27
VIEWS
30
COMMENTS
 
SHARES
About this iReport
  • Not verified by CNN

  • Click to view DannyH's profile
    Posted August 28, 2012 by
    DannyH
    Location
    Laval, Quebec

    More from DannyH

    NOTICE OF INTENTION 95 August 27, 2012

     

    CANADA

    PROVINCE DE QUEBEC

    DISTRICT DE LAVAL

    Numéro du greffe : 540          

    No: 540-17-005409-122

    No: 540-01-048499-118

    No: LVL-110221-041

                    

                                                                     Superior COURT OF JUSTICE

                                                                     (CIVIL COURT)

    __________________________________________

     

    DANNY HUNT;

                                                                           Demander

                                                                         v.

    Attorney General of QUEBEC;

    -and-

    --

    -and-

    --

    Defenders

    __________________________________________

    NOTICE OF INTENTION ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 95 C.p.c.

     

    Destination : Attorney General of Québec

                        Palais de justice de Montréal

                        1, rue Notre-Dame Est, bureau 8.00

                        Montréal (Québec) H2Y 1B6

    And.

    Deputy Attorney General

    Quebec Regional Office

    Department of Justice Canada

    Guy-Favreau Complex

    East Tower, 9th Floor

    200 René-Lévesque Boulevard West

    Montréal, Québec

    H2Z 1X4

    And.

    --

    And.

    --

    And.

    --

    TAKE NOTICE that by procedure 94 and articles 24(1) and 52(1) the demander Danny Hunt has the intention of having declared inapplicable constitutionally or invalid in regards to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms (chapter C-12) dispositions in the criminal code. Non-criminal responsibility before trial 672.12 (1), 672.12 (1)(3) (a), 672.12 (1)(3)(b) , warrantless seizures of private computers, and 264.1 (1)(a)(2)(b) uttering threats for published and shared research articles.

    672.12 (1) The court may make an assessment order at any stage of proceedings against the accused of its own motion, on application of the accused or, subject to subsections (2) and (3), on application of the prosecutor.

    (3) Where the prosecutor applies for an assessment in order to determine whether the accused was suffering from a mental disorder at the time of the offence so as to be exempt from criminal responsibility, the court may only order the assessment if

       (a) the accused puts his or her mental capacity for criminal intent into issue; or

       (b) the prosecutor satisfies the court that there are reasonable grounds to doubt that the accused is criminally responsible for the alleged offence, on account of mental disorder.

    264.1 (1) Every one commits an offence who, in any manner, knowingly utters, conveys or causes any person to receive a threat

       (a) to cause death or bodily harm to any person;

    (2) Every one who commits an offence under paragraph (1)(a) is guilty of

       (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months.

    FURTHER MORE, TAKE NOTICE that the date of audience of this cause is set for 25 September 2012, at 9:00 am, or as soon as the court will permit, in front of one of the Honourable Superior Court Judges, Civil Court, District of Laval, at the Palais de Justice de Laval , in room 2.02.

    The pretentions of Danny Hunt and his arguments are to the effect;

    [1]       THAT Danny Hunt is the creator and founder of the only English website on the issue of psychological harassment that includes workplace psychological harassment, criminal harassment, bullying, mobbing, discrimination, and sexual harassment;

    [2]       THAT Danny Hunt is a human rights defender and a world leader on these issues;

    [3]       THAT Danny Hunt published on CNN iReport a Mobbing Research article on February 13, 2011 that involves a list of people “hitting back” by committing terrible crimes linked to the loss of finances, employment, bankruptcy, and homelessness;

    [4]       THAT in this list Marc Lepine is a strange exception where a suicide note actually states that this link, depleted finances and homelessness, are not the cause of his terrible crime as if Marc Lepine knows the cause of other similar terrible crimes or as if someone else wrote the suicide note to hide the cause, mobbing, the elimination of a person’s means of subsistence and the depletion of finances, and the use of homelessness as a weapon;

    [5]       THAT on February 21, 2011 Danny Hunt published the same article on CNN iReport with the exception of a parody of Marc Lepine’s suicide note at the top of the Mobbing Research article;

    [6]       THAT on February 21, 2011 Danny Hunt was arrested and incarcerated by the -- Police after sharing the article in the Facebook CSPAN discussion area;

    [7]       THAT the -- Police entered and searched the dwelling home of Danny Hunt without a warrant, located his private computers, and seized the private computers for evidence without a warrant;

    [8]       THAT the criminal charge of uttering threats towards women 264.1 (1)(a)(2)(b) on February 21, 2011 is fabricated from the parody in the Mobbing Research article published on February 21, 2011;

    [9]       THAT the -- Police made a demand that Danny Hunt remain incarcerated for a psychological evaluation based on 1. No criminal record 2. A disability, mental illness 3. A previous incident of non-criminal responsibility in 2003;

    [10]     THAT following the -- Police demand the Crown made a demand on February 23, 2011 for an assessment order before trial for non-criminal responsibility, which would circumvent the right to a trial if successful;

    [11]     THAT the February 23, 2011 assessment order before trial for non-criminal responsibility if successful would circumvent the presentation of several charter violation issues at trial such as the freedom of expression, entering and searching a dwelling home without a warrant, seizing private computers and information without a warrant, and make this seizure of private computers and information legal;

    [12]     THAT on February 23, 2011 Danny Hunt had to agree to conditions and an assessment order for non-criminal responsibility before trial to be released;

    [13]     THAT Danny Hunt had discussed his innocence and did not want an assessment order for non-criminal responsibility;

    [14]     THAT a criminal harassment network led him to believe that he had caused the death of a teammate in the Club de Natation Laval when a minor, a girl, which he reported to the Surete du Quebec in 2003;

    [15]     THAT the girl was found alive but did not have a twin brother as Danny Hunt remembers and when he persisted with his claim and belief that this was the wrong person it resulted in allegations of criminal mischief, which Danny Hunt sees as a form of setup by this criminal harassment network;

    [16]     THAT Danny Hunt has endured different forms of attacks from this criminal harassment network that he documents on the Psychological Harassment Information Association website on different pages such as the Psychological Manipulation page;

    [17]     THAT the criminal proceedings period of time was combined with powerful radar assaults and radiation technology that focused on the shin bone linked to inflicting bone marrow damage and leukemia; the lungs area linked to inflaming the lungs, irritating the lungs, scaring the lungs, and damaging the lungs to inflict lung cancer; on the testicles to damage the testicles and destroy testosterone production; from neighboring homes, public places, and the Laval Court House, which Danny Hunt believes to be linked to this criminal harassment network;

    [18]     THAT both the long and costly proceedings that required Appeals and transcripts, and the powerful radar assaults, that required radar attenuation materials overwhelmed the finances of Danny Hunt and created a large debt.;

    [19]     THAT these assaults with a cancer causing weapon, the focus on inflicting deadly cancers, a homicide on a long term, combined with the criminal allegation towards a human rights defender and the freedom of expression are the subject of a human rights complaint with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights;

    [20]     THAT Danny Hunt deposited for March 9, 2011 a motion for the restitution of his private computers along with evidence, the article in question. By providing and submitting evidence there is no more justification to keep and search his computers for evidence;

    [21]     THAT the -- Police left for vacation and returned around March 23, 2011 and the Crown was no longer available until April 12, 2011;

    [22]     THAT the motion was granted for the restitution of the private computers, the Crown stated that no data analysis would be required, the computers were returned on April 12, 2011;

    [23]     THAT the Crown had not refuted his burden of proof for the seizure of private computers without a warrant, a charter violation;

    [24]     THAT the -- Police went to Danny Hunt’s residence 3 or more times, said the issue was suspect vehicles, and discussed psychiatric intervention for the behavior of attempting to shield himself from the powerful radar assaults from neighboring homes, which leads to incarceration and costly legal representation;

    [25]     THAT Danny Hunt was contesting the assessment order for non-criminal responsibility before trial of February 23, 2011on June 13, 2011 when it was corrected or renewed;

    [26]     THAT the assessment order of February 23, 2011 did not contain the correct hospital information, it indicated Albert Prevost instead of CPLM, and was therefore made Out of Jurisdiction according to R v. Creighton, and was corrected or renewed to CPLM on June 13, 2011;

