- Posted June 27, 2012 by
Non-Criminal Responsibility Before Trial, Links to Smear Campaigns
The defendant was accused of uttering threats towards women in a Mobbing Research article on Feb 21, 2011, released on conditions on Feb 23, 2011, and acquitted on Jun 4, 2012. The Police made a demand that he remain incarcerated for a psychological evaluation based on these factors 1. no criminal record 2. a disability, mental illness 3. in 2003 reported believing having caused the death of a girl when a minor, non-criminal responsible. In 2003 a criminal harassment network's participants led him to the belief that he reported, resulting in criminal charges by the Surete du Quebec. He was released with a Crown Prosecutor assessment order for non-criminal responsibility before trial.
If successful the defendant's Police record would now include:
3. in 2003 reported believing having caused the death of girl when a minor, non-criminal responsible
4. in 2011 uttered threats towards women on facebook, non-criminal responsible (*not guilty Jun 4, 2012)
NON-CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY BEFORE TRIAL
On Feb 23, 2011 the defendant had to accept the non-criminal responsibility before trial or remain incarcerated. When he began to question this assessment order the judge asked him if he accepted the condition for release or not, which meant that if he didn't he would remain incarcerated.
On Jun 13, 2011 the defendant was contesting the non-criminal responsibility assessment order, he was told that he was not complying with the conditions for release and threatened with incarceration again. The non-criminal responsibility assessment order was corrected with the correct hospital or renewed, which is linked to the Oct 21, 2011 R v Creighton Appeal.
There were different Appeals for the assessment order, one involved R v Muschke, the need for evidence by the Crown to make this demand, R v Swain, the demand must be made at the end of trial, and the Crown making this demand over the objections of the accused on Oct 14, 2011 at the Court of Appeals; And one to set aside the assessment order because it contained the wrong hospital information and therefor made out of jurisdiction R v Creighton on Oct 21, 2011 at the Superior Court.
The Crown declared the assessment order expired on Oct 14, 2011 at the Court of Appeals, the defendant added a motion for Abuse of Process to the Appeal R v Creighton at the Superior Court for Oct 21, 2011. On Oct 21, 2011 the Appeal R v Creighton "ceased to exist" at the Superior Court, which results in the motion for Abuse of Process being Out of Jurisdiction without the Appeal. The Crown stated again that the assessment order for non-criminal responsibility was expired, which resulted in the Superior Court judge saying "it, the Appeal, "ceased to exist" because it is expired". The Superior Court judge never received the Appeal possibly because the Court House staff feared she would put a stop to the proceedings for Abuse of Process.
On Oct 21, 2011 at the Superior Court the Crown Prosecutor claimed that he wanted to renew the expired assessment order. On Nov 9, 2011 the Crown Prosecutor claimed he wanted to renew the assessment order again, which the defendant pointed out that he could not do. The Judge ordered a trial over the objections of the defendant that the Crown Prosecutor is supposed ask for and did not ask for. Trial set to Apr 13, 2012, several Charter Issues presented on Apr 13, 2012, Charter Issues Judgments given on Jun 4, 2012, which was followed by the trial. The defendant was acquitted on Jun 4, 2012.
Note: the Abuse of Process motion of Oct 21, 2011 also indicated that the defendant was subjected to unusual cruel treatment, radiation technology and powerful radar assaults linked to deadly cancers such as lung cancer and leukemia during these long criminal proceedings.
Section 12. Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.
