Thursday, December 18, 2014

THE PROTEST AT THE OLD CITY HALL COURT, WILL CONTINUE, UNTIL THE CORRUPT JUDGES AND JUSTICES OF THE PEACE, ARE ALSO HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS.

THE PUBLIC DEMAND, FOR MORE TRANSPARENCY, IN THAT CANADIAN COURT.

Racism, Incompetent Judges and Justices of the Peace, and A Lack of Accountability, Makes
This Court One Of The Worst Courts In Canada. You Have To Also Wonder How Minority Judges, Can Also Be Involved, In This Practice?. 


The protest today in front of the Old City Hall Courthouse, in Toronto went well. Even though it was a small protest, there was also a lot of public support. The public wanted to know more about the human rights violations by that court and also about which Judges and Justices of the Peace, are also involved in committing those crimes.

For that reason, also, there will  be more protests at that court, in the month of December 2014 and also in the near future.  In fact there will be a protest in front of the Old City Hall Courthouse every week, until those judges who are also involved in the conspiracy against me, are completely exposed and are also held accountable. We are also protesting the ban of all cameras and audio recordings, by that court still and that all hearings are also recorded, in order to help to stop the corruption, that is also the standard practice of that court.

There will be pictures posted of those corrupt judges, crown attorneys and justices of the peace and also videos of the protest, for all of the world to see the faces, of those who are involved. It should be a great deterrent, for future crimes that are also committed, by those members of the judiciary.


Friday, December 5, 2014

THE TRIAL CONTINUES, BEFORE JUDGE J. RICHIE, TO DECEMBER 5, 2014, AT OLD CITY HALL COURT.

SHOCKING NEW REVELATIONS ARE MADE, BY THE CROWN'S MAIN WITNESS, (AND THE POLICE ALLEGED VICTIM IN THIS CASE), WHO UNDER OATH HAS IDENTIFIED HERSELF TO BE SOMEONE ELSE, OTHER THAN IN THE POLICE REPORT.


Judge J. Richie
A Toronto Judge who has been upbraided for his bias decisions.


The Prosecutor's two witnesses gave inconsistent testimonies. 

THE POLICE DETECTIVE, DAVID KEVIN FRIMETH AND CROWN ATTORNEY JOHN FLAHERTY, HAS COMMITTED FRUAD UPON THE COURT, I ALSO BELIEVE, BY
PROVIDING TO THE COURT, A FRAUDULENT PIECE OF EVIDENCE, A BOGUS HEALTH CARD, THAT WAS ALSO PRODUCED BY THE POLICE, IN ORDER TO PROTECT AND ALSO TO HIDE THE TRUE IDENTITY, OF THE MAIN WITNESS IN THIS CASE.


1. After taking the oath and when she was asked to give her name, the witness gave a name that was
different from the one in the police report of the alleged victim, regarding the alleged assault.  The court was now dealing with two witnesses.  The one in the police report and the one on the witness stand.


2.  When the defendant then pointed this out to the court, the Crown Attorney, John Flaherty also tried to pass it off as nothing.  Claiming that the witness who is of Chinese background tend to use a different version of her name for cultural reasons, so this should error should also be overlooked by the court.  The defendant would not have it so and also asked the court for physical proof from the witness, in identifying herself legally, to the court. 

3. The crown's main witness who has testified could also not provide any such identification, except for a so-called government issued health card.  Again the defendant also caught some anomalies with that piece of evidence, as with the name of the alleged victim in the police report.  Judge J. Richie was also leaning towards favoring the Crown Attorney John Flarherty's request to accept that document as legal proof of the witness identity, which also differs from the one of the alleged  victim in this case. In essence the Crown Attorney John Flaherty, was asking the court to do something illegal, by also accepting the health card as a valid piece of government issued document, for legal purposes, when it is not. And which the court also granted as evidence that can be used by the prosecutor's witness. Who had already given conflicting evidence, in regards to her name.

