JMJ
May 16,2011
I just reread the faxed letter from Crown Prosecutor Stahl. This is the second of her letters. The first one stated that I can decide between a six month jail sentence and no access to the internet if I plead not guilty, or I can decide between a three month jail sentence if I plead guilty. Of course once I pled guilty they could spend ten years destroying me through the Human Rights mill. I read that letter in a lawyer’s office on April 26 . My husband also read it . Two days later April 28 I went to court and the RCMP stated that they would deal with the case summarily ( no jail considered) before I entered any plea. What happened in two days? Obviously the jail and no access to the internet was a threat to stop me from writing while the election was pending in four days. So why is a crown prosecutor allowed to do such things?
Then Stahl phones me at school and asks me to consider a court date which she prefers rather than one set by Judge Daunt. The court is only to hear my application for a change of venue. I agreed to a date of Sept.08 at her request. Then on Thursday we get a fax in which she states that I must go to court on June 30 to consent to the adjournment. Why should I go to court to help her get her adjournment? I do not object to the adjournment except that the whole thing should be dismissed rather than any court at all. But why am I expected to go to court on behalf of the Crown Prosecutor? I am really rather tired of spending time and money to facilitate my own prosecutrion.
But that’s not all. She finishes by stating: “ This is also to confirm that the Crown will consider your application prior to the change of venue court application, however, this is not to be taken to mean that we will consent to your application.”
This woman just said that I am supposed to go to court on her behalf so she can have a court date that suits her schedule. Then she finishes by stating that the Crown has no intention of allowing the court to be held before it makes a decision but intends to refuse a change of venue before any court happens. As far as she is concerned there is no purpose for the court but I am supposed to go to court and get a court date set that she wants. This woman threatens people with totalitarian extremes on Ministry of Justice and Attorney General , Public Prosecutions Division letterhead. The RCMP who is supposed to follow the direction of the Prosecutor, immediately state in one word that no such intentions are to be considered. What is this woman doing? And more importantly, why is she not stopped?
You may wish to ask the Premier, MLA’s, and MP’s who are happy to be at work again, to stop this absurd charade of justice.
Southend Court of Queen’s Bench
The Court is the Southend Youth Centre. It is a new multimillion dollar edifice that has had iron gratings put on the windows. These gratings are now vandalised. There is an opaque mess on one window near the front where the court party presides that has been there for at least a year. It looks like vomit or a thrown milk shake. On the major windows sheets of torn newsprint cover them. This newsprint has grafitti that is dated 2010. There is no picture of the Queen or Canadian flag anywhere. In the hallway is a newsprint project in which one reads that it is a myth that the AIDS virus can go through condoms. This so called “ myth” is a proven medical fact that has been known for at least thirty years. Youth and visitors mill about the hallways. If the court party does not arrive from LaRonge due to poor flying conditions the court goes ahead via telephone.
It is assumed that all accused will plead guilty. If they plead not guilty a court date will be set. There will be no time for reasoned debate, for a logical, systematic presentation of your case, for calling in witnesses, for cross examination, for refuting the crown’s arguments. You will not get your day in court but will perhaps get ten minutes if it is really serious. Few lawyers other than legal aid lawyers from La Ronge make a presentation. There are easier ways to make money than travelling from ten to six hours one way. The last two hours from La Ronge to Southend may be life threatening because you have no idea how to travel on such roads and what surprises you will meet such a km 140 with no guard rails, semi trailers in bulk, unexpected twists and turns, rocks and boulders on the road. There is no hotel, no assured restaurant, no private office. Legal aid lawyers who fly with the judge will encourage the accused to plead guilty. If you refuse they will not fight for you but will encourage you to cut your losses. You will not be assumed innocent until proven guilty. The Crown rarely puts any effort into proving an accused guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. It depends on attrition, legal aid bullying and the ignorance of the accused to have you processed quickly. Threatening letters on Ministry of Justice letter head paper may be tried.
The Crown’s Onus of Proof
I am being accused of not following a court order on a civil matter. The then crown prosecutor who is the antagonist in the civil case made this a criminal charge. He got two wet-behind - the- ears mounties to arrest me in Oct. 2010. Eight months later I got to hear what the charge is:I did not erase Delete’s name on my blog in 30 days.
The Crown must prove that Madame Rothery really did not state 60 days as stated in her judgment but 30 days as Delete has invented.
The Crown must prove that I did not have the right to make application to the Appeals’ Court within 30 days. The Crown must proof that the Crown’s Appeals’ Court which is a higher court had no right to accept my application and no right to give me the opportunity to have a hearing. The Crown must prove that I had no right to stand up at the Appeal’s Court and state that I am appealing this to the Supreme Court. In short the Crown must prove that the Southend RCMP , their then crown prosecutor and Stahl who is working on his behalf is a higher authority than the Prince Albert Court of Queen’s Bench, the Saskatchewan Appeal’s Court and is replacing the Supreme Court of Canada. If this sounds torturous, absurd and confusing you understand it perfectly.
The Crown must prove that not only Madame Rathery not state what she stated but that I had no valid reason not to erase Delete’s name immediately. The Crown must prove that not being able to attend a court due to finances, lack of transportation ( 1000 km round trip, no brakes ) and that having no representation is no excuse. The Crown must prove that people who have had no access or input in a court decision must follow a court decision and not appeal it.
The Crown must prove that when the mounties came and accused me of not having erased Delete’s name it was perfectly acceptable to refuse to look at the evidence that it was erased. The Crown must prove that stating that I must keep the peace by not riding to and from school was not an attack on my right to participate in a Catholic independent school and was not part of the real reasons for the arrest.
The Crown must prove that it is perfectly acceptable and not a conflict of interest for a Crown Prosecutor to push a criminal charge on someone with whom he has a civil issue.
All this is going to take more than 10 minutes. The Crown has two reasonable choices: drop the charges, apologise for implying that I am a criminal, or give me a change of venue and have another court drop the charges. Gay