The name of the defendant was misspelled on the criminal mischief allegations of 2003-2004 by the Surete du Quebec to Mr. Danny HUOT (see http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-815326). In the 2011 criminal proceedings the criminal court clerk's name is Ms. HUOT, she confirmed that three motions, which includes the Appeal R v Creighton to set aside the assessment order was received and sent to the Superior Court Judge for Oct 21, 2011. On Oct 21, 2011 the Appeal was missing. (see English translation 3:15, "this contains three motions, right?" "yes, that's right" http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-696923 and 4:05, "you've sent these to the judge" "all the files, the judge likes to have all the files ahead of time" http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-696789)
COMPUTER COPIES AND NON-CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY BEFORE TRIAL
In March following the release on conditions of Feb 23, 2011, the defendant sent notice for a motion of restitution of the seized computers to be presented on Mar 9, 2011. On Feb 21, 2011 the Police entered the dwelling home of the defendant without a warrant and seized his computers without a warrant. When the defendant attempted to deposit the motion with evidence, the published article said to utter threats towards women, the clerk refused to take the motion and evidence claiming the defendant could not submit evidence against himself. The defendant stated that he was representing himself and had a right to submit what he wished, in this case evidence along with a restitution of property motion. With evidence provided by the defendant the Police do not need to keep and search the computers for evidence.
On Mar 9, 2011 the Police left for vacation until about Mar 23, 2011 and the Crown Prosecutor could not attend, the motion had to be rescheduled for Apr 12, 2011 where the motion for restitution was granted and computers returned. The Crown Prosecutor claimed no analysis of data would be needed.
In December the defendant presented a professionally written motion for the destruction of any existing copies in any form from the seizure of the computers. The Crown Prosecutor stated that there were no copies and the judge claimed that she could not order the destruction of copies that do not exist. The defendant Appealed this decision at the Superior Court on Jan 12, 2012, the professionally written motion is clear, an order to destroy any existing copies, the defendant does not need to prove the existence of these aka "you cannot prove the Police have copies". The Appeal was dismissed at the Superior Court; the Crown Prosecutor stated again that there were no copies.
The Police and Crown Prosecutor still had not justified the seizure of the computers without a warrant, a charter violation, and the Crown Prosecutor stated that he did not need them and did not have copies.
From the understanding of the defendant, the assessment order for non-criminal responsibility before trial would have made valid the false criminal allegations and the seizure of the private computers without a warrant legal, which could have made him vulnerable to other criminal allegations. What he also believes to understand is that if the Crown Prosecutor was mistaken concerning the Police having copies resulting in other criminal allegations, he would have to file a civil lawsuit against the Crown Prosecutor for damages from prison, incarceration. An order by the court to destroy any existing copies would make the possession of any copies resulting from the seizure of the computers illegal, a considerable difference.
There were several Charter Issues presented on Apr 13, 2012. Freedom of Expression, Supreme Court Judgment R v Keegstra includes uttering threats as part of the freedom of express. The Mobbing Research article was published on CNN iReport on Feb 21, 2011 before the arrest and shared on Facebook, the C-SPAN discussion area. The defendant had a theory as to why the Supreme Court of Canada Judges included uttering threats in this judgment. If criminal allegations were to be used to give a journalist "problems" for an article that the Police disapproved of, this would be the allegation used. This Charter Issue was dismissed. The Police claimed that under the circumstances they did not have time to request a warrant to enter and search the home without a warrant, even though they went to a previous address first and communicated with their station several times, which means to the defendant that they could have requested one. This Charter Issue was dismissed. The Police seized the defendant's computers without a warrant and this was never justified in court by the Crown Prosecutor. Somehow on Jun 4, 2012 when the judge gave his judgments for these six Charter Issues he states that the defendant's father said the computers belonged to him, and not the defendant, along with permission to take the computers. This Charter Issue was dismissed. ,,..,
SETTING STATUTES IN COURT
No statutes were set for the assessment order for non-criminal responsibility before trial or the Charter Issues, a trial was held and the defendant acquitted.
FINANCIAL COST, OVERWHELMED
The defendant found himself facing three major costs that overwhelmed his finances. 1) The cost for rent, 2) the cost for costly legal criminal proceedings ($300 to $400 per hour), and 3) costly shielding and attenuation materials (iron sheets, lead, aluminum, ferric and carbon/graphite slate tiles) from powerful radar assaults from neighboring homes. The cost for rent was eliminated when he took refuge at his parents’ home but created a problem, he was not allowed to shield himself inside their home, so his van was turned into a faraday cage where he stayed and slept during sixteen months including winter, which was reinforced as the months went by with the shielding materials.