    [27]     THAT Danny Hunt attempted to contest the assessment order on May 24, 2011, June 13, 2011, and Appeal the assessment order for non-criminal responsibility before trial at the Appeals Court and Superior Court from July 20, 2011 to October 21, 2011 for no evidence being provided for demand R v Muschke, R v Dobrotic, that the assessment order must be asked for at the end of trial R v Swain, and by specifying the wrong hospital the assessment order was made out of jurisdiction R v Creighton;

    [28]     That the use of non-criminal responsibility before trial instead of at the end of trial as indicated in the Canadian Supreme Court Judgment R v. Swain in criminal proceedings is unconstitutional;

    [29]     THAT an assessment order for non-criminal responsibility must be made at the end of trial as to not interfere with the defendant’s defense according to the Supreme Court of Canada in R v. Swain;

    [30]     THAT according the Supreme Court of Canada Judge in R v. Swain <<I believe, moreover, that conferring on the prosecution a conditional right to raise the issue of insanity during the course of the trial infringes upon the equality rights of the mentally disabled under s. 15 of the Charter. It denies the mentally disabled, a group in our society which has been negatively stereotyped and historically disadvantaged, the control over their defences reposed in other accused persons and does so in a way which is discriminatory. In denying the mentally disabled personal autonomy in decisionmaking it reinforces the stereotype that they are incapable of rational thought and the ability to look after their own interests. In a word, it denies them equality with other accused persons under the guise, putting it at its best, of a benign paternalism. -- It seems to me that the principle advanced in support of the prosecution's right to introduce evidence of insanity can be effectively implemented by having the issue of the accused's insanity raised at the conclusion of the trial in cases where the defences put forward by the accused have been rejected and the essential elements of the offence have been established by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt. At that point I think either party should be free to raise the issue of the accused's insanity. I realize, of course, that there is an element of circularity involved in this approach in that insanity has a direct bearing on proof of mens rea. However, I prefer this approach since it both respects the accused's right to waive the defence of insanity and ensures that any resultant prejudice he suffers in the finding of guilt flows from his own decision not to avail himself of the defense and not as a consequence of the prosecution's having raised the issue in the middle of the trial process.”>>;

     

    [31]     THAT the Crown on February 23, 2011 did not provide any evidence to support his demand for the assessment order for non-criminal responsibility before trial by way of affidavit or oral testimony;

     

    [32]     THAT according to the criminal code and the Supreme Court of British Columbia Honourable Justice Pitfield in R v. Muschke, evidence on an application before a court is provided by way of affidavit and, occasionally, by oral testimony must be presented by the Crown to make a demand for non-criminal responsibility 672.12(3)(b); <<[31] .. recital of what were referred to by the Crown as facts was insufficient for purposes of ss. 672.11 and 672.12, affidavit or viva voce evidence was required,-- [40] In the ordinary course, evidence on an application before a court is provided by way of affidavit and, occasionally, by oral testimony. -- [47] .. In the case of R. v. Dobrotic, [1995] N.B.J. No. 222 (Q.L.), the New Brunswick Court of Appeal concluded that even with the consent of the accused to assessment, an order should not be made unless there was sufficient evidence before the judge to provide reasonable grounds to doubt the accused's criminal responsibility. -- [48] Even if they could have been relied upon to establish reasonable grounds for belief, the recitation of facts by counsel disclosed unusual and quite possibly unacceptable conduct on the part of the applicant but did not provide reasonable and probable grounds for believing that the accused was incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of his acts in the form of the alleged threats or of knowing that his acts were wrong. -- [51] .. the application was made by the prosecutor pursuant to s. 672.12(3)(b) of the Code. Had fitness been an issue, there was nothing before the judge, whether by statements from counsel or otherwise, which would have justified the formulation of a belief based on reasonable grounds that the applicant, on account of mental disorder, was unable to understand the nature or object of the proceedings in which he was involved, understand the possible consequences of the proceedings, or communicate with counsel. One or more of these factors are necessary in order to formulate an opinion that one is unfit to stand trial as the phrase is defined in s. 2 of the Code. -- [52] It follows that because the initial order was unlawful, the extension was equally invalid. .. -- 672.12 (3)(b); (3) Where the prosecutor applies for an assessment in order to determine whether the accused was suffering from a mental disorder at the time of the offence so as to be exempt from criminal responsibility, the court may only order the assessment if; (b) the prosecutor satisfies the court that there are reasonable grounds to doubt that the accused is criminally responsible for the alleged offence, on account of mental disorder.>>;

