The temptations outside of jurisdictions without basic income is to run the risk of your client's right to a withdrawal of charges by taking opportunity for earnings on the account while the Bar exams encourage and caution students to resolve the file in the best of their abilities as soon as and as efficiently as possible. Here is a representation of such work in the oath to serve one's client. It is the work of Warren A. Lyon and represents only a draft of something prepared for a client some where between 2009-2018. The firm is open and its not a big deal really. The details are not necessary. Written by Warren Augustine Lyon. Orange County Court of Justice: Your Court Matter is Withdrawn! Click here to read more. See R v. Buckle (1949).
The temptations outside of jurisdictions without basic income is to run the risk of your client's right to a withdrawal of charges by taking opportunity for earnings on the account while the Bar exams encourage and caution students to resolve the file in the best of their abilities as soon as and as efficiently as possible. Here is a representation of such work in the oath to serve one's client. It is the work of Warren A. Lyon and represents only a draft of something prepared for a client some where between 2009-2018. The firm is open and its not a big deal really. The details are not necessary. Written by Warren Augustine Lyon. Orange County Court of Justice: Your Court Matter is Withdrawn! Click here to read more. See R v. Buckle (1949).
ANGEL RONAN(TM)
There is not a problem that I can't fix! I can do it in the mix of the problem. There is an answer. At Angel Ronan(TM), we Solve Problems with Quality and Respect. EFOIWENFSacqc;l qck....Newmarket, Tonawanda, Paris, London...make a hockey siren noise! This is Angel Ronan Lex Scripta and he knows the music and the law like a musician who will save your life with a song. Let us assist in your need to understand your legal or criminal matter. This is not advice but if you have a question on what is a ''theft over $5000.00'' We have the information to help. This is an information service and library. We win!
Information No. __-_____
CALIFORNIA COURT OF JUSTICE
(Criminal Division – Cantapologia Forreadindadictionaryia, California Region)
Between:
DEGLOFONE DOYDL DAYDIN
Applicant/Accused
and
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent/Plaintiff
RECORD OF APPLICATION
For the Applicant/Accused:
Tom Tuttle.
Cantapologia Forreadindadictionaryia, California
T:
For The Crown Attorney’s Office
Attention: Case Management Crown
Ministry of Happiness at Uneedadosoma Reading, South Surrey
Information No. __-______
california COURT OF JUSTICE
(Criminal Division - Cantapologia Forreadindadictionaryia, California Region)
Between:
____________________
Applicant/Accused
And
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent/Plaintiff
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Notice of Application...................................(N1-N4)
2. Applicants Factum .....................................(F1-F_)
3. App.4. R. v. C.W.D.[2001] ACCTRA 187…..(A_-A_)
Information No. ___-_______
california COURT OF JUSTICE
(Cantapologia Forreadindadictionaryia, California Region)
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent)
and
DEGLOFONE BOYDL DAYDIN (Defendant / Applicant)
NOTICE OF APPLICATION
(Rules of the california Court of Justice in Criminal Proceedings, Form 1)
TAKE NOTICE that DEGLOFONE BOYDL DAYDIN, the Defendant, will bring a motion at ___am/pm on the 22nd day of December 2011_, at Courtroom
No. __ at Cantapologia Forreadindadictionaryia, California, for an order permitting him to be removed from the proceedings unless further disclosure is provided that will enable to know the case he is called upon to answer as the current evidence tendered does not disclose an answerable case before the court.
TAKE NOTICE that DEGLOFONE BOYDL DAYDIN, the Defendant, will bring a motion at 10.30 am on the 22nd day of December 2011_, at Courtroom
No. __ at Cantapologia Forreadindadictionaryia, California, for an order to quash the information on the authority of which other Officers have violated Mr. Brod Riven Levlon Boyd Layin’s Charter rights as no knowable occurrence is disclosed but a mere substanceless suggestion that no citizen shall be called upon to quantify.
