672.12(1)(3) criminal responsibility before trial violates the basic  right to a trial when successful -- 264.1 (1) uttering  threats allegations violate the freedom of expression when fabricated  from published articles, allegations (false allegations) go to trial.

No response from the UK Amnesty International or the OHCHR from South Africa (UK)

10) How do I find out if my Government is fulfilling its obligations  under international human rights law and help monitor its compliance?

No response from the UK Amnesty International or the OHCHR from South Africa (UK)

OHCHR and Amnesty International, Right to Trial and Freedom of Expression Violations in Canada - CNN iReport (article link)
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-910749

Frequently Asked Questions
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/AboutUs/Pages/FrequentlyAskedQuestions.aspx

10) How do I find out if my Government is fulfilling its obligations under international human rights law and help monitor its compliance?

National human rights institutions, local human rights NGOs, the press and civil society groups, for example, monitor your Government's human rights performance and inform the general public on areas for improvement. At the regional and international levels, there are mechanisms to monitor States' implementation of their human rights legal obligations. Within the United Nations human rights machinery, there are currently seven treaty bodies of international experts who monitor State parties' compliance with the core international human rights treaties and conventions. You may choose to provide additional information to these treaty bodies when they are scheduled to examine reports submitted by your Government on the implementation of its treaty obligations. You can find information of your Governments' reports and treaty bodies' recommendations in “Human Rights Bodies” on the OHCHR's website, as well as in statements, press releases and reports posted on our website. The Human Rights Council, an intergovernmental body in the United Nations system, is mandated to conduct periodic review of human rights records of States worldwide.

ATTENTION Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights FAX from Danny Hunt, basic human rights

Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights

I would like to know if the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights acknowledges that these laws in the Canadian Criminal Code violate basic human rights, 672.12 (1)(3) the right to trial, and 264.1(1) the freedom of expression when fabricated from published Mobbing Research articles.

1. 672.12(1)(3) criminal responsibility before trial violates the basic right to a trial when successful, dismisses charter violations that are presented at trial, and makes unlawful seizures, seizures without a warrant of personal computers, legal.

2. 264.1 (1) uttering threats allegations violate the freedom of expression when fabricated from published articles, the Supreme Court R v keegstra is dismissed and allegations (false alleg) go to trial.

I am currently very isolated through participants, organized crime, and would like to know if you can respond through fax at *******, thank you.

To:
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
United Nations Office at Geneva
1211 Geneva 10
Switzerland
Fax: 41 22 917 9006

From:
Danny Hunt
558 Felix
Laval Quebec
Canada H7P 3E3
tel/fax: *******

Some Related iReports:

Feb 21, 2011 - Jun 4, 2012

Mobbing Research : Marc Lepine and Rage shooting and Rampages [facebook] (Feb 21, 2011)
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-559620

Laval Police Criminal Allegations 2011 part 1 of 2
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-679948

Laval Police Criminal Allegations 2011 part 2 of 2
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-679950

February 23, 2011 Court Transcripts
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-717132

MOTION FOR RESTITUTION OF PROPERTY (March 9, 2011)
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-679951

Laval Police Motions for Arms Restrictions and Return of Seized Computers (April 6, 2011)
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-681625

MOTION OF APPEAL TO SET ASIDE ASSESSMENT ORDER MADE WITHOUT JURISDICTION; R. V. CREIGHTON, FORM 48 S (Oct 3 - Oct 21, 2011)
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-682394

Assessment Order of February 23 for Danny Hunt Made Without Jurisdiction, R v Creighton
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-681266

October 21, 2011 R v Creighton Appeal
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-845048

October 21, 2011 Abuse of Process Motion 1 of 2
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-845050

October 21, 2011 Abuse of Process Motion 2 of 2
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-845172

Court Transcript October 21, 2011 1 to 10
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-714672

Court Transcript October 21, 2011 10 to 20
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-714644

Judgement of Charter Issues of June 4th, The Facts According to the Judge
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-806479

Judgement of Charter Issues of June 4th Continued (part 2)
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-806478

NOTICE OF INTENTION ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 95 C.p.c. 3rd (August 27, 2012)
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-834413

Discontinuing Efforts to Address Constitutional Questions - CNN iReport (article link)
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-858181

Discontinuing Efforts to Address Constitutional Questions due to Organized Crime, Powerful Radar Assaults - CNN iReport (article link) (censored/unavailable)
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-858780

Freedom of Expression and Criminal Allegations Charter Violation Issue 2(b) June 4, 2012 (unavailable/censored)
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-839143

Seizure of Private Computers Charter Violation Issue Judgment Error June 4, 2012 (unavailable/censored)
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-839142

Mobbing Research: Feb 21, 2011 Arrest , Search of a Dwelling Home Without a Warrant
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-753334

Mobbing Research: Danny Hunt Some Files Linked The Laval Police Criminal Allegations Of Feb 21, 2011
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-743113

Mobbing Research: Danny Hunt Some Files Linked The Laval Police Criminal Allegations Of Feb 21, 2011 (2 of 2) $$$
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-743447

Apartment Advertised For Rent on Feb 20, 2011 on Kijiji a Day Before Arrest Feb 21, 2011
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-742172

Mobbing Research: Criminal Allegations of Feb 21, 2011, Carnage Used In Report Instead of Rampage
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-746773

Freedom of Expression, R v Keegstra, R v Irwin Toy
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-774697

UN High Commissioner For Human Rights Response April 26, 2011
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-742147

2003-2004

Surete du Quebec Criminal Allegation of 2003 part 1 of 2
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-821637

Surete du Quebec Criminal Allegation of 2003 part 2 of 2
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-821638

For example, Non-criminal responsibility before trial in the Canadian  Criminal Code 672.12 (1)(3) violates the right to a trial when  successful, a basic human rights violation. When used before trial and  successful targeted citizens are found guilty without a trial, charter  violations such as entering a home without a warrant, seizing private  computers without a warrant, are all dismissed automatically and the  "unlawful" seizure of private computers is now legal too, which means  any existing copies can be kept, private information, and used in future  prosecutions. This violation is linked to police psychiatric  intervention attempts during criminal judicial proceedings who need to  escape false allegations and charter violations, the mob, organized  crime, and using parents to help in psychiatric intervention to help the  "good guys", the police, which is linked to what is mentioned in the  video, parents access to personal medical records. This violation still  exists in the criminal code in spite of court judgements that clearly  state this assessment must be made at the end of trial only. Organized  crime has prevented some people from addressing this law in court along  with other laws that violate the charter of rights in Canada.

DISCRIMINATION, MENTAL ILLNESS AND THE RIGHT TO A TRIAL

Non-Criminal Responsibility Before trial (discriminatory)

R. v. Swain, [1991] 1 SCR 933, Supreme Court of Canada
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1991/1991canlii104/1991canlii104.html
"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 decision‑making   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 defence  and  not as a consequence of the prosecution's having  raised the issue  in  the middle of the trial process.

R. v. Langlois, 2005 BCCA 162 (CanLII)
http://canlii.ca/en/bc/bcca/doc/2005/2005bcca162/2005bcca162.html
[23]In   R. v. Swain, 1991 CanLII 104 (SCC), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 933, the Supreme   Court of Canada considered the accused’s rights in the context of the   operation of the insanity defence under the Code prior to the amendments   in 1992 which brought in the NCRMD provisions. One of the issues in   that case was whether the Crown could raise the issue of insanity over   the wishes of the accused. The Court concluded that the common law rule   that allowed the Crown to raise the accused’s mental state before a   verdict had been rendered violated the accused’s rights to have control   over his own defence. In so deciding, the Court confirmed (at p. 972):   Given that the principles of fundamental justice contemplate an   accusatorial and adversarial system of criminal justice which is founded   on respect for the autonomy and dignity of human beings, it seems  clear  to me that the principles of fundamental justice must also  require than  an accused person have the right to control his or her own  defence. --  [24]The Supreme Court’s response to its finding was to  vary the common  law rule to allow the Crown to raise the issue of the  mental capacity of  the accused only after the court had concluded that  the accused is  otherwise guilty of the offence — the procedure adopted in the NCRMD Code provisions in 1992.

R. v. Wells, 2004 ABCA 371 (CanLII)
http://canlii.ca/en/ab/abca/doc/2004/2004abca371/2004abca371.html
[8] The following Criminal Code sections are relevant to the defence of NCRMD:
16.   (1) No person is criminally responsible for an act committed or an   omission made while suffering from a mental disorder that rendered the   person incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of the act or   omission or of knowing that it was wrong.
(2) Every person is   presumed not to suffer from a mental disorder so as to be exempt from   criminal responsibility by virtue of subsection (1), until the contrary   is proved on the balance of probabilities.
(3) The burden of proof   that an accused was suffering from a mental disorder so as to be exempt   from criminal responsibility is on the party that raises the issue.
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.
(2)  Where the prosecutor applies for an assessment in  order to determine  whether the accused is unfit to stand trial for an  offence that is  prosecuted by way of summary conviction, the court may  only order the  assessment if
(a) the accused raised the issue of fitness; or
(b) the prosecutor satisfies the court that there are reasonable grounds to doubt that the accused is fit to stand trial.
(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.
672.34 Where the jury, or the   judge or provincial court judge where there is no jury, finds that an   accused committed the act or made the omission that formed the basis of   the offence charged, but was at the time suffering from mental  disorder  so as to be exempt from criminal responsibility by virtue of  subsection  16(1), the jury or the judge shall render a verdict that the  accused  committed the act or made the omission but is not criminally  responsible  on account of mental disorder.
[10] The Crown’s ability  to raise the  issue of an accused’s mental capacity is governed by the  decision of  the Supreme Court of Canada in Swain. Swain confirmed that  when an  accused does not want to rely on a s. 16 defence of NCRMD, the  Crown may  raise the issue independently. By doing so the Crown helps  ensure that  an accused is not wrongly convicted. However, in order to  be minimally  intrusive on the accused’s right to control the conduct of  his defence,  the Crown must wait to raise the issue until the trier of  fact has  decided the accused is guilty of the offence. If the accused  is  acquitted, the Crown cannot raise the issue.

Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46
Where court may order assessment
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.
Limitation on prosecutor’s application for assessment of fitness
(2)  Where the prosecutor applies for an assessment in order to determine  whether the accused is unfit to stand trial for an offence that is  prosecuted by way of summary conviction, the court may only order the  assessment if
(a) the accused raised the issue of fitness; or
(b) the prosecutor satisfies the court that there are reasonable grounds to doubt that the accused is fit to stand trial.
Limitation on prosecutor’s application for assessment
(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.

BLOGS

(see  the    Rage Shooting Factors, T Trapped or Cornered)

My Experience with Criminal Harassment Networks, Non-Criminal     Responsibility Before Trial, and Being Trapped or Cornered in Canada -     Blogs

My experience with two false allegations by police, two non-criminal     responsibility before trial, and two homicide attempts in Canada, one     through influence of the mind, suicide, and the other through power     radar assaults weapons linked to deadly cancers like leukemia. (see  the    Rage Shooting Factors, T Trapped or Cornered)

1. A criminal harassment or mobbing network led me to believe that I     had caused the death of someone when a minor, a teammate from a    swimming  club, and wanted me to run away, a run away strategy by saying    that I  had committed murder.

Instead of running away I   reported  this  belief to the Surete du Quebec, they did searches, found   the  person  alive but she did not have a twin brother as I  remembered.  I was  charged  with criminal mischief for wasting their  time. I found  myself  trapped, I  now had to prove that I had caused  the death of  someone as I  was led to  believe by this criminal network  to be proven  innocent of  criminal  mischief.

I consulted many  different  lawyers at great  expense and  none had any good solution  until one of  them suggested  non-criminal  responsibility before trial.  I was found  non-criminal  responsible of  criminal mischief before  trial, which  helped me escape  this trap by this  organized crime  criminal harassment  or mobbing  network.

This  belief that I was  led to was also  linked to the  first assassination  attempt, this one  through influence  of the mind and  suicide.