4. A health card is not a valid piece of document that is also used for identification purposes. In fact it is also illegal to accept a health card,from someone, for that purpose.  And especially on its own, without any other corroborating documents, as proof of someone's legal identity. It is also forbidden under the law and it also seem as if in Judge J. Richie's courtroom, that piece of evidence, from that document, might also be accepted by the judge. So basically, Judge J. Richie, is also agreeing to disregarding the law, on the advice of the Crown Attorney, John Flaherty,

5. The other troubling fact about the case, is that Judge J. Richie also seem to want to overlook, the discrepancy in the trial, in regards to the different identities of the two witnesses.  The one in the police report, or disclosure and also the witness, who has taken the stand and also gave testimony under oath, regarding the same case. Judge J. Richie also overlooked the inconsistencies, which also creates doubt, in the testimony of the two witness. The police officer and also the alleged victim.

6. To give the witness the benefit of the doubt, the defendant, who also cross-examined the witness also asked that the witness provide a second piece of government issued identification, but the witness could not. Not even in either names. That is, the one in the police report, or the one that she gave on the witness stand. The witness could not produce any other piece of identification, other than the health card, much less another piece of government issued document, for that purpose.  No driver's license, passport, birth certificate, marriage certificate, or even bank statements. Nothing, other than the bogus health card, which I also believe was given to the police witness, for that purpose, by police directly. 

7.  The so-called government issued health card from the Prosecutor's witness also contained two sets of names. One that was printed at the top and the other the names that were written in ink at the bottom of the health card.  This also suggest that the health card was also not valid. A normal health cards does not show two different sets of names, on the front of the card.

8. The Prosecutor, John Flaherty also proceeded to a trial on the words of a single witness and with no other proof to back up its charge against the defendant, other than those words.  And whose identity has also never been established by the court. We have a police report that is also inconsistent with the testimony of the Prosecutor's main witness, and namely with the witness also identifying herself to the court, with a different name, and identity, from the one in the police report. 

9. Next came the Prosecutor's other witness, who is the police officer who also made the arrest and also was involved in the incident at the police station, in the "cell video", which was later given to the defendant and that was also the basis for the section 11B application violation, under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms,by the defendant. In fact there were two police officers involved, but the Crown Attorney John Flaherty, only considered one of the two officers, as a witness and who also testified under oath.  Because of his "lack of recollection" of the events, at the station, the police officer's partner, who the defendant also felt should have also been one of the Crown Attorney's witness at the trial, also made the request for that police officer to testify, but with the Crown Attorney, John Flaherty, vehemently refusing this request, to have that police officer testified.

10. The one officer's statement could also not be challenge, by the defendant, through the cross-examination of his partner, who was also a witness at the police station, regarding the "cell video", either, as the tactic of the Crown Attorney John Flaherty, was to not have the two officers testify under oath about the incident.

The question to be asked is whether or not Judge J. Richie can also properly deal with the legal issues before him and also without being bias? So far in this trial he has also given the Crown Attorney John Flaherty, every opportunity to get what he wanted, even when there are also serious concerns about those requests.

Will Judge J. Richie ignore the fact that the case is also built on the sole testimony of a single witness, whose identity, has now been shown to be different from the one in the police report?. And also based on the Prosecutor's own witness at the trial?. Will he also ignore the other discrepancies in the case, including the inconsistencies of the other witness, the police officer, during his testimony? Will he also accept an illegal document for that purpose, a health card, from the Prosecutor's main witness, as proof that she is who she claim to be, which is also different from the identity of the police alleged victim?.  The law in Ontario specifically states that A HEALTH CARD, CANNOT BE USED AS A LEGAL DOCUMENT FOR IDENTIFICATION PUPOSES, YET JUDGE J. RICHIE HAS ALLOWED THE PROSECUTOR, JOHN FLAHERTY, TO USED THIS AS EVIDENCE, IN THE COURT.

