Our esteemed longest seated Senator ( without scandal) Mrs Anne Cools
TORTURED
Monday, 27 July 2015
Senator Anne Cools at Toronto Conference on Domestic Violence. (blog 128)
Our esteemed longest seated Senator ( without scandal) Mrs Anne Cools
TORTURED
Thursday, 23 July 2015
The cross examination of a false accuser, yet they feel it deserved a trial. (blog 126)
https://youtu.be/QhJ6bE4z5vs
Quoting from the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Nelles v. Ontario, the Alberta Court of Appeal, in Radford v Stewart, said:
"There are four elements to the tort of malicious prosecution: the prosecution must have been initiated by the defendant, the proceedings must have been terminated in favour of the plaintiff, there must be an absence of reasonable and probable cause and there must be malice or a primary purpose other than that of carrying the law into effect."
In 1999, the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in Chopra, adopted these words in relation to this tort:
"The underlying basis for actions founded on malicious prosecution is the allegation of facts which, if believed, would establish abuse of the judicial process while acting out ofmalice and without reasonable and probable cause and which judicial process did not result in a finding of guilt of the party alleging the abuse."
In Remedies in Tort, the authors state:
"Traditionally, the proceedings must have resulted in economic loss to the plaintiff, involved him in scandal or subjected him to the possibility of imprisonment. As a result, most proceedings involve criminal prosecutions although there is no binding authority that this must be so. The courts have recognized malicious prosecution actions in the area of bankruptcy on the basis that, like criminal prosecutions, injury to the reputation of the plaintiff occurs before the plaintiff is given an opportunity to rebut the allegations against him."
Malicious prosecution claims have succeeded when unfounded and malicious complaints have been made to professional associations, such as in the 2006 decision of PEI's Supreme Court, Griffin v the City of Summerside, and in which the above extract from Remedies in Tortwas relied upon.
"By far, the majority of cases of malicious prosecution are found to originate in a criminal context. However, there is no authority which has been cited which restricts a malicious prosecution action to a criminal proceeding. The case at bar arises from a disciplinary hearing against Griffin. It is common ground among all the parties, with which I agree, that the tort of malicious prosecution is available to the plaintiff, Griffin, in this case. The onus is on him to prove the tort and each and every element of the tort."
In Griffin, the plaintiff made out his malicious prosecution claim and was awarded general damages of $40,000 (plus $33,640 for his costs and disbursements).
Elements of Proof
To win a suit for malicious prosecution, the plaintiff must prove four elements: (1) that the original case was terminated in favor of the plaintiff, (2) that the defendant played an active role in the original case, (3) that the defendant did not have probable cause or reasonable grounds to support the original case, and (4) that the defendant initiated or continued the initial case with an improper purpose. Each of these elements presents a challenge to the plaintiff. I meet each of these criteria. By the very fact it is proven is that the same that you are about to read is what happened under examination in chief by yet another new crown representative. Mrs Joyce alone acted responsible and moved for an acquittal. The following are the preliminary trial transcripts, so if they are addressing that which was addressed in trial proper then that leads to the conclusion that the matter was malicious prosecution as the trial should never have occurred and I be made to remain in suspension for years more.
3 December 3, 2012
4
5 The Honourable
6 Judge Myers
7
8 G.C. Marchant
9 D.M. Boisvert
10 D. Busch
11
12 Before we begin here. This is now the second cross examination of Angel Roberts. It's been 8 months since her wanting a Hamburger instead of answering direct questioning and shit really gets deep, yet as far as I am concerned ...not deep enough. She is questioned about going on to accuse falsely 2 others since the last day in court. Her answer, she re accuses them ! even though she wrote a letter recanting and never showed up for their preliminary inquiry( theirs got dismissed because she didn't show up) The crown has been replaced and the judge doesn't even give her any shit for not attending court. She throws fits, storms off the stand at will, only to converse with her mother awaiting in the lobby. We know this because my supporters viewed and heard all this also awaiting in the lobby.