2.  In 2007 I began  to experience high  levels of sleep  deprivation through  sound  technology that was combined  with criminal  harassment  participants,  this network, threats and  provocation to  induce the  fight-or-flight  syndrome, adrenaline, which  depletes  potassium, and  calcium, a  macromineral, calcium, depletion  strategy by  organized crime.

In  2010 I began to be assaulted  with powerful  radar at my  apartment,  took refuge at my parents home  while I attempted  to empty  this  apartment and leave this location. On  Feb 21, 2011 I was  charged  with  "uttering threats towards women on  facebook" when I  shared a   published Mobbing Research article in the  discussion area of  CSPAN. I   was again trapped or corned, trapped in  this location, court  house   appearances where these assaults also  occurred, and paying for   expensive  proceedings while being assaulted  with powerful radar   technology aimed  at inflicting deadly cancers,  bone marrow damage,   damaging and inflaming  the lungs, the prostate and  testicle area, and   the head and throat.

The  allegations were  false it was a   published article and the allegations  violated the  freedom of   expression. I had to agree to an assessment  order for  non-criminal   responsibility before trial to be released,  conditions  for release.  The  police tried psychiatric intervention  several times  due to my  behavior  of trying avoid and shield myself from  these  powerful radar  assaults  that would lead to incarceration and the   "unlawful"  assessment order.  "Unlawful" the crown did not present any   evidence  when he made this  assessment demand and he is supposed to make   this  non-criminal  responsibility demand at the end of trial as  indicated   in several  judgments. The criminal harassment run away  strategy this   time was "run  away or get cancer".

Non-criminal responsible before trial if successful would make the     allegations valid instead of false without a trial, circumventing the     right to a trial, dismiss the Charter of Rights violations that would  be    presented at trial such as freedom of expression, searching a home     without a warrant, seizing private computers without a warrant, and  make    this "unlawful" seizure legal too.

The energy assault weapon, radar assaults, are linked to another     second homicide attempt, not suicide this time but through deadly     cancers on a long term, hidden homicides in Canada.

T Trapped or Cornered

1. Reverse Burden of Proof: With the allegation of criminal mischief, I now had to prove that I had caused the death of my teammate when a minor to be proven innocent of criminal mischief.

2. I was assaulted at my apartment and left it to take refuge at my parents home, and was still assaulted their by neighboring homes. I was very exhausted due to months of sleep deprivation and it took me several months to empty this apartment for lease. On Feb 20, 2011 I put an ad for lease and the next day Feb 21, 2011 I was charged with uttering threats towards women on facebook by the Laval Police along with a police demand that I remain incarcerated for psychological evaluation, and a defense lawyer who told me that I had no choice but to remain incarcerated for this demand and evaluation.

2. a) Trapped, Apartment Expense While Incarcerated: so if I would have accepted this I would have been incarcerated for months while paying for an apartment that I was not using, and a defense layer.

I dismissed this defense lawyers services to represent myself, he later returned and claimed I would be released. In court I was surprised by an assessment order for non-criminal responsibility before trial that I had to accept to be released on conditions. Being innocent I did not want to plead non-criminal responsible for a crime that I did not commit. After giving the Crown the published article and his continued demand for this assessment order I began attempts to appeals this assessment order.

2. b) Trapped, Unlawful Assessment Order, Court Delays, and Threats of Incarceration: as I attempted to appeal this "unlawful" assessment order I was faced with long delays in the higher court system, and threats of incarceration for not complying with the assessment order from the lower court.

The Crown could have dropped the allegations but maintained his demand for the assessment order before trial. This led to very long proceedings and him being replaced at one point in the proceedings, while I was assaulted with energy assault weapons, powerful radar, from neighboring homes, public places, and at the court house aimed at inflicting deadly cancers like leukemia, lung cancer, brain cancer, testicular and prostate, etc.

2. c) Trapped, Large Expense, Long Proceedings, and Assaulted With Radar: the long criminal proceedings from Feb 21, 2011 to Jun 4, 2012 trapped me in a location, a large expense and distraction, while I was being assaulted with technology aimed at inflicting deadly cancers.

