LIGHT AT THE END OF THE SUPERIOR COURT TUNNEL

First off thank you for a couple of technical comments on yesterday's posting in regards to criminal offences, the Provincial Offences Act and more. To say that this has been a learning experience is an understatement. I have now read the four specific case law histories that the Justice of the Peace gave me last Friday plus one more. The J.P. had only given me exerpts hence Mr. Google was very helpful in obtaining the whole story.

It does appear that the J.P. was correct (I believe) in her assessment that I spent eight hours sitting with the wrong forms submitted to the J.P.. Thank you very much court staff and whoever is responsible for the asinine process demanding citizens sit and wait while the J.P. does her well paid due diligence and study. There is no reason why the forms (ie. Information) can not be submitted and then the citizen go home to be called back when the J.P. is ready to go.

In my research I have also come across articles explaining the history of development of the Municipal Elections Act 1996. This includes the mandatory insistence by the province that all municipalities must have Municipal Election Compliance Audit Committees (MECAC). Apparently when they were optional many or most municipalities ignored them in favour of the municipal council making all the decisions directly as to whether or not to order a Compliance Audit and whether or not to send a candidate on to the courts for possible prosecution. As can be expected this pitted elected council members against their own colleagues. Therefore unpopular councillors (with the rest of council) would and could be treated differently than "good old boys".

The case law that the J.P. gave me was very clear in that citizens on their own could not send a candidate to the courts for prosecution either with or without the consent of MECAC. This politically appointed group of local illuminaries had total control similar to the way council had previously. As I stated yesterday this flies in the face of Section 81. (17) of the MEA.

Well it turns out that every single case law that the Superior Court J.P. gave me was correct when it was written. That was the law THEN. The MEA has been changed and each of those case laws are out of date with the current MEA 1996, amended in 2009. Section 81.(17) and other changes were added in 2009 hence the old case law does not apply to these new Sections. Section 81. (17) states " Saving Provision: This section does not prevent a person from laying a charge or taking any other legal action, at any time with respect to an alleged contravention of a provision of this Act relating to election campaign finances, 2009, c.33, Sched. 21, s. 8(44)".

So back to Court this Friday with the new forms filled out plus a note on them politely advising the J.P. that her case law is inapproprite and irrelevant. That is rather disappointing as if there haven't been enough obstacles thrown in the path of this citizen merely trying to exercise his legal rights. Keep clearly in mind there are enough honest checks and balances in the system already that will stop the process if the facts and evidence are not as straighforward as I and others believe. It is these dishonest, riddled with errors (ie. corrupt) roadblocks in citizens' paths that should not be there and should not be tolerated. The system seem to be sending a message that political elites are exempt from the Rule of Law in Canada. Friday will be my fourth out of town trip to Superior Court. That is disgraceful and should shame every single person involved in our injustice systems.