Wednesday, July 13, 2016

 JUSTICE OF THE PEACE PETER GITLITCH, AND CROWN ATTORNEY MICHAEL WILSON, REFUSED TO ISSUE PROCESS, ON A SEXUAL ASSAULT CHARGE, BECAUSE THERE WAS " NO TOUCH", SAYS THE JUSTICE OF THE PEACE. 

I STRONGLY ADVOCATE, THAT ALL JUSTICES OF THE PEACE, IN TORONTO, HAVE LEGAL BACKGROUNDS. MOST DO NOT AND SCREW UP PEOPLE'S LIVES, ON A DAILY BASIS. AND SINCE THEIR DECISIONS DO NOT AFFECT THEM, THEY ALSO DO NOT CARE, ABOUT THE CONSEQUENCES, TO THOSE WHO ARE TRYING TO EXERCISE THEIR RIGHTS UNDER THE LAW. 


A SEXUALLY DEVIANT AND VIOLENT MAN, OPENED THE DOOR TO A BATHROOM AND CAME UPON A NAKED WOMAN, WHILE TAKING A BATH, AND THE JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, PETER GITTLETCH,  DID NOT VIEW IT AS A SEXUAL ASSAULT. DESPITE THE SEXUAL AND CARNAL NATURE OF THE ACT. THE MAN WHO IS NEITHER A BOYFRIEND, HUSBAND, OR FRIEND, OF THE WOMAN, AND WHO HAS VIOLATED HER RIGHTS, IN THIS MANNER, MUST NOW NOT EVEN ANSWER FOR HIS ACTIONS, BEFORE A COURT. THANKS TO THE CORRUPTION INVOLVED, BY THE JP, PETER GITTLETCH AND CROWN ATTORNEY, MICHAEL WILSON.

PRIVATE INFORMATION, IS TO GO BEFORE ANOTHER JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, WITH NEW EVIDENCE, TO PROCEED WITH THE SEXUAL ASSAULT CHARGE, AGAINST CLAUDE RAYMOND TOUCHETTE. THE NEW EVIDENCE, INCLUDES THE TWO POLICE WITNESSES, WHO DID NOT INTIALLY LAY, ANY CRIMINAL CHARGES, AGAINST THE PERPETRATOR, CLAUDE RAYMOND TOUCHETTE, ON JUNE 24, 2016, FOR THE SEXUAL ASSAULT. THIS INFORMATION OF THEIR NAMES, WERE NOT AVAILABLE, IN REGARDS TO THE FIRST CHARGE AND SO ANOTHER JUSTICE OF THE PEACE WILL HAVE TO TAKE THE NEW INFORMATION, AND HOPEFULLY, IT WILL GO TO ANOTHER PRE-ENQUETTE HEARING AND EVENTUALLY, A TRIAL OF THE ACCUSED.

We know of other sexually violent and deviant persons, like Claude Touchette,  who for instance,  likes to take pictures of women on escalators, with their cell phones, and viewing their private parts. Or taking pictures of them to view later. Those men are usually charged with a sexual assault charge, by the police, though they did not actually touch the victim. It was enough that they committed this assault and violated her dignity, in this manner, for them to be charged with an offence. Whether the woman is naked and vulnerable in a bathroom, or on an escalator, isn't the same thing?. Why did the perpetrator still entered the bathroom, even while the water was still running?. Knowing that the woman was inside taking a bath? Why did he not knock on the door? Why was he so reckless in his actions? Because that was all a part of his intentions. To view, or to touch the naked woman, taking a bath. This is a crime of a sexual assault against her. He did not have her consent to do so. What woman is going to give her consent to such an action?. It is violence against her and it also violated her dignity, according to the court, which is also an offence under the Criminal Code of Canada.

What give the man the right to carry out his intentions, of a sexual and carnal nature upon her?. Some men like to view naked women, or to touch them. Some like to take pictures of them. Aren't those all sexual assaults, against such women, in those circumstances?. Is it not a violation of their rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights, section 7 and 15, in regards to the security of their persons and any such violations, would also be an assault, under the Criminal Code of Canada, sections, 265, 271, 272 and 273. As well as other sections linked to those sections of the Criminal Code. Here is what the same Canadian court, in other instances, has to say about Canada's role to protect women, from such violence, including me. Which it has also, deliberately, denied me the protection of. Here is what the court has said about it .


Per L'Heureux-Dube and Gonthier JJ.: "...Agreement was expressed generally with the reasons of Major J. on most issues: Canada is a party to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, which requires respect for and observance of the human rights of women. Violence against women is as much a matter of equality as it is an offence against human dignity and a violation of human rights. These human rights are protected by ss 7 and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and their violation constitutes an offence under the assault provisions of . 265 and under the more specific sexual assault provisions of ss. 271, 272 and 273 of the Criminal Code"
Why would a Justice of the Peace, such as Peter Gittletch, not issue process on such a charge and claimed that because the perpetrator, was not able to proceed further with his act, because of the victim's reaction and there was no actual touch, that it was not a sexual assault?. In the Supreme Court of Canada, in R v Chase, the highest court in Canada was very specific, about the nature of a sexual assault and its definition. In R v Chase, it ruled that " an assault becomes a sexual assault if in ' all the circumstances' the sexual or carnal context of the assault, is visible to the reasonable observer".