My wife and I had to drive 4 hours to get to court in a snow storm and yet I had to turn myself into the RCMP by 8:00 am to make sure that I WILL BE THERE FOR COURT!. The terrible list goes on and a new version of her story emerges yet again.
13 Discussion
14
Monday, 20 July 2015
My proof that My personal case was indeed a case of malicious prosecution. Proof of the many lies told by those who represent the Queen, citizens of our Nation. (blog 125)
This is the copy of the official transcripts to the several venues of the preliminary Inquiry as well as proof that I was maliciously prosecuted. There is no way that the crown could not have known this to be untrue and in fact points out his underhandedness of having to have known it was false before the actually " confession "years later. This is also my proof that the crown himself has lied , mislead a judge, by his own words. Finally this is my proof that long before there ever was a trial, that gender bias was ruled supreme within these proceedings. I will interject from time to time, my own writings or words will be in blue as this one is. Its time for a change and I plan on seeking redress from this entire matter from both the R.C.M.P as an identity, each officer as an individual as well as that of my accuser and the crown representatives, etc
Grab a cup of coffee because this is going to be intense. The following is their justification to bring this to trial.
Quoting from the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Nelles v. Ontario, the Alberta Court of Appeal, in Radford v Stewart, said:
"There are four elements to the tort of malicious prosecution: the prosecution must have been initiated by the defendant, the proceedings must have been terminated in favour of the plaintiff, there must be an absence of reasonable and probable cause and there must be malice or a primary purpose other than that of carrying the law into effect."
In 1999, the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in Chopra, adopted these words in relation to this tort:
"The underlying basis for actions founded on malicious prosecution is the allegation of facts which, if believed, would establish abuse of the judicial process while acting out ofmalice and without reasonable and probable cause and which judicial process did not result in a finding of guilt of the party alleging the abuse."
In Remedies in Tort, the authors state:
"Traditionally, the proceedings must have resulted in economic loss to the plaintiff, involved him in scandal or subjected him to the possibility of imprisonment. As a result, most proceedings involve criminal prosecutions although there is no binding authority that this must be so. The courts have recognized malicious prosecution actions in the area of bankruptcy on the basis that, like criminal prosecutions, injury to the reputation of the plaintiff occurs before the plaintiff is given an opportunity to rebut the allegations against him."
Malicious prosecution claims have succeeded when unfounded and malicious complaints have been made to professional associations, such as in the 2006 decision of PEI's Supreme Court, Griffin v the City of Summerside, and in which the above extract from Remedies in Tortwas relied upon.
"By far, the majority of cases of malicious prosecution are found to originate in a criminal context. However, there is no authority which has been cited which restricts a malicious prosecution action to a criminal proceeding. The case at bar arises from a disciplinary hearing against Griffin. It is common ground among all the parties, with which I agree, that the tort of malicious prosecution is available to the plaintiff, Griffin, in this case. The onus is on him to prove the tort and each and every element of the tort."
In Griffin, the plaintiff made out his malicious prosecution claim and was awarded general damages of $40,000 (plus $33,640 for his costs and disbursements).
Elements of Proof
To win a suit for malicious prosecution, the plaintiff must prove four elements: (1) that the original case was terminated in favor of the plaintiff, (2) that the defendant played an active role in the original case, (3) that the defendant did not have probable cause or reasonable grounds to support the original case, and (4) that the defendant initiated or continued the initial case with an improper purpose. Each of these elements presents a challenge to the plaintiff.
Grab a cup of coffee because this is going to be intense. The following is their justification to bring this to trial.
Quoting from the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Nelles v. Ontario, the Alberta Court of Appeal, in Radford v Stewart, said:
"There are four elements to the tort of malicious prosecution: the prosecution must have been initiated by the defendant, the proceedings must have been terminated in favour of the plaintiff, there must be an absence of reasonable and probable cause and there must be malice or a primary purpose other than that of carrying the law into effect."
