:Continuation of existing constitutional provisions

21. Nothing in sections 16 to 20 abrogates or derogates from any right, privilege or obligation with respect to the English and French languages, or either of them, that exists or is continued by virtue of any other provision of the Constitution of Canada. (92)
Marginal note:Rights and privileges preserved

22. Nothing in sections 16 to 20 abrogates or derogates from any legal or customary right or privilege acquired or enjoyed either before or after the coming into force of this Charter with respect to any language that is not English or French.
Minority Language Educational Rights
Marginal note:Language of instruction

23. (1) Citizens of Canada

(a) whose first language learned and still understood is that of the English or French linguistic minority population of the province in which they reside, or

(b) who have received their primary school instruction in Canada in English or French and reside in a province where the language in which they received that instruction is the language of the English or French linguistic minority population of the province,

have the right to have their children receive primary and secondary school instruction in that language in that province. (93)

Marginal note:Continuity of language instruction

(2) Citizens of Canada of whom any child has received or is receiving primary or secondary school instruction in English or French in Canada, have the right to have all their children receive primary and secondary school instruction in the same language.

Marginal note:Application where numbers warrant

(3) The right of citizens of Canada under subsections (1) and (2) to have their children receive primary and secondary school instruction in the language of the English or French linguistic minority population of a province

(a) applies wherever in the province the number of children of citizens who have such a right is sufficient to warrant the provision to them out of public funds of minority language instruction; and

(b) includes, where the number of those children so warrants, the right to have them receive that instruction in minority language educational facilities provided out of public funds.
Marginal note:Enforcement of guaranteed rights and freedoms

24. (1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.

Marginal note:Exclusion of evidence bringing administration of justice into disrepute

hmmm, very interesting considering they had zero evidence of a crime and  an accusers that tried to backpedal every chance she had, yet forced to continue, ultimately until "demanding someone hear her confession"in front of a jury and the evidence officer from the R.C.M.P that stated "we destroyed all the evidence"? What Nation even in a third world does that unless there was no evidence or the " evidence" proved the accused innocence.

(2) Where, in proceedings under subsection (1), a court concludes that evidence was obtained in a manner that infringed or denied any rights or freedoms guaranteed by this Charter, the evidence shall be excluded if it is established that, having regard to all the circumstances, the admission of it in the proceedings would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

Malicious prosecution? You be the judge but be aware that the Constitution sworn to protect you and I....Is merely words and meaningless unless you're on the left or right side of the court room
So I have a few words that are adequate to inspire ,explain, what people like myself have gone through.
How about courageous?:


not deterred by danger or pain; brave.
"her courageous human rights work"

synonyms: brave, plucky, fearless, valiant, valorous, intrepid, heroic,
lionhearted,bold, daring, daredevil, audacious, undaunted, unflinching,
unshrinking,unafraid, dauntless, indomitable, doughty, mettlesome, venturesome,
stouthearted, gallant; More
How about innocent?:in·no·cent

not guilty of a crime or offense.
"the arbitrary execution of an innocent man"

synonyms: guiltless, blameless, in the clear, unimpeachable, irreproachable,above suspicion, faultless; More
not responsible for or directly involved in an event yet suffering its consequences.
"an innocent bystander"
an innocent person, in particular.

How about fearless?:


lacking fear.
"a fearless defender of freedom"

synonyms: bold, brave, courageous, intrepid, valiant, valorous, gallant, plucky,lionhearted, heroic,
daring, audacious, indomitable, doughty; More

Maybe we should throw in brave?

ready to face and endure danger or pain; showing courage.
"a brave soldier"

synonyms: courageous, valiant, valorous, intrepid, heroic, lionhearted,
bold,fearless, gallant, daring, plucky, audacious; More

people who are ready to face and endure danger or pain.
an American Indian warrior.

synonyms: warrior, soldier, fighter
"an Indian brave"


endure or face (unpleasant conditions or behavior) without showing fear.
"we had to brave the full heat of the sun"

synonyms: endure, put up with, bear, withstand, weather, suffer, go through;More

Similar no? how about "victim":

a person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action.
synonyms: sufferer, injured party, casualty; More
a person who is tricked or duped.
"the victim of a hoax"

synonyms: loser, prey, stooge, dupe, sucker, quarry, fool, fall guy, chump; More

a living creature killed as a religious sacrifice.
synonyms: sacrifice, offering, burnt offering, scapegoat
"he offered himself as a victim"
Ironic the meaning of the last huh? Men aren't viewed as victims, rather a "sucker, fool,fall guy, chump and scapegoat" to name a few. Words for thought. The Canadian constitution, the Supreme Law that Governs us all, unless you are a "stooge, duped, prey" just to name a few more.
My last word: Man:

an adult human male.

synonyms: male, adult male, gentleman; More
a human being of either sex; a person.
"God cares for all races and all men"

synonyms: human being, human, person, mortal, individual, personage, soul
"all men are mortal"


(of personnel) work at, run, or operate (a place or piece of equipment) or defend (a fortification).
"the firemen manned the pumps and fought the blaze"

synonyms: staff, crew, occupy, people More

fortify the spirits or courage of.
"he manned himself with dauntless air"
used, irrespective of the sex of the person addressed, to express surprise, admiration, delight, etc., or for emphasis.
"man, what a show!"

an adult human female.
synonyms: lady, girl, female; More
a female worker or employee.
a wife, girlfriend, or lover.

"he wondered whether Billy had his woman with him"

synonyms: girlfriend, sweetheart, partner, significant other, inamorata, lover,mistress; More

 We don't or aren't even recognised as an individual anymore "mankind would represent both genders, but notice the meaning of man, compared to woman.

No comments: