The three indictable offenses - one criminal offense of defamatory libel, contrary to Section 300 of the Criminal Code of Canada and two offenses of false accusations contrary to Section 346 (1.1) (b) of the Criminal Code were laid as private informations by David-Kevin: Lindsay, Kelowna, British Columbia and Thomas-Joseph: Kennedy, Ottawa, Ontario - after Richard Warman sent letters, faxes and emails to two Church Minsters in Toronto in the Spring of 2002 containing false accusations, with the intent to have these Church Minsters cancel their meetings. One Church Minister cancelled the meeting while the other refused to be bullied by Richard Warman's harassment tactics.
This is the second time in the fall of 2002 that Ottawa's Chief Crown Attorney, Hilary McCormack has given the public the perception that Ottawa lawyers are immune from prosecution in their 'Just Us' court system. On September 13th, 2002. Hilary McCormack withdrew an indictable offense against Ottawa lawyer, Mireille Landry after her fifth appearance on a charge of perjury contrary to Section 131 of the Criminal Code of Canada.
Mireille Landry had hired the very efficient, high profile Ottawa Law Firm of Leonard Shore and Richard Warman's equally efficient, high profile Toronto Law Firm is McCarthy Tetrault. The Court of Public Review (that's we-the-people) now have verification that indeed 'tainted justice can be bought' at 161 Elgin Street in Ottawa, Ontario. If you can afford the money to pay one of the best lawyers from Ottawa, or one of the best lawyers from Toronto, you get 'tainted justice.' It appears that the Crown Attorney's Office does not want to apply the time, energy and resources to secure justice for we-the-people when they know that they are battling Canada's top law firms. In summary, if you cannot afford to pay the best lawyer, you get the highest form of 'injustice' BUT we-the-people are still fighting for 'honourable justice' which is not yet extinct.
What happened with Richard Warman's three criminal charges was much more blatant than what happened with Mireille Landry's single criminal charge. Mireille Landry escaped fingerprinting and photographing by the Forensic Department of the Ottawa Police because I was on a high learning curve and I did not know at that time that the Criminal Code of Canada requires the accused to be fingerprinted and photographed when s/he is charged with an indictable offense. Of course, the Crown Attorney's Office did not tell me that the Criminal Code of Canada required Mireille Landry to be photographed and fingerprinted. To her credit, Mireille Landry did appear in court for the five appearances from June 20th, 2002 until September 13th, 2002, concerning her criminal charge and her strategy of engaging one of Ottawa's best lawyers worked for her.
Firstly, their 'Just Us' system messed up and Richard Warman was not served the three summons before his first court appearance scheduled for September 20th, 2002. A second series of Summons had to be prepared and he was served on October 6th, 2002 to be present for his first appearance on October 18th, 2002. Richard Warman was not present for his first court appearance as required for those accused of indictable offenses. At Court on October 18th, 2002, the Crown admitted that they had entered into discussions with Richard Warman and excused him from appearing even though the Criminal Code of Canada clearly mandates an appearance on indictable offenses, unless a court order is obtained. No court order was obtained and yet Richard Warman was excused from attending court (a) on his first appearance and (b) again on his second appearance. Does the Crown commonly excuse we-the-people from appearing on indictable offenses? NOT likely, it seems only lawyers are immune from such appearances.
By early October 2002, my ongoing research had revealed to me that the Criminal Code of Canada compels those accused of indictable offenses to be photographed and fingerprinted. Constable Rainville of the Forensic Unit of the Ottawa Police was contacted and informed that the accused, Richard Warman was not yet photographed and fingerprinted as mandated by the Criminal Code of Canada. Though Constable Rainville agreed that Richard Warman must be photographed and fingerprinted, The Ottawa Police and the Crown Attorney's Office adeptly 'passed the buck' and 'shuffled responsibilities' so that Richard Warman was never photographed and fingerprinted. I daresay that any common citizen accused of an indictable offense would routinely be photographed and fingerprinted as per the Interpretations Act - which provides for the police to have all powers necessary to do this job.