In 1999, the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in Chopra, adopted these words in relation to this tort:
"The underlying basis for actions founded on malicious prosecution is the allegation of facts which, if believed, would establish abuse of the judicial process while acting out ofmalice and without reasonable and probable cause and which judicial process did not result in a finding of guilt of the party alleging the abuse."
In Remedies in Tort, the authors state:
"Traditionally, the proceedings must have resulted in economic loss to the plaintiff, involved him in scandal or subjected him to the possibility of imprisonment. As a result, most proceedings involve criminal prosecutions although there is no binding authority that this must be so. The courts have recognized malicious prosecution actions in the area of bankruptcy on the basis that, like criminal prosecutions, injury to the reputation of the plaintiff occurs before the plaintiff is given an opportunity to rebut the allegations against him."
Malicious prosecution claims have succeeded when unfounded and malicious complaints have been made to professional associations, such as in the 2006 decision of PEI's Supreme Court, Griffin v the City of Summerside, and in which the above extract from Remedies in Tortwas relied upon.
"By far, the majority of cases of malicious prosecution are found to originate in a criminal context. However, there is no authority which has been cited which restricts a malicious prosecution action to a criminal proceeding. The case at bar arises from a disciplinary hearing against Griffin. It is common ground among all the parties, with which I agree, that the tort of malicious prosecution is available to the plaintiff, Griffin, in this case. The onus is on him to prove the tort and each and every element of the tort."
In Griffin, the plaintiff made out his malicious prosecution claim and was awarded general damages of $40,000 (plus $33,640 for his costs and disbursements).
Elements of Proof
To win a suit for malicious prosecution, the plaintiff must prove four elements: (1) that the original case was terminated in favor of the plaintiff, (2) that the defendant played an active role in the original case, (3) that the defendant did not have probable cause or reasonable grounds to support the original case, and (4) that the defendant initiated or continued the initial case with an improper purpose. Each of these elements presents a challenge to the plaintiff.
Action No.: 110584125P1
E-File No.: RCPI2HARMSJOSE3
Appeal No.:
IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF ALBERTA
JUDICIAL CENTRE OF EDMONTON
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
vs
JOSEPH AARON HARMS
Accused
PRELIMINARY INQUIRY
Athabasca, Alberta June 4, 2012
St. Albert, Alberta June 7, 2012
Athabasca, Alberta June 11, 2012
Boyle, Alberta December 3, 2012
Transcript Management Services, Regional
4909 - 43 Avenue Red Deer, Alberta T4N 3T5
Phone: (403) 340-5235 Fax: (403) 340-7986
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Description
June 4, 2012 Morning Session
Ban on Publication - Evidence
In Camera - Public Excluded
ANGEL ROBERTS, Sworn, Examined by Mr. Mahon
Certificate of Record
Certificate of Transcript
June 4, 2012 Afternoon Session
Discussion
Certificate of Record
Certificate of Transcript
June 7, 2012 Morning Session
Discussion
Certificate of Record
Certificate of Transcript
June 11, 2012 Morning Session
Discussion
Ban on Publication (Identity of Complainant)
Ban on Publication (Evidence)
June 11, 2012 Afiemoon Session
Discussion
Certificate of Record
Certificate of Transcript
December 3, 2012 Afternoon Session
Discussion
ANGEL JANE FAITH ROBERTS, Affirmed, Cross-examined by Ms. Boisvert
SAMANTHA ELLEN ROBERTS, Sworn, Cross-examined by Ms. Boisvert Order to Stand Trial
Certificate of Record
Certificate of Transcript
1
1 Proceedings taken in the Provincial Court of Alberta, Courthouse, Athabasca, Alberta
2
3 June 4, 2012 Morning Session
4
5 The Honourable
6 Judge Myers
7
8 J.A. Mahon
9 D.M. Boisvert
10 C. Cemy
11
12
Thursday, 16 July 2015
This guy is like a virus only worse to get rid of..... (blog 124)
This guy is like a virus ,only worse to get rid of. He has now been caught ASSAULTING and ASSAULTING WITH A WEAPON! 3 times now on VIDEO!. So now they feel it's time to place him on "Administrative Duties"after a 4th? WTF?
