Official Complaint made to Attorney General Dec. 23, 2010

[Edward Teach]

This is my official complaint made to the Ministry of The Attorney General. The subject is employees involved in the administration of justice here in Hamilton Ontario have engaged in crimes which have resulted in the obstruction of justice. I use only documented evidence which can be found in the blog post

August 13, 2010 ,, have a look at the administration of Justice here in Hamilton

This blog post is the certified copy of the transcripts for that day.

This evidence is supported by 2 witnesses present that day. The documented evidence is the court transcripts from that day.

Here is the complaint:

 

Dear Minister Bentley,

 

I would like to file my official complaint against individuals who are employed in the administration of justice here in Hamilton Ont.
Canada.

 

I understand that there are various committees and or review boards that have the mandate to investigate miscarriages of justice and or
illegal acts committed by employees of their respective agencies and
or ministries. However my complaint is unique in that it involves
more than one ministry and as well that the identified and as yet
unidentified employees of their respective ministries acted as one
with a single unified purpose to commit the crime of obstructing
justice.

The complaint is that members of two different police services, the Ontario Provincial Police , Hamilton Police Services, as well as a
member of the Crown attorney's office and a Justice of the Peace all
were a party to this crime. Said government employees acted willingly
and with malicious intent to deprive me of my right to make a full
answer and defence which is part of sections 7 and 11(d) of The
Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This act was also an intentional lack
of compliance with the Courts of Justice Act.

The evidence required to prove the crime of obstructing justice is to be found in the official court transcript included along with this
official complaint. There are two witnesses who are able to
corroborate the evidence of this crime. The date of this crime in
which the above noted employees of multiple government agencies acted
as a single unit in the commission of the crime was committed on
August 13, 2010 in the courts of justice located here in Hamilton
Ontario at 45 Main Street East.

 

The Criminal Code of Canada describes various crimes against the administration of justice in Canada. The actions and or events which
took place on August 13, 2010 fulfil all the elements of proof for
the crimes listed below and as well for the corresponding crime of
parties to an offence

 

Section 21 of the Criminal Code of Canada

Parties to offence

21.(1) Every one is a party to an offence who

(a) actually commits it;

(b) does or omits to do anything for the purpose of aiding any person to
commit it; or

(c) abets any person in committing it.

Common intention(2) Where two or more persons form an intention in common to carry out an
unlawful purpose and to assist each other therein and any one of
them, in carrying out the common purpose, commits an offence, each of
them who knew or ought to have known that the commission of the
offence would be a probable consequence of carrying out the common
purpose is a party to that offence. R.S., c. C-34, s. 21.

Section 128 of the Criminal Code of Canada

Misconduct of officers executing process

128. Every peace officer or coroner who, being entrusted with the execution of a process, wilfully
(a) misconducts himself in the execution of the process, or
(b) makes a false return to the process,
is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 117.

 

Section 139.2 of the Criminal Code of Canada

Obstructing justice

(2) Every one who wilfully attempts in any manner other than a manner described in subsection (1) to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course
of justice is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to
imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 127; R.S., c. 2(2nd Supp.), s. 3; 1972, c. 13, s. 8.

 

 

The crimes committed by the aforementioned individuals who in their official capacity are integral parts in the administration of justice
can not be ignored by your office. A refusal to investigate what is
classified as indictable offences in the Criminal Code of Canada by
employees who work in the administration of justice would seriously
call into question your ability to superintend the administration of
justice and fulfil your obligations under Ministry
of the Attorney General Act.
Failure to launch an investigation and or review of the crimes I
allege and offer irrefutable evidence would constitute an act of
negligence a failure of your fiduciary responsibility entrusted to your care
your ministry. A negligent act by the Attorney General of Ontario
would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

 

I am sure you are well aware of your legislated duties and from the information located on the Ministry of the Attorney General's website
your position is described as follows:

 

"The Attorney General is the chief law officer of the Executive Council. The responsibilities stemming from this role are unlike those of any
other Cabinet member. The role has been referred to as
"judicial-like" and as the "guardian of the public
interest".

 

Website is located here:

 

http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/about/ag/agrole.asp

Legislation found under the Ministry of the Attorney General Act.
Section 5 (c) and (h) it is stated that the Attorney General :

 

(c) shall superintend all matters connected with the administration of justice in Ontario

 

(h) shall conduct and regulate all litigation for and against the Crown or any ministry or agency of government in respect of any subject
within the authority or jurisdiction of the Legislature

 

The case law which supports your responsibility and as well duty to investigate can be found in the Supreme Court case of :

 

Di Iorio v. Warden of the Montreal Jail, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 152 In
their decisions delivered by DICKSON J. with Martland, Judson,
Ritchie and Spence JJ. Concurring the folowing defintion of what the
Attorney General of a province is responsible for. at page 205

“Both the federal and provincial governments have accepted for over a century the status of the provincial governments to administer
criminal jus­tice within their respective boundaries. The
provin­cial mandate in that field has consistently been
recognized as part and parcel of the responsibility of a provincial
government for public order within the province.