The Ontario health card from the prosecutor's witness, that the judge has also accepted as evidence, in the case, I believe was also manufactured by the police, Detective David Kevin Frimeth, in order to protect the true identity of the witness. This is why the witness could also not produce any other piece of documentation, other than the bogus health card, which is also unusual.  The health card should have also been accompanied, by another piece of government issued document for the purpose of identification, such as a passport, or driver's license, birth certificate, or marriage certificate. The witness could not even produce a letter with that name, or bank statement, Anything to verify who she is, and judge J. Richie also took this piece of evidence from the Crown Attorney John Flaherty a nd also accepted it as proof of the witness's identity. 














Wednesday, December 3, 2014

INCOMPETENT JUDGE, J. RICHIE, IS STILLL DECIDING ON CASES, AT TORONTO COURT.

JUDGE WITH A HISTORY OF INCOMPETENCE STILL DECIDING CASES.


WHO APPOINTS THIS JUDGE TO MY CASE?

WE HAVE JUDGES WHO HAS PURPOSELY DISREGARDED THE LAW AND THOSE WHO ARE ALSO EVIDENTLY INCOMPETENT.  THIS JUDGE, J. RICHIE, HAS BOTH CHARACTERISTIC FLAWS, IN HIS DECISIONS, THAT ARE ALSO COSTLY FOR THE DEFENDANTS.

A December 2nd Section 11B Application Before J. Richie Turns Into A"Nightmare" For The Defendant
Valerie Guillaume, "J. Richie has his own way of interpreting and applying the law". "And as for the
Charter of Rights and Freedoms, He does not even begin to know how to respect it, or to respect the rights of the defendants". 
"Richie is a very incompetent and also corrupt judge and his mistakes is also costly. J. Richie's application of the Charter Of Rights violations, should be strenuously scrutinized".





What J. Richie has done in my case to deserve this charge. 



1.  J. Richie in presiding over the 11 B application on December 2nd, also did not even have a copy of the application itself, before him. This confession was made well into the hearing of the application. He claimed that he was not provided with a copy. Yet he also made many statements as to the invalidity of the 11B application, without even reading it at that point. The crown attorney, John Flaherty, then decided to give Richie an extra copy that he had. Richie then took a  two and half hour break to read it. (From 12:30- 2:30, p.m. when the court had reconvened. Keep in mind, also, that the court had also started at 10:00 a.m.  So J. Richie was also well into the proceeding, before acknowledging, that he did not even have the 11B application, on which he should also decide the case. The court was also served with a copy of the 11B application, in May of 2014, seven months earlier.



2. Proceeded on a section 11B motion, without having the transcripts to back up the arguments, of either the crown, or the defendant.



3. Did not believe that the transcripts, were also necessary to established the facts, as far as the delay on the part of the crown attorney, John Flaherty and the police, Det. David Kevin Frimeth of the 14 Div. Toronto police.  (Of the two dozen or so appearances in court by the defendant, Valerie Guillaume, J. Richie only believed that  7 copies of the transcripts were necessary. And out of the 7, he has stated that "only 3 are really necessary", to established the facts, concerning who was a fault, regarding the delay.



4.  Of the 7 transcripts, only one, the February 14, 2014 copy, also contained a court appearance date for this year. Despite the numerous other appearances before the court in 2014. Including the one on May 28, 2014, when the defendant, Valerie Guillaume was also served with the requested video, by the crown attorney, John Flaherty, which was done in open court. This also happened 15 months after the proceedings had begun in February of 2013. (You would also think that the J. Richie would want to have that particular transcript, and to know the reasons that the crown had also given to the court, for the unusual delay. But J. Richie did not think that the May 28, 2014, transcript, was also necessary.



5. Denied the defendant an adjournment of the 11B application motion, to obtain the other transcripts. Including for the most recent dates of November 4th 2014. On that day the defendant also learned about the trial date that was set for December 3rd and 4th.  (Later this date was also changed to December 4th and 5th. This latest change was done on December 2nd. Richie claimed that this was the original trial date that was set in July of 2014. So where did the December 3rd and 4th dates had come from, at the November 4th hearing, when the matter was to be "spoken to"?