CIVIL LAWSUIT AND JUDICIAL SYSTEM
After a long and expensive criminal allegation proceedings once acquitted the defendant has to file a civil lawsuit in the same jurisdiction, judicial system, and court house to recover the costs and damages from these false allegations, while still being assaulted with radiation technology and powerful radar.
RAGE SHOOTING FACTORS AND MARC LEPINE
The Mobbing Research article concerns people "hitting back" for different reasons and committing terrible crimes, Marc Lepine being one of them. It involves the possibility that the mob may have written Marc Lepine's suicide note to hide the cause, abuse and the use of homelessness as a weapon. It is a strange fact that the defendant believes he has been subjected to the same type of abuse, false allegations, a large financial loss that may not be recoverable, stress and sleep deprivation, damaged personal relationships, other related hardships such as spending several months in a van, and assaulted with deadly cancer causing technology during these long criminal and civil lawsuit proceedings.
HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS
There are several human rights violation linked to these proceedings according to the defendant, 1. Circumventing the right to a trial and serious charter violation through the use of non-criminal responsibility before trial. 2. The use of radiation technology and powerful radar to assault citizens in their own homes linked to attempts to inflict deadly cancers such as lung cancer and leukemia. Making the ability to function during the criminal proceedings impossible or harder, similar to the use of high levels of sleep deprivation to make it impossible or harder for a person to function. Repressing citizens through the use of sound or ultrasound technology, high levels of sleep deprivation, radiation technology, powerful radar, and serious illness, cancer. Suspected list of countries along Canada, Great Britain, and Australia.
TECHNOLOGY AND CRIMINAL HARASSMENT
In 2003-2004 reported believing having caused the death of girl when a minor, what a criminal harassment network led him to believe. Criminal allegations of criminal mischief by the Surete du Quebec, non-criminal responsible.
In 2007 the start of high levels of sleep deprivation through sound technology from neighboring homes, HSS Hypersonic Sound or LRAD type of technology, which was combined with the criminal harassment network participants who used threats to induce stress, cortisol, and adrenaline, which leads to potassium depletion, acid-base imbalance, and calcium depletion.
In 2010 the start of radiation technology and powerful radar assaults from neighboring homes linked to deadly cancer such as lung cancer and leukemia, which are combined with the criminal allegations of 2011, uttering threats towards women. Threats of Police intervention and threats of intervention from criminal harassment participants, which are linked to incarceration, protection measures, and discouraging this protection measures behavior or action.
In 2011 criminal allegations of uttering threats towards women in a facebook CSPAN discussion post, a shared published Mobbing Research article, not guilty.
(2007-2011) A criminal harassment routine example is that I would go to a grocery store when highly sleep deprived through sound technology (HSS), criminal harassment participants would mix in with other shoppers and use different forms of threats and provocation to induce stress and adrenaline, try to stand directly behind me at the cash register, and interpret the adrenaline and voice fluctuations as fear, which is linked to fear and honor, and attempts at repetitive humiliation.
(2011-2012) The threat of intervention is linked to behavior, protection measures against the powerful radar assaults, and personal hygiene that begins to suffer due to attempts to avoid these. -- So the public criminal harassment routine of threats to induce cortisol and adrenaline, trying to standing directly behind the victim at the cash register, and interpret the voice fluctuations as fear is changed to threats of intervention, participants trying to smell the victim, saying "he smells bad", .. and every criminal harassment participant is an undercover psychiatrist who wants to intervene and incarcerate the defendant, the victim of criminal harassment. -- The criminal allegations are combined with radiation technology and powerful radar assaults from neighboring homes, public places, and court house too. Criminal harassment participants who use words such as "turn over" and interpret criminal harassment, stress, and sleep deprivation as "wearing a person down" now attempt to give the victim of criminal harassment deadly cancers such lung cancer and leukemia through repetitive radiation technology and powerful radar assaults.