The perception of we-the-people otherwise known as 'The Court of Public Review' is that Chief Crown Attorney, Hilary McCormack has withdrawn four criminal charges against two Ottawa lawyers for oblique and ulterior motives and/or because of perceived political interference. The Chief Crown Attorney from Ottawa is sending a message to all lawyers and Crown prosecutors that they can (a) lie on affidavits (b) write false accusations (c) engage in slander, libel and extortion and (d) threaten common citizens directly and/or indirectly and the Crown's office will use its power and authority to withdraw any criminal charges.
Richard Warman's intent was to cancel our meetings and that is the essential element of extortion. The Criminal Code of Canada only mandates an intent to have a result with an action as per Richard Warman's letter dated May 5th, 2002 wherein he wrote: 'It is my sincere hope that your church will reconsider whether you wish to host such events in light of the nature of the theories that will be promoted at them.'
What reasonable justification or excuse could Richard Warman have for writing to the hosts of our meetings with the intent of cancelling our meetings? We have our rights to express our views as does he! Both David-Kevin: Lindsay and myself filed affidavits with the court completely discrediting the false accusations of Richard Warman. Richard Warman abused his right and infringed upon our rights by writing false accusations.
Chief Crown Attorney, Hilary McCormack made an abstract decision to withdraw three criminal charges notwithstanding that the Honourable Justice Lalonde issued the Mandamus Order in July 2002, declaring that we had sufficient evidence on each essential element to prove our cause.
As far as the extortion charge is concerned, the Crown's Office does not have to prove that Richard Warman's false allegations caused the hosts to cancel the meetings. The Criminal Code of Canada clearly states that only the 'intent' needs to be established and this was done by Richard Warman's comments as evidenced in the affidavits of David-Kevin: Lindsay and Thomas-Joseph: Kennedy.
S. 346 of the Criminal Code of Canada:
"Every one commits extortion who, without reasonable justification or excuse and with intent to obtain anything, by threats, accusations, menaces or violence induces or attempts to induces any person, whether or not he is the person threatened, accused, menaced or to whom violence is shown, to do anything or cause anything to be done." (my emphasis)
Is it any wonder that we-the-people, The Court of Public Review are agreeing with Paul Palango's hard-hitting examination of the RCMP? Details at this URL: www.corpa.com/Palango.html
Is it possible that the Crown Attorney's Office is 'on the take?'
David-Kevin: Lindsay www.cyberclass.net/dave and Thomas-Joseph: Kennedy www.cyberclass.net have been active all across Canada, for some time in teaching others 'what they don't know they don't know' about the problems related to taxes, usury, money, banking, politics and power, the New World Order, as well as government and court corruption and about the solutions as offered by we-the-people who can now create and spend our own 'usuryfree' time currency. Could there be any connection with their work and the Chief Crown Attorney's decision to withdraw these indictable charges thereby keeping additional evidence out of their 'Just Us' Court system?
It is intriguing indeed that the police tell we-the-people to obey the law, the various levels of government tell we-the-people to obey the law and yet the Crown Attorney's office (a department of the government) leaves the perception that they can break the law and seek to cover their offenses with word magic that denies we-the-people justice in the courts while generally baffling we-the-people because we are ignorant of the finer details of the law.
If any readers can offer suggestions of what recourse myself, Thomas-Joseph: Kennedy and David-Kevin: Lindsay have against the Crown Attorney's office in their 'Just Us' system. Is it possible to pursue 'Contempt of Court' charges against the Hilary McCormack, Ottawa's Chief Crown Attorney?
Thomas-Joseph: Kennedy otherwise known as 'Tommy-Usury: Free'
Tel: 1.613.746.5387 Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
David-Kevin: Lindsay otherwise known as 'The Unlicensed Man'
Tel: 1.780.953.1434 Fax: 1.250.492.0549
Press Release dated November 18th, 2002: www.cyberclass.net/pressreleasenov182002.htm
Hilary McCormack's Letter dated November 8th, 2002: www.cyberclass.net/hilarynov82002.htm
Thomas-Joseph: Kennedy's Letter to Hilary McCormack dated November 18th, 2002:
Back to the American Continent Menu
Back to News Archive Menu
Notice: TGS HiddenMysteries and/or the donor of this material may or may not agree with all the data or conclusions of this data. It is presented here 'as is' for your benefit and research. Material for these pages are sent from around the world. If by chance there is a copyrighted article posted which the author does not want read, email the webmaster and it will be removed. If proper credit for authorship is not noted please email the webmaster for corrections to be posted.