I was unable to address constitutional questions and charter violations in the Canadian Criminal Code, and recover the financial loss due to these false allegations and long proceedings because of organized crime, these ongoing powerful radar assaults.

2. d) Trapped, Financial Loss: unable to recover financial loss so I am currently trapped at my parents home, and the ongoing radar assaults.

More Examples

3. Sickness, Cancer: Some regimes are using sickness similar to     homelessness to trap or corner targeted citizens, which traps them in     their regime faced with participants in their medical system. They hide     the organized crime homicides aka energy weapon assaults, powerful     radar, followed by different cancers, and death through cancer, a     "natural cause".

4. Homelessness: The mob uses homelessness to trap or corner targeted     citizens to prevent exposure of wrong doing, human rights  violations,    .. , for coercion, or subjugation.

5: Criminal Record: A criminal record traps a person in a country, this person can be someone that is targeted by the regime.

My Personal Experience

"My personal experience in Canada is that when it comes to       repression, corruption, and organized crime, which are linked to       population subjugation through organized crime and the need for a       defenseless population the Charter of Rights and Freedoms or any       government institutions like a human rights commission are not what       protects a free society."

"On February 21, 2011 when I was arrested for publishing and sharing a     mobbing research article that involves a list of people "hitting   back"   by committing terrible crimes and Marc Lepine. The defense   lawyer that  I  was introduced to told me that following a demand that I   remain   incarcerated for a psychological evaluation by the Police  that  I had no   choice but to remain incarcerated for 30 days. Even  after  explaining   that I had a website on the issue of psychological   harassment, bullying,   mobbing, and that this was a published article   on CNN iReport. he told   me that I had written an article about Marc   Lepine and people who  write  articles about these terrible crimes tend   to do the same .... I  was  assaulted with powerful radar and radiation   technology linked to  deadly  cancers throughout the long and delayed   criminal proceedings in  my own  home from neighboring homes, public   places, and court house. The  police,  "calls of suspicious vehicles",   attempted to intervene several  times,  psychiatric intervention that   would lead to incarceration and  an  "unlawful" assessment order for   non-criminal responsibility before  trial  for my behavior of attempting   to avoid and shield myself from  these  assaults. Criminal harassment   participants tried provocation and   different forms of abuse to push  me  to anger in attempts to make me   appear aggressive, violent, and   "deranged", which I linked to this   vulnerability of psychiatric   intervention, incarceration, and an   assessment order that can find me   guilty without a trial and dismiss   several charter violations, the   freedom of expression, entering a home   without a warrant, seizing   private computers without a warrant, and make   any copies legal too. I   was acquitted on June 4, 2012 and could not   address criminal code  laws  that infringe on the freedom of expression,   the right to a  trial,  privacy, .. constitutional questions due to   organized crime,  the  ongoing powerful radar assaults from neighboring   homes."

"My functionality and personal hygiene was greatly reduced because of     these ongoing radar assaults, and this was used by criminal   harassment   participants, degradation and threats, threats of   psychiatric   intervention."

Notes: The Canadian Criminal Code is not new but still contains a law     that violates a basic human right, part of the United Nations    treaties,  The Right to a Trial. The Freedom of Expression has been    weakened,  criminal allegations, false allegations, allegations that do    not match  the criminal code definition, etc, are not protected by the    Charter, the  Freedom of Expression, and go to trial to determine the    validity of the  criminal allegations. (see MENTAL ILLNESS,    DISCRIMINATION AND  STEREOTYPES, CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATION for    more)

"It is  obvious to me that the Police and Crown prosecutor    needed non-criminal  responsibility before trial to escape the false    allegations, the charter  violations, and to make any existing copies    from the seizure of private  computers without a warrant legal too."

"The    Crown prosecutor  could have dropped the charges within the first   month  of the proceedings  when I gave him the published Mobbing   Research  article in question, he  didn't, he persisted with the demand   for  non-criminal responsibility  assessment order "needed to be   completed to  complete the file" .. ,  which turned these proceedings   into very long  ones while I continued to  be assaulted, he was replaced   once he stated  not having copies at the  Superior Court, the new  Crown  prosecutor  continued the proceedings,  didn't present the  "victim" to  testify and  didn't want to use the  evidence printouts  either, which I  used to show  my innocents etc."