TAKE NOTICE that that DEGLOFONE BOYDL DAYDIN, the Defendant, will bring a motion at 10.30 am on the 22nd day of December 2011_, at Courtroom
No. __ at Cantapologia Forreadindadictionaryia, California for an order to exclude from the present proceedings all the evidence obtained by means of the above-mentioned search warrant.
THE GROUNDS FOR THIS APPLICATION ARE:
1. The unwarranted charge and arrest of the Defendant by Constable Mr. Paul Justin Robertkardason on ________________ was an illegal trespass performed in order to obtain evidence for use in applying for a possible future Information without reasonable and probable grounds such as physical evidence of any assault or touching of the complainant. This is cruel and unusual in that it will amount to prosecution without any evidence to satiate the Crown’s onus of proof on such allegations. It is submitted that this trespass infringed the defendant’s s.8 Charter rights. Although the Applicant does not press his charter rights at this time, the information contained in the charging documents was not valid in that it did not disclose any specific offence date but merely suggestions of an abusive environ such that the Applicant could never provide the court with a full answer and defence inclusive of alibi evidence in that no specific date and barely a locale is disclosed with respect to the allegations. The suggestions of evidence in the information applied to Brod Riven Levlon Boyd Layin by the Affiant, Constable Mr. Paul Justin Robertkardason was rootless and groundless and was not sufficient to warrant an investigation. If video evidence was required or any other such evidence concerning the whereabouts of the accused, it would be impossible for the Crown to provide it or put its mind to finding it.
2. The information obtained on June 16th_2011 was an irregular information and it was not validly applied for: the Affiant Officer Mr. Paul Justin Robertkardason did not provide all the required information; and there was no exigent reason for the Affiant not to wait a brief time to apply to a local magistrate following his diligence for an information on the basis of his personal information.
3. Under the Charter, s.24 (2), the information obtained by an invalidly warranted search or investigation must be excluded from evidence in this trial, as otherwise the administration of justice would be brought into disrepute.
R. v. Kokesch, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 3;
R. v. Harrison, 2009 SCC 34
R v. Legere, 1995, 1551 (ON C.A.)
4. The evidence is weak and insufficient to warrant laying an information and is contrary to the principles of fundamental justice in that the case one is called to answer must be knowable and not cruel and unusual in that it will amount to a prosecution without reason or substance as a total breach of one’s civil or charter rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is draconian.
5. There is no evidence of the actus reus being committed and the Crown onus as set down and clearly delineated in the Criminal Code cannot be met.
6. The Court or Crown counsel’s file consists only of an allegation but with no tangible evidence that would constitute any warranted proof of the same.
7. There is no specific offence date alleged but merely the suggestion of occurrences over a three year period. If we cannot know the day or date of the occurrence, if any, then we cannot establish other factors such as the age of the Complainant if it had occurred. Her age during the time period alleged is only a probability that the accused is asked to consider in providing some answer and defence but he cannot provide a full answer and defence as he is called upon to account for every hour of his time for a three year period.
8. If the age cannot be established as the Complainant is not sure of her age at the time of her allegation and such age of the complainant is only probable on the allegation, if believed, then the elements of sexual interference cannot be established. There is no evidence here that is proof but simply a heinous request by the Crown to have this honourable court accept the testimony of this Complainant as true. Her testimony is not proof of touching or of the elements of the offence. Her testimony is not proof of sexual interference in that it is conflicted, self-contradictory and shows signs of coaching by the Investigating officer. There is no case to answer as the accused cannot even begin to reasonably account for his time over a three year span which includes 1095 days and 26280 hours so as to provide a full and answer and defence to a case which now stands as unknowable. There is no case to answer as there is no evidence of a touching or interference of a specific nature to warrant prosecution.
R. v. Hutchinson, 2010 NSCA …..(A_-A_), p.29
R v. G.R., [2005] 2 S.C.R. 371, 2005 SCC 45
R v. Legere, 1995 1551 (ON C.A.)
9. If the Crown onus cannot be met, there is no case to answer. There is no need to address the credibility of accused and complainant.