Under head 92(14) of our Constitution, as I understand it, law enforcement is primarily the responsibility of the Province and in all provinces
the Attorney General is the chief law enforcement officer of the
Crown. He has broad responsibilities for most aspects of the
Administration of Justice. Among these within the field of criminal
justice, are the court system, the police, criminal investiga­tion
and prosecutions, and corrections. The provin­cial police are
answerable only to the Attorney General as are the provincial Crown
Attorneys who conduct the great majority of criminal pros­ecutions
in Canada.

The above noted case clearly establishes that you, as the Attorney General of Ontario have the responsibility for all government
employees involved in the administration of justice and as such it is
your responsibility to hold said employees accountable for the
actions when they violate the law.

 

 

Since it is publicly stated on your website that your position as the Attorney general is described as being the "guardian of the
public interest" and in the enabling legislation of Ministry
of the Attorney General Act.
Section
5 (c) which
legislates that you have oversight over all matters connected to the
administration of justice in Ontario it is clear that you have a
responsibility to address and investigate when the administration of
justice is brought into disrepute or is obstructed. As guardian of
the public interest the responsibility to ensure that the courts are
acting in a manner that is in the best interest of the public falls
within your jurisdiction. The courts need to operate in a fair and
unbiased manner with an objective disposition being a core element.
The administration of justice must be done within the confines of the
law. This is indicative of your responsibility to superintend all
matters in the administration of justice and in conjunction with 5(h)
of the Ministry of the Attorney General Act  mandates that you
prosecute when it is discovered that a ministry and or its employees
have broken the law to obstruct justice.

 

Section (h) of Ministry of the Attorney General Act also
makes it clear that you have a legislated mandate to conduct all
litigation for and against the crown and or ministry.

 

Therefore it is your responsibility to carry out a legal contest or trial into the noted government employees and their respective institutions
involved in the administration of justice in the Hamilton Courts of
Justice that are the subject of my complaint.

 

My complaint is that an Ontario Provincial police officer more than one Hamilton Police Services Special Constable (the officer identified in
the transcript is referred to by the name of “officer Nokes”) as
well as the Crown attorney K. Malkovich and her worship Lillian Ross
did act as one group to obstruct justice at the Sopinka Court House
located at 45 Main Street East in Hamilton Ontario Canada on August
13, 2010.

 

The elements of the crime of Obstructing Justice are as follows:

 

1. Everyone: this description is absolute and means exactly what it says. The description of everyone does not omit any person acting
in any capacity in the administration of justice.

 

 

2. Who wilfully: The individuals noted in my complaint did act wilfully. They were under no court order nor were they under any
threats to commit the crime of obstructing justice as described in
the Criminal Code of Canada. It is clear that the above noted
individuals acted in direct violation of current consolidated law as
the applicable sections of law were pointed out to all individuals
involved.

 

 

3. Attempts: Not only did the three groups and or ministry employees involved in the administration of justice attempt to
obstruct pervert or defeat the course of justice they succeeded in
that my rights were abused and as well the current consolidated law
was broken even when I informed all involved in the administration of
justice to the relevant parts of a current consolidated section of
the Courts of Justice Act.

 

 

4. in any manner: any manner would include the abuse of power the aforementioned individuals and or ministries have over any individual
with matters before a court as well as the blatant lack of respect
for current consolidated laws and or practice directions. The
aforementioned individuals and or ministry employees have a sworn
duty to uphold the law in their official capacity as justice system
employees regardless of their parent ministry.

 

5. obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice: the definition of obstructing justice is: “an attempt to interfere with
the administration of the courts, the judicial system or law
enforcement officers. It may include tampering with or intimidating,
hiding evidence or interfering with an arrest. It is something a
person does to impede the administration of a court process or proper
discharge of a legal duty.”

 

 

The definition of Pervert is: to use wrongly or badly, to interpret wrongly or badly; distort

 

 

One definition of Defeat is: to frustrate; thwart.

 

The fact that your office has not started an investigation into the events of August 13, 2010 from a complaint lodged by any of the
aforementioned individuals shows an intention to act as one and to
keep this crime from ever being reported, investigated and or
punishment of the guilty parties. The fact that these events have not
been reported to you as well shows that the aforementioned
individuals have violated their respective oaths to the Constitution
of Canada.

It as well shows that the involved individuals are not carrying out their responsibilities
with the care, diligence, and respect that their position demands of
them.