     

    [33]     THAT the Crown declared the assessment order expired at the Court of Appeals on October 14, 2011, an Appeal concerning the Crown making the demand before trial R v. Swain and without providing any evidence R v. Muschke, R v. Dobrotic;

     

    [34]     THAT the Appeal R v. Creighton of October 21, 2011 that was combined with a motion for Abuse of Process “ceased to exist” according to Superior Court Judge Charbonneau, resulting in the Abuse of Process motion being made Out of Jurisdiction at the Superior Court without the Appeal R v. Creighton;

     

    [35]     THAT the Crown stated that he wished to renew his demand for an assessment order for non-criminal responsibility before trial on October 21, 2011;

     

    [36]     THAT the Crown on November 9, 2011 stated that he wished to renew his demand for an assessment order for non-criminal responsibility before trial but required the testimony of a psychiatrist as indicated in R v. Muschke “application before a court is provided by way of affidavit and, occasionally, by oral testimony” <<Me --: Bien, la problematigue c’est que je dois… -- … je dois communiquer avec son psychiatre parce que monsieur etait… il avait eu une… il y avait eu une ordonnance, la… -- … pour que monsieur soit… se fasse evaluer. -- Et le delai de soixante (60) jours etait termine pour cette ordonnance-la et l’evaluation est pas terminee. -- Et monsieur conteste cette ordonnance-la, donc je sais que je devrai assigner la psychiatre pour qu’elle vienne temoigner sur l’etat de monsieur afin de demontrer au Tribunal qu’il y a des motifs, la, pour soupeser cette demande d’ordonnance la. – Sauf que j’ai pas encore communique avec le psychiatre parce que c’est pas necessairement facile. – Et j’esperais, la, que le dix-huit (18) novembre j’aurais les dates de disponibilite de la psychiatre pour qu’on puisse fixer une audition.>>;

     

    [37]     THAT on November 9, 2011 the Lower Court Judge instituted proceedings and ordered a trial over the objections of the demander for April 13, 2012;

    [38]     That non-criminal responsibility before trial if successful circumvents the right to a trial and charter violation issue presentation at trial;

    [39]     That because non-criminal responsibility before trial circumvents the right to a trial, charter violation issues, and can make an unreasonable search and seizure of private information legal it can be abused for these reasons and motives;

     

    [40]     THAT for these reasons that the Honourable Superior Court Judge declare the use of non-criminal responsibility before trial to be unconstitutional;

    [41]     THAT the Crown stated that no data copies of the seized computers exist and therefore no Order to destroy any copies is required or can be issued, no object for the order exists, on December 21, 2011;

    [42]     THAT the -- Police may have data copies of the computers and private information without the Crown’s knowledge;

    [43]     THAT according to the defendants understanding of the legal consequences; if the Crown is mistaken and the Police do have copies the defendant would have to sue the Crown for damages in Civil Court; If an order was issued any existing copies resulting from the seizure by the police would be illegal, which is a considerable difference;

    [44]     THAT a possible scenario example to circumvent an order to destroy any existing copies is by returning the computers after a warrantless seizure, claiming the -- Police have no copies and to the Crowns knowledge there are no copies, and therefor there is no object for the demand for destruction; in addition to this, it is possible that another Police organization such as the Surete du Quebec or RCMP obtained copies through a sealed investigation during the vacation period ;

    [45]     THAT the Crown stated that he had returned the computers and no copies existed on January 12, 2012 at the Superior Court but had not refuted his burden of proof for the seizure without a warrant, a charter violation;

    [46]     THAT because of the Crown’s claim that there are no copies, there is no object to issue an order for the destruction of computer copies as is allowed in a seizure with a warrant or objects that are not in the category of data information;

    [47]     THAT on June 4, 2012 the Honourable Judge dismissed 6 charter violation issues that were raised; the first was freedom of expression s. 2(b);

    [48]     THAT on June 4, 2012 another Charter violation issue was Discrimination s. 15 and Prejudice;

    [49]     THAT on June 4, 2012 another Charter violation issue was the search of a dwelling home without a warrant s. 8;

    [50]     THAT on June 4, 2012 another Charter violation issue was the seizure of computers without a warrant that the Crown had not refuted his burden of proof for the seizure s. 8;

    [51]     THAT ON June 4, 2012 another Charter violation was the right to be presumed innocent 11(d), tried within a reasonable time s. 11(b), and the security of the person s. 7;

    [52]     Such further and other grounds as counsel may advise and this Honourable Court may permit.

    CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS

    [53]     Whether assessment orders for non-criminal responsibility before trial 672.12 (1), 672.12 (1)(3) (a), 672.12 (1)(3)(b) that can circumvent the right to a trial, the presentation of charter violation issues, and can make unlawful seizures of private computers legal and abused for these reasons constitutional, <<A guilty verdict without a trial but not criminally responsible>><<The right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal 11(d)>>, or violate s. 7, 8, 9, 11 (b), 11(d), 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms;

    [54]     Whether the seizure of private computers without a warrant that involves private information and data such as passwords, contact lists, banking information, and personal information that are simply returned later with the claim that no copies were made, which removes the ability to issue an order to destroy any existing copies making any existing copies from the seizure illegal, <<no object to issue the order>><<unreasonable search and seizure s. 8 and the right to security of the person s. 7>>, constitutional or violate s. 7, 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms;

    [55]     Whether the publication of a research article that is identified as a research article that causes a person to receive a threat 264.1 (1)(a)(2)(b), <<in any manner causes any person to receive a threat>>, resulting in incarceration and criminal allegations violates the freedom of expression s. 2(b);

    IN SUPPORT OF THIS APPLICATION, THE APPLICANT RELIES UPON THE FOLLOWING:

    [56] The -- Police demand for incarceration and psychological evaluation;

    [57] The assessment order of February 23, 2011 and June 13, 2011;

    [58] The transcript of February 23, 2011, June 13, 2011, October 21, 2011, November 9, 2011, December 21, 2012, January 12, 2012, April 13, 2012, June 4, 2012;

    [59] Judgments R v Swain, R v Langlois, R v Wells, R v Oakes, R v Muschke, R v Dobrotic, R v Creighton, R v Keegrstra, R v Irwin Toy, R v Silveira, R v Collins, R v Ruby, R v Cobb, ;

    [60] The thick booklet with charter violation issues;

    [61] Human Rights Defender Presentation booklet 1st and 2nd;

    [62] Human Rights Defender CNN iReport Articles, -- Police Report, Other Documents;

    [63] Human Rights Defender Motions June 13, 2011 and October 21, 2011;

    [58] Human Rights Defender Other Appeals and Motions;

    [59] Human Rights Complaint;

    [59] Affidavit and Factum; and

    [60] Such further and other material as counsel may advise and this Honourable Court may permit.

    THE ORDER SOUGHT IS:

    [61] A declaration that non-criminal responsibility before trial can circumvent the right to a trial, charter violation issues presented at trial, unreasonable search and seizure, the right to privacy and that because of this it can be abused for these reasons and motives; to declare the use of non-criminal responsibility before trial instead of at the end of trial as indicated in the Canadian Supreme Court Judgment R v. Swain to be unconstitutional; that the seizure of computers without a warrant is unconstitutional; that dismissing a demand for an order for the destruction of any existing data copies from private computers seized without a warrant is unconstitutional; that criminal allegations towards a human rights defender and a published Mobbing Research article is unconstitutional; and to declare the use of assessment orders for non-criminal responsibility before trial and warrantless search and seizure of private computers to be unconstitutional in regards to the Constitutional Act, The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.

    FOR THESE MOTIVES, MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT:

    DECLARE that assessment orders for non-criminal responsibility before trial that can circumvent the right to a trial and charter violation issues presented at trial to be unconstitutional, violates section 7, 9, 11(b), 11(d), and section 15;

    DECLARE that the warrantless seizure of private computers is unconstitutional, violates section 8;

    DECLARE that fabricating criminal allegations of uttering threats in a published research article to be unconstitutional, violates section 2(b);

    GRANT .. ;

    GRANT the demander who is a human rights defender and a victim of false allegations that involve the freedom of expression, which is essential for a free democracy and the pursuit of the truth without fear of persecution, and the search and seizure of private computers an exemplary amount;

    THE WHOLE .. .

    PLEASE ACT ACCORDINGLY

    Add your Story Add your Story