justicedonedirtcheap@gmail.com



 




Representations of the Lady of Justice in the Western tradition occur in many places and at many times. She sometimes wears a blindfold, more so in Europe, but more often she appears without one. She usually carries a sword and scales. Almost always draped in flowing robes, mature but not old, no longer commonly known as Themis, she symbolizes the fair and equal administration of the law, without corruption, avarice, prejudice, or favor.


CLICK ON HEREIN BELOW PROVIDED: LAW SCHOOL BOOK IMAGES, SIMPLY SELECT THE SUBJECT OF YOUR INTEREST AND ENTER OUR HUMBLE LAW LIBRARY; THIS IS A CHRONOLOGICAL ARRANGEMENT OF OUR MERITORIOUSLY RESEARCHED TORT LAW (TO REDRESS A WRONG DONE) THEN LISTED A DETAILED ACCOUNT OF THE PRACTICAL EXPERIENCES OF OUR CONTRIBUTING SELF REPRESENTED LITIGANT'S, CONCERNING:
the study, theory and practice of litigation
as it relates to The Court of Queen's Bench of New Brunswick, Provincial Court and The Court of Appeal of New Brunswick; Filing, and Procedure, in general.















       Please find - here below - this Link: My Brief Story - Introduction: Welcome, this is a 'Justice' Blog intended to benefit all;   'Self Represented Litigants'.


=================================================================================================

2013 New Year's Resolution:
To however, cause the Judiciary of New Brunswick to uphold the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Reason being, that, the Charter is applicable in New Brunswick, just as all provinces are bound by the Constitution.
Despite the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was adopted in 1982, it was not until 1985, that, the main provisions regarding equality rights (section 15) came into effect. The delay was meant to give the federal and provincial governments an opportunity to review per-existing statutes and strike potentially unconstitutional inequalities.

=================================================================================================

NOTICE: above provided image is a link to the 'RANT' area of contributing Self Represented Litigants
========================================
=========================================================


Welcome, this is a 'Justice' Blog intended to benefit all;
'Self Represented Litigants'. follow this link to New Brunswick Legal Procedure 101


NOTICE: above provided image is a link to the 'Public Forum regarding our legal and judicial system


NOTICE: above provided image is a link to the 'RANT' area of contributing Self Represented Litigants

Back to Justice Done Dirt Cheap Front Page

Friday, January 25, 2013

How can Court staff or Court client services assist me with filing my Originating Process and or respond to being served as a Defendant?





How Court Client Services Staff can and cannot assist with your Court File.

The Court, including the judge, the clerk, and all court staff, must remain impartial. This means that they cannot take sides in any matter coming before the court. They will give the same types of information to persons on both sides of a case, but they cannot provide legal advice. Information you provide to court staff is not confidential. Read below to find out what the court can and cannot provide to you.

What Court Staff CAN DO

Court Staff can provide you with a telephone number of local lawyer referral services.

Court Staff  can explain and answer questions about how the court works.

Court Staff can provide you general information about court rules, procedures and practices.

Court Staff can provide you information from your case file, including information as to when your next court hearing is.

Court Staff can provide a copy of the small claims manual and court forms that are available and instructions on how to complete them.
 
Court Staff can review your papers for completeness by checking for signatures, notarization, correct county name, and correct case number.

 

 

 

How To Ask Questions of Court Client Services Staff And Receive Answers

Court Staff  cannot provide legal advice or legal interpretations. Only a lawyer can give you legal advice. Staff can answer questions that call for factual information—these are generally questions that start with “who,” “what,” “when,” “where,” or “how.” They cannot answer questions that call for an opinion about what you should do—these are generally questions that start with “should,” or “whether.” For example, court staff can explain court rules and procedure, but they cannot suggest which of several available procedures you should follow.


Court Staff cannot advise you whether or not you should bring your case to court or give you an opinion about what will happen if you bring your case to court.

Court Staff cannot advise you what to say in court.

Court Staff cannot let you talk to the judge outside court. We also cannot talk to the judge for you about your case.

Court Staff cannot fill out a form for you or tell you what words to use in your court papers.

Court Staff cannot sign an order or change an order signed by the judge. We cannot explain the meaning of a court order to you.

Court Staff  cannot provide any guidance or interpretation of the Parenting Time Guidelines for you.