6. Changed the trial date from December 4th and 5th, to December 3rd and 4th, and then back to again December 4th, all without the knowledge or consent of the defendant.



7. Had the crown attorney, John Flarherty and the police, Detective David Kevin Frimeth, continually conversed in the courtroom, On December 2nd, during the hearing of the 11B motion, where Flaherty continually leaned over to the police officer and made repeated comments, while the defendant addressed the court. They were also seen to be smiling and laughing with each other, throughout the entire proceeding.



7. J. Richie was also not happy, when the defendant also chose not waive her rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to be cross-examined by the crown attorney John Flaherty. He acted as if the defendant should have also testified as a witness at her own trial. (Which the 11B application/motion was also a part of). (Which was also reason why they had the defendant also arraigned on the charge of assault. A charge that was also built on the sole testimony of a witness who is also believed to be a police informer and agent provocateur.




8.  J. Richie has commented to the defendant, that the crown attorney, John Flaherty was being "more that generous", in his offer, that the defendant's 11B application, be heard after the trial instead of dismissing it altogether"




9. Judge J. Richie has never asked the crown attorney, John Flaherty, the reasons for the 15 months delay, regarding the cell video, when he also provided the further disclosure to the defendant.



10. Judge J. Richie also never ascertained in his reasoning, that the delay of 15 months, which was also indisputable, due to when that last piece of disclosure was also given to the defendant, was either the prosecutor's fault, or that it was also institutional, on the part of the court, and also the police.



10. J. Richie has also acted with a "presumption of bias" that was also evident throughout the 11B application hearing. He also refused to consider the adjournment of the motion to obtain the rest of the transcripts.  He also allowed the crown to have all that he has requested from the court, including dismissing the 11B application and also previous motions and to also proceed to a trial, that both the crown and this judge also knows should not happen.



11. That the crown attorney in also proceeding with a trial, that the other judges who has also heard the case, prior to J. Richie, taking over the case, had also commented that the crown attorney, should also "seek other solutions", other than a trial. And that this crown, John Flaherty, is proceeding with a trial based on the evidence of a single witness and with no other evidence to rely upon, other than the "credibility of the two witnesses". That is the defendant and the complainant in this case.



11. Judge J. Richie also denied the defendant the order requesting an audio copy of the hearing of the 11B application that was before him. Richie, "I am not going to grant you an order for the audio tape" (of the hearing on December 2, 2014). You have to wonder what he is afraid of in this case. Why he does not want the rest of the public to view his actions, in regards to that trial?).




12. Judge J. Richie, to the crown Attorney John Flaherty and the defendant, "The matter will proceed to trial on Thursday December 4th, on the merits.!". WHAT MERITS? This is a criminal case and not a civil case. There are no indisputable facts here. The crown attorney will have to prove the case and beyond a reasonable doubt. It is a he say, she say story. The defendant now has the full disclosure  and with the police written version of the events and also the video tapes (of the police conduct towards the defendant). And all of these are disputable facts. The substantive law on which the merits of the case is based on, is also not intended to be used in that manner, such as in a criminal case, where the facts of the case, has to be disputed and also proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In order to protect the defendant rights as well.





J. Richie also acted as part of a conspiracy to "get the defendant", by that court. To say that he has acted with a presumption of bias would also be an "understatement" in this case. This case was already decided, before Judge Richie even entered the courtroom and he was also not going to change anything about his decision.  This was also the reason why he would not adjourned the matter so that the other transcripts could also be obtained. He also excluded the most important ones.
 
WHY WOULD ANY JUDGE, RICHIE INCLUDED, WHO HAS ANY REGARD FOR THE RIGHTS OF THE DEFENDANT, UNDER THE CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS, ALSO AGREE, TO THE HEARING OF THE CHARTER APPLICATION, AFTER THE TRIAL! AS THE CROWN ATTORNEY JOHN FLAHERTY, HAS ALSO SUGGESTED?.