10. Oath v Oath jurisprudence is simply the summary of tests of competing credibility but such notions do not circumvent the duty of the Crown to meet their onus or tender evidence to satisfy the Crown onus except when there is evidence of the Actus Reus and Mens Rea. When there is evidence of the elements beyond a reasonable doubt, the oaths can compete. An oath is not evidence to meet the onus or proof that rises to a standard to satisfy the burden of providing evidence as in R v. Parmenter that goes beyond a reasonable doubt when taken in the police cruiser but it maybe so when taken at the front desk at the station but it all depends if there is a fire retardant door through which the evidence is heard. It is hard to be sure of anything said through a fire retardant door. Such evidence alone as heard through a fire retardant door, being equivocal, cannot be tendered as evidence to satisfy the very onus or burden on the Crown to prove a touching as set out in R. v. Ewanchuk [1999] 1 S.C.R. 330. This is still valid law in California and also the new protectorate north of the 49th parallel previously known as Canada and now called Alaskandia ( Canada affectionately). Without proof of the constituent elements of the offence, the competition of oaths cannot come into play or effect except when there is proof of the elements to be sure that no time is wasted maliciously in the prosecution which is also an offence in itself and you can be charged. There is no reason then to favor one oath over the other as there are no witnesses to the substanceless allegation without date, time, year or even any confidence in the age of the complainant at the time except when there is evidence of the elements of the offence. It is cruel and unusual to bring any citizen before the court on such substanceless allegement. An oath on its own will not meet the onus and the defence cannot be called to answer this oath alone. The Crown cannot prove their case.
11. It is not to say that the Crown will not be able to successfully prosecute similar cases in the future with sufficient evidence. It is just that the evidence in the file falls below any evidence sufficient to prove the case and its various elements beyond a reasonable doubt under Canadian law and within the expectations of natural justice as contained therein inclusive of the common law of Canada and Great Britain. The various charter grounds are mentioned here for persuasive effect and shall be relied upon in due course as and when appropriate.
THE FURTHER GROUNDS FOR THIS APPLICATION ARE:
12. Such further and other grounds as the defendant or his representative may advise and this Honourable Court may permit.
STATUTORY PROVISIONS OR RULES UPON WHICH THE APPLICANT PLACES RELIANCE ARE:
1. Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms s.8: “Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.”
2. Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms s.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 under the circumstances.”
3. Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms s.24 (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.”
IN SUPPORT OF THIS APPLICATION, THE APPLICANT RELIES UPON THE FOLLOWING:
5. R v. G.R., [2005] 2 S.C.R. 371, 2005 SCC 45
6. R. v. Ewanchuk [1999] S.C.R. 330
7. R. v. Legere, 1995 1551 (ON C.A.)
THE RELIEF SOUGHT IS:
1. An order allowing the application and quashing the information.
2. An order allowing the application and excluding from the present proceedings all the evidence obtained from any search warrant, investigation and resultant search.
3. An order for the return of seized items, if any, or their monetary value.
4. An order allowing the application and dismissing the charges.
THE APPLICANT MAY BE SERVED WITH DOCUMENTS PERTINENT TO THIS APPLICATION,
by service in accordance with rule 5, at (your address, city, province, postal code).
Dated at Cantapologia Forreadindadictionaryia, California, this 14th day of December, 2011.
Signed: _________________________
Lawyer
Cantapologia Forreadindadictionaryia, California, california
TO: Crown Attorney’s Office
TO: The Registrar of the Court
Trial Co-Ordinator’s Attention: Case Management Crown
Ministry of Happiness and Just Good News
Ministry of Happiness at Uneedadosoma Reading, South Surrey
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN V. _______________
Plaintiff/Accused
Information No. __-_______
California COURT OF JUSTICE
(Criminal Division)
Between:
___________________
Applicant/Accused
and
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent/Plaintiff
RECORD OF APPLICATION
For the Applicant/Accused:
WWarren Augustine Lyon, Consultant.
Street, Cantapologia Forreadindadictionaryia, Graduate of SOAS, University of London with a LL.B(Hons).
F:
<
Comments