I cannot make the claim that the noted individuals acted out of ignorance for the applicable law was pointed out to them and yet they
all made the collective choice to disregard it. Ignorance of the law
is not a defence or an excuse in violation thereto. Therefore their
acts can only be interpreted as having being done with malice and in
an attempt to deprive me of the rights afforded to me both under the
Courts of Justice Act as well as the Constitution of Canada in which
the Charter of Rights and Freedoms are located.

 

Since the actions of the aforementioned individuals satisfies all the elements of proof for the crime of obstructing justice found in the
Criminal Code of Canada it is required that these individuals who
acted as a single unit with a determined purpose be held accountable
and be brought before a court of competent jurisdiction to answer.

The crime of obstructing justice is exactly what has occurred on August 13, 2010 in court room 100 at 45 Main Street East in Hamilton
Ontario. The absolute lack of intention to follow current
consolidated law despite that the applicable parts of the law had
been pointed out to the aforementioned employees of the ministries
involved in the administration of justice clearly shows that there
was never any intention of creating a justice process that by law is
to be fair and impartial.

 

Minister Bentley as a lawyer it is clear you have an understanding of the necessity for the courts to respect the laws they operate under. As a
former criminal lawyer you must as well be aware of the need for a
party acting appearing before the courts to have their rights
protected by the courts of the courts. Minister Bentley as a former
teacher of law what would your former students say if you chose not
to act on my complaints about what has been happening here in the
courts of justice here in Hamilton Ontario?

As the chief law officer for all of Ontario it is your duty to investigate and involve yourself in this situation which involves all
three core ministries of the justice system acting as one to commit a
crime.

As the Chief Law officer of Ontario it is demanded that if such a serious allegation with merit is sent to your office it is your duty
to ensure the facts require further investigation or they cannot be
proved. That being said Minister I would like to point out there are
two witnesses to what I allege who all witnessed the same thing.
Minister another piece of evidence is found in the certified court
transcripts themselves where I ask Her Worship L Ross to have access
to my legal documents to, this was as well witnessed. This is
recorded on page 5 of the court transcripts and shows that at the
time I was not in possession of those transcripts, the aforementioned
documents and law books were in the possession of the O.P.P. Officer
and one special constable of Hamilton Police Services. The act of
confiscating and holding my legal documents and law books hostage
while I am to make a legal argument before Her Worship L. Ross is
unforgivable and a blatant act of obstructing justice and the my
right to a fair hearing and or trial.

The fact that Her Worship L. Ross permitted this act to take place in Her court without instructing said officers to return my legal documents
and law books is as well inexcusable. This as well shows Her Worships
willingness to be party to the crime of obstructing justice.

The fact that crown attorney K. Malkovich was present and did not advise Her Worship about the applicable law and as well has not filed a
complaint with the proper governing body as well shows her
willingness to be a party to the crime of obstructing justice as
well.

Further evidence of this crime could be found in other court transcripts where I have appeared before the courts of justice and not once did I
ever have to say that I need to have access to my law books and or
legal documents. The only time this occurs is on August 13, 2010 at
the Sopinka Court House here in Hamilton Ontario.

 

Minister Bentley it is your job as public guardian to ensure the courts operate in an ethical and in a lawful way. It is as well your duty to
investigate when it is discovered there is compelling evidence which
suggests that a court house is not acting within the rule of law.

Minister Bentley I have brought before you compelling evidence that the crime of obstructing justice has happened here in the Courts of Justice
located at 45 Main Street East here in Hamilton.

Minister Bentley this crime cannot be ignored by you and your office and permit you and your office to make the claim that your office is the
guardian of the
public interest. A failure to investigate would constitute an act of
willful negligence and would bring the justice system into disrepute
with the public

 

Minister Bentley it is clear that you have a duty to ensure and direct all whom work in the administration of justice to act within current and
consolidated laws of Canada and Ontario. This fact is supported both
by legislated law and as well as case law.

Minister Bentley this is your responsibility to investigate and prosecute for the administration of justice here in Hamilton Ontario has been
severely and heinously abused. This has brought the courts of justice
here in Hamilton Ontario into disrepute. By not investigating into
what I claim has been a clear cut case of obstructing justice engaged
in by the three groups involved in the administration of justice here
in Hamilton your ministry will be aiding and abetting the guilty
parties to escape justice.

The act of neglecting your legislated duties would in fact call into question your commitment to fair and unbiased trails in Ontario.

 

 Minister Bentley as a former Criminal Lawyer and a teacher of law and having knowledge of our legal system I am confident that
you will do the right thing and start a thorough investigation
into my claims

 

A response in writing would be appropriate

 

Thank you,

 

 

 

 

Dan Perrins