The Police attempted or discussed intervention three or more times, calls concerning "suspicious vehicles" at the defendants home when he took refuge in his van from the radiation technology assaults and linked to the defendant's behavior, shielding and attenuation measures, the defendant attempting to protect himself and trying to avoid these assaults from neighboring homes. Police intervention would lead to incarceration during the criminal proceedings and the non-criminal responsibility assessment order. This is before the assessment order was said to be expired by the Crown Prosecutor at the Appeals Court on Oct 14, 2011,
NON-CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY BEFORE TRIAL SUMMARY
Non-criminal responsibility before trial helps escape charter violations and false allegations or sanctions them, makes them valid, and can make the seizure of private computers without a warrant valid too, the accused did commit the crime but is not criminally responsible due to mental illness. It is before the Charter Issue presentations, charter violations such as entering a home without a warrant or freedom of expression and therefore escapes or circumvents the charter violations like the trial, the accused does not get a trial.
Radiation technology and powerful radar assaults combined with the criminal proceedings help obtain non-criminal responsibility before trial, the psychological evaluation with claims of being assaulted with "microwaves", and the idea is that if you do not take non-criminal responsibility before trial, which makes the proceedings shorter and less costly, if you fight this assessment order, you expose yourself to long and delayed criminal proceedings while being assaulted by these cancer causing technologies. The criminal proceedings are then followed by long and delayed civil lawsuits to recover the costs of these expensive criminal proceedings, in the same judicial system or jurisdiction, and under the same conditions. -- Repressing targeted citizens through serious illness, cancer.
With the exposure of this type of abuse perhaps it will lead to changes and safe guards. There is another effect; participating defense lawyers escape notice given the fact that there is no trial. With the elimination of this abuse to circumvent the right to a trial the performance of defense lawyers is visible and subject to complaints. -- The non-criminal responsibility assessment order before trial puts the defendant on the defensive when faced with radiation technology and powerful radar assaults, threats of intervention that leads to incarceration and the assessment order, which helps prevent exposing the use of these during the criminal proceedings.
UN HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
Laval Police 2011 - (uttering threats towards women)
Transcript Feb 23, 2011 and May 24, 2011
On Feb 23, 2011 the defense lawyer presented to the defendant told him he had no choice but to remain incarcerated for a psychological evaluation following the Laval Police demand. Even after having explained that the allegations were false and fabricated from a Mobbing Research article published on CNN iReport, and that he was the creator and founder of Psychological Harassment Information Association. The defendant dismissed the services of this defense lawyer to represent himself.
The defense lawyer later returned claiming he was under the service of the defendant's mother, Cecile Hunt, and that he would be released on conditions, the defendant accepted. In court the conditions were read, he understood them, and another condition was added for a psychological evaluation for non-criminal responsibility. The defendant was not advised of this condition and he was confused by it, having explained his case, innocence, and intentions to the defense lawyer but had to accept this condition to be released.
The defendant believes that the Laval Police demand for evaluation, the defense lawyer who advised him that he had no choice but to remain incarcerated for this evaluation, and the following Crown Prosecutor demand for non-criminal responsibility before trial were part of some kind of setup to sanction the false allegations, to circumvent the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms violations, the search of a dwelling home without a warrant, the seizure of computers without a warrant, and to make the seizure of private information, the computers, legal.
On May 24 - May 31 the defendant believes that the Lower Court Judges and Crown Prosecutor attempted to deceive him as to who made the demand for non-criminal responsibility before trial, a demand by the Crown Persecutor before trial is a violation of the criminal code. They seemed to want to indicate that Honorable Judge Lauzon on Feb 23, 2011 was the one who had made the demand and issued the assessment order.