What has shocked me most about Judge Richie's actions is that he has completely accepted the words of the crown attorney John Flaherty, who has been lying all along. And this can also be proven by the evidence of the transcripts. By the time Flaherty came on the case in 2014, the other crown attorneys including Sonia Beaucamp, were also dealing with the case. In fact, for almost a year, Beaucamp was the crown attorney, who had also assigned herself to the case.


 She also made "numerous" statements to the court, about the disclosure of the video tape, specifically the cell video tape, by the police. From statements such as that she was "in contact with the police about it", to others that were also never considered by Judge Richie, because he also never allowed me to have the crown attorney cross-examined, at a prior motion, deeming it, "unnecessary". Or to have the other transcripts that would also contained her comments. In fact, Sonia Beaucamp's testimony, or evidence, was crucial to the case. As it would also established the circumstances surrounding the delay of the video by the police and which crown attorney John Flaherty also lied so much about.



It was the crown attorney Sonia Beaucamp who also "sneaked" the matter into the 'plea court' on February 14, 2014, after the crown pre-trial with her and also without my knowledge. And when I had learned of why the case, was later moved to the 'plea court' by this crown attorney, I also decided that I was not going to plead guilty on the charge of assault that they were also alleging.  Later on, Sonia Beaucamp also provided the current crown attorney, John Flaherty with copies of her request to the police to provide the video tape.  This was in February of 2014 and after months of getting excuses from crown attorney Sonia Beaucamp, as to why the police would also not provide the cell video. Eleven months to be exact. I was to wait another four months before the police also decided to release the said video. Which was also done in May of 2014. (A 15 month delay by the crown attorney and the police). Yet I was later to be blamed for the delay by the crown attorney John Flaherty, even though he himself had provided the disclosure of the video on that date.



This judge's actions are also bordering on the bizarre. He is either completely corrupt, or he does not know what the hell that he is doing?.  His own interpretation and also application of the law, can leave a defendant in serious trouble.  Judge J. Richie's decision on the 11B application before him, clearly exonerated the police and the crown attorney from any wrongs associated with the case.

Judge Richie in regards to his decision on my case, has also ruled that it is alright if the police abused the defendant, or the defendant's rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and also to abuse the process of the court as well. Judge Richie has also been the subject of other investigations, in regards to his decisions.



Richie also does not seem to know, or to care what the Charter of Rights and Freedom, is all about. That it was intended to protect the individual rights and freedom of the person.  That the defendant's right to a speedy trial, or of the defendant's rights to liberty and the security of person, should also be considered by the judge, first and foremost and also above the arguments of the crown attorney, or prosecutor. I am talking here from personal experience, though there are also plenty of other testimonials, about this judge's actions, in other places, for others to view.

The Toronto Star in its expose on J. Richie also came to the same conclusion. That he is also an incompetent judge and that the fact that he has also been "upbraided" at other times, by the Judicial Review Council, in regards to his conduct, which is also of little comfort for the defendants, who also appear before him and who has also made those complaints about him to the Judicial Review Council.  All of which was also shrouded in secrecy, until the newspaper decided to challenge the Review Council, on why it would not disclose to the public, when such judges, like J. Richie, does any wrong and which also caused serious harm to the public?.




A copy of the request that crown attorney Sonia Beaucamp, has made to the 14 division Toronto police, for the cell video, after months of even acknowledging that it even existed. The crown attorney had also produced a copy of a "booking video" earlier, that could not even be read "on any other computer" but the crown attorney's and also the police. The Justice of the Peace even acknowledged in open court that this was not the first that he had heard of the crown attorney and the police also producing a video that was also impossible to be viewed by anyone else but the two of them.  I later received a second copy of the 'booking video" but still no copies of the "cell video" until much later in the proceeding. In the cell video the police also abuse me and my rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This should have also had an impact on the trial, but not according to Judge J. Richie, in deciding on the 11B application, that was also before him. 


Note: In this document is the use of my maiden name. But it still refers to me.