A TORONTO JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, LOURDES M. CRUZ, ORDERED TWO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, FROM A COURTROOM IN TORONTO, IN WHICH SHE WANTED TO CONDUCT A "PRIVATE HEARING". She told the two confused looking persons, "This is a closed door hearing". And they were ordered out of the courtroom.TORONTO BLOGGER, VALERIE GUILLAUME, THEN WALKED OUT OF THE CLOSED DOOR HEARING, FOR A PRE-ENQUETTE HEARING AGAINST TWO ACCUSED, IN WHICH SHE WAS A WITNESS. AND ONLY AFTER THE JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, ALSO, WANTED TO VIOLATE HER LEGAL RIGHTS, IN THE PROCESS.
BLOGGER, "THIS MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO CONTINUE, WITH CANADA OPENLY ABUSING PEOPLE'S RIGHTS, BY HAVING PRIVATE HEARINGS AND CLOSED DOOR HEARINGS, BECAUSE IT WANTS TO ACT CORRUPT". "CLOSED DOOR HEARINGS MEANS NO TRNASPARENCY AND THAT ALWAYS MEAN AN UNFAIR JUDICIAL PROCESS. THERE IS A REASON FOR THE PUBLIC'S PARTICIPATION IN THE JUDICIAL PROCESS, AND THAT IS TO PROTECT THE INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC. AND TO ALSO ENSURE THAT JUSTICE IS SEEN TO HAVE TAKEN PLACE". THAT CAN'T HAPPEN IN PRIVATE HEARINGS, OR CLOSED DOOR HEARINGS".
"CANADA, MUST ALSO NOT BE ALLOWED TO CONTINUE, TO OPENLY ABUSED MY RIGHTS AND THEN MOCKING ME IN THE PROCESS" "EVERY ACTION OF THE COURTS, INCLUDING THIS LATEST ONE, IS ALSO DESIGNED TO CAUSE ME HARM. VARIOUS KINDS OF INJURY".
"THE JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, L. CRUZ, HAD NO INTENTION OF PROCEEDING IN A FAIR MANNER, NOR OF RESPECTING MY RIGHTS. IT WAS A FARCE AND SHE ALSO KNEW THAT HER ACTIONS WOULD BE INJURIOUS TO ME. AFTER ALL, I HAD TURNED TO THE COURT TO PROTECT MY RIGHTS AND IT WAS NOT GOING TO DO THAT, BASED ON THE ACTIONS OF THE JP, INSISTING, ON HAVING A PRIVATE HEARING, OF THE CASE. AND THEN ORDERING THE PUBLIC OUT OF THE COURTROOM. THAT IS FREAKING OUTRAGEOUS!
There was kind of a mayhem in the courtroom, as Blogger Valerie Guillaume, also, refused to participate in the pre enquette hearing, after the Justice of the Peace, excluded the public. The Blogger, then told the court that it was not in the interest of justice, nor in the protection of her legal rights, for the court to have a closed door hearing, which excluded the public from observing the proceeding. The Crown Attorney, J. Cruess, also acted like an idiot. One of his tactics was to try to engaged the witness, (Blogger), in a (pre-trial) conversation in the courtroom, about the charges and of the two accused. He was told that the Blogger, (me), wanted all conversations, to be "on the record" and then he shut up.
The JP, Lourdes M. Cruz, acting on the advice of the crown, then issued no process on the charges against the two accused, Barbara O'conner and Dudley Woodstock, who were both charged under a private information, that was laid by the Blogger (see preceding article). What this also means, is that the Blogger, must now go and lay those charges over again, against the two accused and then hoped to have a hearing that does not exclude the public. Which is how it is supposed to be, based on Canada's claim to be both a democratic country and also as a country its responsibility to various international governances, which it has an obligation to follow, but does not.
This is a matter which should also be addressed, by the International human rights court, for this region, the Inter American Court of Human Rights and also by the United Nations. Against Canada's continual refusal, to adhere to the treaties, of those human rights bodies and to participate in proceedings, that has abused the rights of persons before the court. And that were also against the interest of justice.
Outside the courtroom, the court reporter, then told the Blogger, "You came here looking for a fight"
Valerie Guillaume, in hindsight : " No, I came here looking for justice, which was not forthcoming, due to the corruption of the court and also of the conspiracy, that also exist by the court, against me".
Blogger, "I absolutely did not want anything to do with that hearing, after seeing that the court did not respect the legal and democratic rights of the witness and was also clearly prepared to act corruptly". "I told the JP that I was not going to continue with the proceeding if she insisted that the court be closed to the public. Based on the actions of the court in the past and today, it was also obvious that it was not going to respect my rights in the proceeding". "A lot of arguments were going back and forth in the courtroom, with the Crown Attorney and the Justice of the Peace, wanting to proceed with a closed door hearing and the witness refusing to participate". "I anticipated that the reason the JP wanted to exclude those two members of the public, that I also did not know. Just two ordinary people, from the court room, was because she was not going to respect the rules of law, or of the court and she that gave every indication, that the proceeding should be done in private. I told the JP that it was also a matter of public interest in regards to her actions and that as a member of the media, I was also going to make it public information. When I asked the court if I could later get an copy of the audio tape of the hearing, the JP said that was the case. Later, however, I found out that copies of the audio tapes of the hearing, was only available to, "lawyers and paralegals". Not to the public, even if you are also a party to the proceeding. To get an audio copy of a hearing in Canada, one must also have a court order, to do so. Yet, Canada's court proceedings, are also supposed to be opened to the public. In fact there are two sections of the law in regards to this fact, which are also conflicting. On the back of the Request Form to the Court for Access to Digital Court Recordings, it also states that under s. 136 (1) of the Courts of Justice Act, that it contravenes the act to record court proceedings and then just a little way further down of the same section, s. 136 (2), it allows such a recording. It is stated as an "Exception". But what the Act really does is to allow Canadian courts, to act in a manner that is also undemocratic, by banning all recordings in any of its courtrooms and then to try to cover it up, to allow this small section of the same act, to offer some leeway. I can also tell you that the former and not the latter, is in fact the reality in the Canadian courts. One simply has to be prepared to either (a) exposed the lie of Canada's so called democratic and transparent courts and (b) To be prepared to defend one's rights personally, even if that means defying the (Canadian) law on that issue and going to jail for doing what is right. (And which other democratic countries also readily complies with this process, of having an open and transparent courtroom). And if s. 136(2) does apply, that should also not be the case.