GLOSSERY OF LEGAL TERMS EXPLAINED:







Glossary of Legal Terms

This glossary is provided to help SELF REPRESENTED LITIGANTS, teachers, and students gain a working knowledge of some of the terms used on this website; it is not intended to be a comprehensive legal dictionary. Online Legal Dictionaries may provide a more comprehensive listing of legal terms. Findlaw Legal Dictionary (http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com/).
Adversary: The opponent in a case or the other party to a case.
Affirm: To support the decision or actions of a lower court.
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR): Ways to settle a case without going to court; sometimes ADR is court ordered. Mediation and arbitration are examples of alternative dispute resolution.
Appeal: A review, initiated by one of the parties to a case, by an appellate court of what happened in a trial court or administrative agency to determine if errors occurred and if the errors are significant enough to require some form of relief to the party that raised the error or errors.
Appellate Court: A court that hears appeals from a lower court (trial court) of record.
Appellant: The party appealing a decision. This is the party who lost in the trial court and wants the appellate court to reverse or modify the judgment of the trial court.
Appellant's Brief: A written document explaining the legal errors the appellant believes were made during the trial that justify overturning the decision of the trial court.
Appellate Rules: Rules, or official instructions, developed by the Indiana Supreme Court that tell how the appellate process must work. These include timelines for filing appeals.
Appellee: The party who won in the trial court. This party generally wants the Court of Appeals to agree with the decision of the trial court.
Appellee's Brief: A written document responding to the appeal of an appellant, seeking affirmance or confirmation of the lower court's decision.
Arbitration: A way to settle a dispute, instead of going to trial, in which an impartial party called an "arbitrator" hears the arguments and makes a sometimes binding decision for the parties.
Arrest: The restraint and seizure of a person by a police officer in connection with a crime, in which the person is not free to leave.
Attorney/Lawyer: A person who has been trained and licensed to represent others in legal matters.
Bail: A sum of money deposited with the court by a defendant who is awaiting trial to guarantee his or her appearance in court after being released from jail.
Bailiff: A court official who keeps order in the courtroom and assist the jury.
Bench Trial: A trial without a jury in which the judge makes the final decision about the case.
Binding: To be required legally. Court decisions are binding or require submission to a higher authority.
Brief: A written presentation of arguments. The Appellant argues why the decision by the trial court was made in error; the Appellee argues why the trial court's decision was correct.
Certificate of Service: A statement saying how and when you served a party a document. The rules require that you send a copy of any document or brief that you file with the court to each opposing party. This is sometimes called a Proof of Service. Both terms mean the same thing.
Circuits: Designated regions within Indiana where the Indiana Constitution says certain courts are to be established.
Citation: A reference to legal authority such as cases that have already been decided by a Court, statutes, or the state or federal constitution. This can also be a reference to the appendix or the transcript in the case.
Civil Case/Civil Suit: A lawsuit to enforce a right or to gain repayment for a wrong (other than a criminal offense) done to a person or party by another person or party. These cases usually involve money damages or equitable relief (e.g., injunction or specific performance).
Clerk: Court official who keeps court records, official files, and administers the oath to jurors and witnesses.
Clerk's Record: The papers and motions filed in the trial court as well as orders issued by the judge.
Complaint: A document filed to begin a civil case.
Compensatory Damages: Damages awarded to compensate an injured person for the actual (proven) injury or loss. Punitive damages are awarded in addition to actual damages when the intent is to punish the guilty or liable party for an action.
Concurrent Jurisdiction: When two or more courts share the authority to hear a certain kind of case. Example: Circuit and Superior courts have concurrent jurisdiction to hear small claims cases.
Concurring Opinion: A written opinion of an appellate court in which the writing judge agrees with the decision reached by the majority of the judges, but uses different legal reasoning to reach that decision, and writes a separate opinion describing that reasoning.
Contract: A legally enforceable agreement between two parties.
Court of Appeals: The intermediate-level appellate court in Indiana. The Court of Appeals hears appeals of cases that have taken place in the trial court or administrative agencies.
Criminal Case: A case brought by the government against a person accused of violating Indiana's criminal laws.
Damages: Money that must be paid by the loser in a civil case to the winner to compensate him or her for the harm the loser caused.
Defendant: In a criminal case, the person who is charged with a crime; in a civil case, the person against whom damages are sought.
Defense Attorney: The lawyer who defends the defendant or the accused person.
Deliberation: The process where the jury determines in private whether a defendant is guilty or not guilty, or liable or not liable after the evidence has been given and the witnesses have been questioned.
Denial of Transfer: The court's refusal to grant a request for a Motion or Petition to Transfer or take a case from a lower court.
De novo: To begin anew; for example, to have a new trial.
Detain: To keep in custody or temporary confinement, such as in jail.