This is just down the road from myself and yet another example of how certain officers feel that they are above the law and in fact break the law often, with little to no regard of civilians rights, freedoms and actually go to the point of extreme violence.
Where are the lawyers? Why is he only on "administrative leave"? Fuck its on video! Once again just a small piece of proof as to what I alleged happened several time back starting 2011. This represents just one of literally dozens of dozens of reports that made mainstream media since.....only to go away in time.
https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCAQFjABahUKEwiIiZmSxd_GAhUCD5IKHSpQBTo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbc.ca%2Fnews%2Fcanada%2Fedmonton%2Falberta-rcmp-officer-racks-up-another-assault-charge-1.3154065&ei=iZSnVcigO4KeyASqoJXQAw&usg=AFQjCNG7Le0oHFSgBzlgMaKRvq3vy0xCpQ&sig2=SzLI0yeuZrW3fjp2uiDZ_A
TORTURED
This is just down the road from myself and yet another example of how certain officers feel that they are above the law and in fact break the law often, with little to no regard of civilians rights, freedoms and actually go to the point of extreme violence.
Where are the lawyers? Why is he only on "administrative leave"? Fuck its on video! Once again just a small piece of proof as to what I alleged happened several time back starting 2011. This represents just one of literally dozens of dozens of reports that made mainstream media since.....only to go away in time.
https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCAQFjABahUKEwiIiZmSxd_GAhUCD5IKHSpQBTo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbc.ca%2Fnews%2Fcanada%2Fedmonton%2Falberta-rcmp-officer-racks-up-another-assault-charge-1.3154065&ei=iZSnVcigO4KeyASqoJXQAw&usg=AFQjCNG7Le0oHFSgBzlgMaKRvq3vy0xCpQ&sig2=SzLI0yeuZrW3fjp2uiDZ_A
TORTURED
Wednesday, 8 July 2015
2:00 am, 5 Squad cars from the RCMP show up.( blog 123)
a video for you:
https://youtu.be/N_QUijD6PzA
After more than a little trouble with my wife the other day, a police officer asked if I would be the bigger person and diffuse the situation, go somewhere else till shit cooled off. I obliged and did so.
When I had taken the advice from all those around me and ignored her she in turn called me in missing. Tracked by my cell phone they attended the residence of where I was sound asleep , had to get up for work two hours later.
I was in a bit of mental distress but through talk and hard work, it came around. They were perfect gentleman besides demanding to see me and scaring the shit out of everyone. Yet they were just doing their job. Huge waste of resources and time but they just had to see if I was okay.
The next day I heard this song and after 4 plus years I finally laughed my ass off while mentally applying it to what had actually occurred the night before and over the last 4 plus years.
Listen to it as it just might make your day, I know it made mine and several others after that.
TORTURED
https://youtu.be/N_QUijD6PzA
After more than a little trouble with my wife the other day, a police officer asked if I would be the bigger person and diffuse the situation, go somewhere else till shit cooled off. I obliged and did so.
When I had taken the advice from all those around me and ignored her she in turn called me in missing. Tracked by my cell phone they attended the residence of where I was sound asleep , had to get up for work two hours later.
I was in a bit of mental distress but through talk and hard work, it came around. They were perfect gentleman besides demanding to see me and scaring the shit out of everyone. Yet they were just doing their job. Huge waste of resources and time but they just had to see if I was okay.
The next day I heard this song and after 4 plus years I finally laughed my ass off while mentally applying it to what had actually occurred the night before and over the last 4 plus years.
Listen to it as it just might make your day, I know it made mine and several others after that.
TORTURED
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)