On Jun 13, 2011 Judge Lauzon stated that it was clear that the Crown Prosecutor had made the demand even though the Crown Prosecutor later claimed that the demand was a mutual one. On Jun 13, 2011 the defendant was contesting the assessment order, threatened with incarceration for not complying with the conditions for release, and the assessment order for non-criminal responsibility before trial was recreated with the proper hospital information, which is linked to the Appeal of Oct 21, 2011 R v Creighton that "ceased to exist".
Surete du Quebec 2003 - (criminal mischief)
In 2003 I reported what a criminal harassment network led me to believe, that I had caused the death of Celine Hardy, the twin sister of Stephan Hardy, a team mate on the Laval Swimming Club, during a swimming meet somewhere in Quebec, at around 1984-1985, when I was about 16-17 years old.
This criminal harassment network wanted me to believe that I was being framed for murder, "who told you", and wanted me to run away and be a "psychological" fugitive for a crime that I didn't commit. Instead I reported it to the Surete du Quebec. When Celine Hardy was found alive and her twin brother Stephan Hardy didn't exist or ceased to exist, it led to criminal allegations of criminal mischief. I found myself having to prove that I had caused her death to be found innocent of criminal mischief, a form of criminal harassment network setup.
The criminal allegations of 2003-2004 led to non-criminal responsibility due to mental illness, which was later used in 2011 to make a demand that I remain incarcerated for a psychological evaluation by the Laval Police, along with 1. no criminal record, 2. a disability, mental illness, and *3. 2003 non-criminal responsible of criminal mischief.
THE DEFENDANTS PSYCHOLOGICAL VIEW
I was sure to lose the Appeal at the Appeals Court on Oct 14 due to a technicality and I believed I would win the Appeal at the Superior Court on Oct 21, setting a statute. The Crown Prosecutor stated the assessment order for non-criminal responsibility expired at the Appeals Court where I was sure to lose, possibly knowing that I was sure to win on Oct 21 and thought this would eliminate this Appeal too. After the Oct 14 Appeals Court I added an Abuse of Process motion to the Superior Court Appeal of Oct 21 and the Appeal “ceased to exist” making this motion Out of Jurisdiction etc.,,. On Oct 14 when the Crown Prosecutor stated the assessment order expired that they were trying to force on me through threats of incarceration and court house obstructions leading to long delays, which are linked to increasing the risk of incarceration to complete the assessment order, is the day the non-criminal responsibility before trial plan came crashing down. After this day all the Crown Prosecutor did is keep repeating that he wanted to renew the assessment order, which he could not do, and a judge ordered a trial that he did not ask for.
STRATEGY PATTERNS AND ILLUSTRATIONS
I do not know of any other strategy to circumvent charter violations and the right to a fair trial.
1. Non-Criminal Responsibility before Trial.
2. Participating Defense Lawyers and Lower Court Judges.
3. Radiation Technology and Powerful Radar Assaults.
4. Police Intervention for taking Protection Measures, Shielding, Attenuation, Metal, Sea Water, etc, -- which leads to incarceration during the criminal proceedings and the assessment order for non-criminal responsibility before trial.
1. radiation technology and powerful radar assaults;
2. criminal allegations (uttering threats allegation from participants);
3. insinuations that the defendant is dangerous; (demands that the defendant remain incarcerated for psychological evaluation)
4. communications interception and surveillance (justification used, uttering threats s.183);
5. court house participating defense lawyers;
6. non-criminal responsibility before trial; no charter violations presentation at trial and no trial, ignorance used "plead non-criminal responsible before trial, it is the same as not guilty", shorter assault period and lower criminal proceeding costs.
7. police intervention for behavior linked to radiation technology assaults, which leads to incarceration during the criminal proceedings and assessment order;
8. preventing civil lawsuits to recover the loss from false allegations through the continued radiation technology and powerful radar assaults;