Direct Appeal: A case that, if appealed, moves directly from the trial court to the supreme court; it bypasses intermediate appellate courts. (Effective January 1, 2001, the court must take death penalty cases on direct appeal, and they have chosen to allow direct appeals if the sentence was life without parole.)
Discretionary Jurisdiction: When a court is not required to hear a case but may if it chooses.
Dissenting Opinion: A written opinion of an appellate court in which the writing judge disagrees with the decision reached by the majority of the judges, and writes a separate opinion describing the reasoning that led to disagreement.
Docket: List of documents in a case that have been filed with the Clerk's office and the date on which they were filed.
Double Jeopardy: The name for putting a criminal on trial again after he or she has been found not guilty once. This is unconstitutional. (Indiana Constitution article 1, section 14; U.S. Constitution, Fifth Amendment).
Evidence: Legally relevant pieces of proof presented at the trial through witnesses, documents, physical objects, etc., for the purpose of convincing the court or jury.
Expedited Appeals: The court will expedite (speed up) cases involving issues of child custody, support, visitation, adoption, paternity, determination that a child is in need of services, termination of parental rights, and all other appeals entitled to priority by rule or statute.
Felony: A major crime usually punishable by a fine and/or a prison sentence. In Indiana, examples of felonies are assault with a deadly weapon, burglary, murder, and possession of a controlled substance with intent to sell.
File-stamped: A document that has the official stamp of a clerk's office indicating the date on which a document was accepted for filing.
Final Judgment: Final decision by the trial court. This judgment resolves all of the issues that were presented in the trial court or administrative agency.
Grand Jury: A group of citizens who decide whether or not there is enough evidence to charge a suspect with a crime.
Guilty: A person can enter a plea of "guilty" by admitting in court that he or she committed the offense for which he/she is charged. The jury can render a verdict of "guilty" if it finds beyond a reasonable doubt, based on the evidence, that the defendant committed the offense.
Hung Jury: A jury unable to reach a verdict because not all the jurors could agree.
Incarceration: Imprisonment; being locked up in a jail, prison, or penitentiary.
Indigent: Someone who is unable to afford to pay the fees and costs related to a case. A party must make a motion in the trial court or administrative agency asking to be declared indigent. Any questions about this motion should be directed to the trial court or administrative agency. (See also Pauper Status)
Interlocutory Appeal: An appeal that occurs during the course of a trial, before the trial court reaches a decision. During the interlocutory appeal, the trial is placed on hold.
Jail: A building designated by law, or regularly used, for the confinement of persons held in lawful custody.
Judgment: A final appealable order in a civil or criminal case.
Jurisdiction: The authority or power the court has to act or hear a case and make a decision.
Jury: A group of citizens, called jurors, randomly selected and chosen by law to hear a case and render a verdict based on the facts presented to them. Sometimes referred to as a "petit jury."
Jury Trial: Often referred to as "trial by jury," this is a trial in which a jury hears the facts of a case and renders a verdict based on the facts presented to them.
Note: The U.S. and Indiana Constitutions are not identical on this issue. The Indiana Constitution (Article 1 section 19) provides for a trial by jury in all criminal cases. Under the U.S. Constitution, however, "The right to a jury trial is established...but it is not an absolute right. The Supreme Court has stated that petty crimes (as those carrying a sentence of up to 6 months) do not require trial by jury. The right to a jury trial in a criminal case may be waived by the ``express and intelligent consent'' of the defendant...There is no right to a jury trial in equity cases. When a civil case involves both legal and equitable issues or procedure, either party may demand a jury trial (and failure to do so is taken as a waiver), but the judge may find that there is no right to jury trial because of equitable issues or claims." [http://www.findlaw.com// (choose the legal dictionary)]
Justice(s): The term used for judges of the Supreme Court.
Lawyer: see Attorney.
Liable/Liability: A legal responsibility, obligation, or debt.
Libel: Harmful remarks, made in writing, that might injure a person's reputation (could also be in a picture, sign, etc.). Slander refers to the same type of remarks that are made verbally. In both cases, the remarks must be false and the person who makes the oral or written remarks must know those remarks are untrue.
Litigants: Parties to a case; the persons involved in a lawsuit.
Litigation: To contest in a legal proceeding; a case is tried in court.
Lower court: The county or city court where a case starts. The proper name for this is the"trial court."
Majority opinion: An opinion that is signed by more than half of the judges considering a case. Sometimes it is called the "main opinion."
Mandamus: A command. A party may file a Petition for Writ of Mandamus asking the Indiana Supreme Court to order a judge or trial court to do something.
Mandatory Jurisdiction: When a court MUST hear a case brought before it on appeal.
Mediation: A way to settle a dispute instead of going to trial in which an impartial party called a mediator helps the parties reach a compromise or common ground.
Medical malpractice: A case involving a doctor's alleged failure to provide care at an acceptable level.
Memorandum Decision: The written decision of the court including the reasons for the decision and the facts on which the decision was based. This type of decision is binding on the parties involved; however, it cannot be cited as authority in other cases.
Misdemeanor: In Indiana, a minor offense punishable by a jail term of not more than one year and/or a fine of no more than $5,000.
