video!!!

Charles Jackie

:Seperator bar Lower

E-mail-Courriel: oldmaison@yahoo.com
News - Stories and Rants

Sunday 20 September 2015

A observer view on the motion hearings on Blogger Charles LeBlanc!!!!

Picture 522



This is the idiot who attack me on the streets but the Cops changed the story and the Judge sided with the Fredericton Police!!!! SCARY TIMES IN THE CAPITAL!!!!! You see this idiot? Run or ignore him!!!!



andrewspencer

andrewspencerfredericton


September 18th 2015

Hearing

New Brunswick judges hear nothing at “hearings”

Charles’ hearing on 18th September, 2015, should have been about his formal application for state funded counsel, and his motion to order production of the transcripts/audio recordings of the hearings and evidence so far. The day before the hearing Charles was served a 252 page Brief, from a lawyer in the NB Attorney General’s office (Maya Hamou), obviously filed to argue against the application. Hamou also appeared at the hearing, to argue against Charles’ application.

Ker-Ching! The cost of preparing that document, making multiple copies, and counsel appearing could have paid for many hours of legal aid representation for Charles; instead the money was spent stopping him from exercising his right to counsel.







When the judge entered the courtroom Ms. Hamou introduced herself as representing the Minister of Justice. Her documents came from the Attorney General’s office and said she was “counsel and agent” for the respondent – which is the Attorney General. The Minister of Justice is not involved. I guess the Attorney General wants to pretend this is not his responsibility, and “patsy” Stephen Horsman is there to hide behind.

The judge then read a summary of the case so far, in a very stern voice. He confirmed he would not hear the Application for state funded counsel, but Mr. LeBlanc could pursue that if the matter goes to trial, He indicated he might not be the trial judge. He also refused to hear the motion for production of the transcripts, or audios of the hearings so far. This means Charles has no access to relevant evidence, on the public court record, which he is entitled to. The judge gave no reason for simply refusing to hear those matters.

Charles also filed further submissions requesting new information to be taken into account, on his previous motions, and requesting an adjournment until he had the transcripts, because he needed the evidence to support his motions. The judge told him he was not going to pay any attention to those materials.

Another important issue Charles raised was being denied the opportunity to re-examine himself under oath, after the Crown cross-examined him on his affidavits. The judge simply refused him that right, no reason given, and kept saying: if Charles had not filed so many motions the trial would have been over by now! (Yes, and Charles would, without a doubt, have been convicted for something he didn’t do.)

Examination of witnesses is a principle of fundamental justice, as is the defence’s right to have the last word. During this most recent hearing, after Charles had cross examined the Crown witnesses, the judge asked the Crown if it wanted to re-examine – something he did not do for Charles at previous hearings. The Blogger is being treated very differently than law requires. The judge’s only reason for denying Charles his lawful rights seemed to be a drive to hurry things to trial.

The Crown called its FPF witnesses: Cst. John Lally, administrator Shawn Quartermain and S/Sgt. Matt Myers. Crown’s direct examination, of course, only asked questions that supported the Crown. When Charles cross-examined them Crown counsel objected to almost every question, saying, “That’s for trial...” The judge supported the Crown and constantly interrupted, to explain why Charles could not ask those questions. This, of course, took our ADHD blogger off course and made him question every one of his own questions, which seemed to be the desired outcome.

Some interesting facts did come out during the examinations though. One was how many senior police officers were involved, in pushing this very trivial, petty matter to a very costly charge and prosecution. After telling the Court he was “second in command of the Major Crime Unit”, Matt Myers said this complaint went to a Fredericton Police Executive Board for approval. The Executive included the Chief of FPF Leanne Fitch, the Deputy Chief and Cpl. Linda Johnson. Corporal Linda Johns was the “FPF Quality Reader” of complaints, who recommended the matter be investigated by the Miramichi police, at huge public expense.

Myers also stated he pays no regard to public costs of such investigations and is not required to, adding the police exercise their discretion, case by case, on whether matters should proceed. Charles always seems to be the one they exercise their discretion to persecute and prosecute.

At least Charles established, on the court record, Andrew Spencer decided to confront him that day and the police all agreed. They also agreed the confrontation was about an interview Charles made, with a father and son. All of the cops swore, under oath, at no time did any of them view it or obtain a copy, so see if Spencer had any reason to confront Charles. At the last three hearings Charles confirmed he wanted to play the video, to prove Spencer lied about its content. He was refused. The court clearly does not want to review any evidence that might prove this charge is a fabrication, with no evidence to support it. The court’s have a duty to resolve matters in the most cost effective, timely and just manner – which is not happening here.