"I could not continue a following civil lawsuit to recover the     financial loss due to these proceedings and to address the charter     violations, constitutional questions, the right to trial."

British Regimes Gun Control, Organized Crime vs. Tyranny (ongoing gun control debate blogs)

"I'm a human rights defender with the only English website on psychological harassment, workplace psychological harassment, mobbing, bullying, that also documents a criminal harassment and mobbing network in Canada, a British regime. These are using influence of the mind to push targeted citizens to commit suicide and to commit terrible crimes, rage shootings, when abused through organized crime and censored, isolated, pushed to homelessness, to be seen or become "visible" along with the cause, which is actually hidden by these. They use these rage shootings to advocate gun control, a well armed population deters abusive governments, different forms of dictatorships, and tyranny.

Here are 4 different Strategies to causes of rage shootings: 1. T Trapped or Corned 2. Abuse Strategy (Marie-France Hirigoyen) 3. Damage, Provocation, Rampage 4. I Influence of the Mind .. I Ideation, S Strategy, R Retaliation and Hitting Back, R Repetitive Humiliation, B Bullying, M Mobbing, .. see the Rage Shooting Factors page.

Here is a short view of this 2nd assassination attempt, this one through powerful radar assaults aimed at inflicting bone marrow damage and cell damage, leukemia, and other deadly cancers, from neighboring homes, public places, and at the court house, regime homicides through deadly cancers and tyranny.

These assaults aimed at inflicting bone marrow damage, leukemia, and deadly cancers are combined with police psychiatric intervention attempts that lead to incarceration and the "unlawful" assessment order for non-criminal responsibility before trial, which can find you guilty without a trial, dismiss any charter violations such as a search without a warrant, a seizure of personal computers without a warrant, and make this unlawful seizure legal.

The radar assaults started at my apartment, I take refuge at my parents home for several weeks, the assaults continue at their home and my parents are mostly at the country home, I put my apartment for rent on Feb 20, 2011 on Kajij, on Feb 21, 2011 I publish a mobbing research article about the possibility that someone else wrote Marc Lepines suicide note to hide the cause, the use of homelessness by the mob, a parody of his suicide note along with an explanation for this parody and other examples etc, I'm arrested with the charge of uttering threats towards women, incarcerated, I'm told by a defense lawyer that I have no choice but to remain incarcerated for a Police assessment demand, I chose to represent myself, it is a published article not threats towards women, the defense lawyer returns and claims I'll be released, in court I have to accept an assessment order for non-criminal responsibility before trial to be released, I am released, my computers were seized without a warrant, one remains but targeted by powerful radar assaults, I manage to write a restitution motion for the seized computers while I am assaulted in the shins, the shin bone marrow, by powerful radar, after deposit of this restitution motion along with the published article on CNN iReport the Police go on vacation and the Crown Prosecutor is not available until April, the Police return and want me to sign motions for arms restrictions, these motions will be presented in court, I refuse these motions, they are rescheduled, the Crown returns the computers that were seized without a warrant, does not drop the charges and maintains the demand for assessment for non-criminal responsibility before trial .. acquitted on June 4, 2012 radar assaults ongoing to this day of Jan 15, 2012 while I take refuge in a van that I have turned into a faraday cage radar assault refuge.

I was unable to continue a civil lawsuit to recover the financial loss from these false allegations and address the two constitutional question above. The article concerning Marc Lepine is about the cause of rage shootings, which I believe these regimes hide."

Rhetoric

"I remember people saying in Canada that we didn't need to be an armed population to deter abuse, dictatorships, or tyranny, we have the freedom of expression and the free press to protect us. The allegations violate the freedom of expression, the complaints were dismissed by the Quebec Human Rights Commission, Ministers, the Courts, the UK Amnesty International Secretariat, the Canadian "Free Press" never reported this obvious violation, and the UN High Commissioner from South Africa, also a British regime, dismissed the complaint too.

So the Freedom of Expression and the "Free Press" are not what protects a free society and protect us from tyranny."