This entire proceeding continues to be a vile miscarriage of justice. It is an abuse of process, waste of public money and is an insult to the Canadian Constitution. This latest fiasco, of a Kangaroo court non-hearing, is confirmation that Charles and his truth-telling blog are so important that tens of thousands of public dollars are being spent to shut him up – and stop his civil actions against the City of Fredericton from proceeding.

New Brunswick Justice is being seen for the fraud it is. As I was told recently: the only place to find justice in our Fredericton courthouse is the carved word over the entrance.

16 comments :

  1. I watched one of Charle's videos and he stated that he punched the guy for getting in his face.
    Seems simple enough.....guilty of summary assault.

    ReplyDelete
  2. As I told MANY people on many occasions....Number 1 - This drunken idiot came after me.

    2 - Thank God that I only hit it once.

    I need a lawyer to explain to the Court in a language they understand....cops lying and prosecution doing the same. Judge will not allow me to show video to prove he's lying....it was a China style of justice in there......

    ReplyDelete
  3. If you are going to trial you will be able to show the video as part of your defense...but i bet you will not show the video where you, in your comment above, admit to punching the guy..it amazes me with you how you say the cops and everyone else is lying to get and trumped up this charge to get you, but you say thank god I only hit him once everyone else is lying..but yourself...you continue to lie about many things in your blogs.....

    ReplyDelete
  4. 6:58 - the law is not that simple, as I think you already know. The Crown must prove the elements of the defence and by suppressing evidence, with the court, they clearly don't have enough Self defence is the issue here, as is the very petty nature of the matter. It should not even be before the courts. Sabotaging an accused person's evidence and defence is unacceptable. 8:07 is right; this is nothing less then evil.

    ReplyDelete
  5. What an absolute miscarriage of justice. There are no other words to explain it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I know Charles well enough to know he doesn't lie. He openly admitted that he hit Spencer, but only after Spencer verbally assaulted him and struck out at Charles' head. You are totally ignorant of the facts. If the trial is anything like the hearings Charles won't be allowed to show any evidence at all. I think your comments are defamatory libel - you are writing accusations about Charles you know are not true.

    ReplyDelete
  7. They will push you to a appeal,lower courts are just screwing with you period! let yourself be Convicted or go higher,they dont care making 200.000$ plus a year to sit on their asses to rob the public of some semblance of Justice! There are many reasons Judges are called black robed thugs,pick one! better to appeal,just have to present your argument thats all,very little to say!

    ReplyDelete
  8. One Police Force should not be investigating another. They are a Brotherhood and there is no Justice there.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Why are you wasting all this time with these motions? Just go to trial, the crown and police are losing more than they are winning at trial...

    ReplyDelete
  10. Oh I know how the law is have been up against it many times......but my understanding following these blogs is that your first three or four journeys to court have been about disclosure and some other issues....the trial is completely different...any evidence that you say you have can now be introduced....you say you have videos..then
    they can be introduced on your behalf if they are relevant to the case...and if the argument is self defense you should stick to that argument..you have wasted way too much time courts time and energy on motions instead of arguing the facts.....and no its not evil thats you guys always against the justice system....if a person lays a complaint they are entitled to have that investigated...it obviously was and again Charles admits to punching the guy words from the horses mouth..so how can you deny an assault took place

    ReplyDelete
  11. I agree with 8:07 & 9:20

    The question should be "why are top dogs after YOU?"

    ReplyDelete
  12. Hey 9:10 I can see you can type good English sentence but are you aware that when someone takes a swing at you one can

    option 1 RUN

    option 2 take more punches

    option 3 Swing yourself.

    Which of the option would you take?

    Do you understand that Charles took option # 3 and instead of charging the aggressor someone wants to harass Charles and it is very obvious to everyone except the group who want to punish Charles.

    Can you not read harassment in all this against Charles?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Great comment at 13:58. This matter going to trial is a statement from the Crown, courts and police that it is okay for a drunk/high, abusive homeless person can harass you on the street, throw a punch at you and be protected when you defend yourself against him. Keep going Charles, the system is the problem - and idiots who say you are lying and guilty when they do not understand the law or facts.

    ReplyDelete
  14. 14.47.... I assume that you are witness for the defense seeing you can say the homeless person was high drunk an abusive ..should be good to see your testimony under oath as you know so much......from what i have read their were no witnesses to what happened...am sure the crown will be shocked to hear your evidence...

    ReplyDelete
  15. hey 1353....next time a cop takes a swing at you..remember what you said

    ReplyDelete
  16. 19:05 - I am tired of idiots like you picking on people who actually pay attention to what is being written on the blog. There was an independent witness. Charles wrote up and posted what happened on the day and made it very clear Spencer was high or intoxicated. Given the choice of whose word to take? I would agree with Charles and his witness, over and above the hobo Spencer - who I have witnessed being abusive and harassing people (including me) while "impaired". You talk out of your arse!

    ReplyDelete