Motion: The procedure by which a party asks the appellate court to do something or to permit one of the parties to do something. For example, a party may ask the court for an extension of time to prepare a brief.
Movant: The party asking the court for something. This is usually done in the form of a motion to the Court.
Not Liable: Where a person is not responsible or legally obligated.
Notice of Appeal: A document filed in the trial court that lets the court know that you intend to appeal the decision the court made. This document also asks the trial court to prepare the clerk's record and the transcript, if necessary.
Opinion: A court's written discussion of the legal issues raised by a court case and the court's decision about those issues. Not all opinions, however, are published. Non-published opinions may be requested by contacting the Clerk's Office at (317) 232-1930. Published opinions for recent Indiana Court of Appeals and Supreme Court cases can be found online at http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/. There are different types of opinions issued by the court, see also concurring, dissenting and majority opinion.
Oral argument: The presentation of information before an appellate court that states a party's position and the reasoning behind it. Either the appellants or the appellees may request to make oral arguments before the court. The court does not have to agree to hear oral arguments; they may feel that the written record is sufficient. On the other hand, they may request that the representatives of each party present oral arguments.
Order: A written or oral decision by a court or administrative agency that resolves a matter and/or directs the parties to do something.
Ordinances: Laws passed by the legislative body of a municipal (city) corporation; ie., city laws.
Party: One side in a lawsuit.
Pauper Status: A party without the financial resources to pay all of the court fees and costs, and to whom the court grants permission to proceed without paying all the fees and costs. See also Indigent.
Peremptory Challenge: A request by an attorney for either side to disqualify a juror; the attorney does not have to give a reason for his request. The number of peremptory challenges varies depending on the kind of case. Attorneys are also allowed to request that a juror be dismissed for cause. In a challenge for cause the attorney argues that the juror would not be able carry out his/her duties for some reason specified by the attorney.
Petition: A formal written request made to a court.
Petition for a Writ of Certiorari: A document filed to request that the United States Supreme Court review a decision made by a state supreme court or a U.S. Court of Appeals.
Petition for Rehearing: A document filed that points out errors in an appellate court opinion and requests that the same court that issued the opinion reconsider its decision.
Petition to Transfer: A document file to request that the court accept jurisdiction over a case.
Petit Jury: see jury
Plaintiff: The party who starts a lawsuit, or in criminal cases, the prosecutor acting on behalf of the State of Indiana.
Plea: Defendant's response to a criminal charge (for example: "guilty" or "not guilty").
Plea Bargaining: Negotiations between a defense attorney and a prosecutor in which a guilty plea is exchanged for either a lesser charge or a lesser sentence.
Post-Conviction Relief: The procedure where a defendant in a criminal case can argue that the conviction or sentence was made in violation of the Constitution, that the court which sentenced him was without the authority to do so, or that the sentence imposed exceeds the maximum sentence in the statute, among other things. A Petition for Post-Conviction Relief is filed in the trial court and the final judgment can be appealed to the appropriate appellate court.
Precedent: A previously decided case that is recognized as binding on future cases that have similar facts and/or legal issues.
Probate Court: A trial court that handles cases involving the administration of the estates of people who have passed away, guardianships, and mental health hearings.
Pro se: A Latin term to describe a person, not represented by an attorney, who is representing himself or herself in a case.
Prosecution: In criminal cases, it is the state (government) that initiates the case; they are referred to as the prosecution. In a civil case the person who initiates the case is called the plaintiff.
Prosecutor: The public official elected in each county to conduct criminal prosecutions on behalf of the state or people.
Public Defender: An attorney appointed by and paid by the government to represent people accused of crimes who cannot afford to hire their own lawyers.
Punitive damages: Punitive damages are awarded in addition to actual damages when the intent is to punish the guilty or liable party for an action. They are generally awarded when it has been determined that the defendant acted with recklessness, malice, or deceit.
Question of Fact: A question that depends on an examination of factual matters. Such questions are usually decided by a jury, and are generally NOT considered on appeal.
Question of Law: A question that depends on an examination of law rather than fact. Such questions are decided by a judge rather than by a jury, and are often examined on appeal.
Remand: To return a case from an appellate court back to the lower court that made the first decision in order to correct an error or modify the decision.
Remit: The court's reduction of the damages awarded in a jury trial.
Reply Brief: In an appeal, a second brief filed by the appellant in response to the legal arguments made in the brief of the appellee.
Relator: The party in whose behalf writs are filed, issued, or ordered.
Reverse: To set aside or cancel a judgment or decision by a making a contrary decision.
Show Cause Order: An order from the Court requiring a party to explain why a certain thing should or should not be permitted. An example would be if a Notice of Appeal was not timely filed, the Court may issue a show cause order asking the Appellant to show why the case should not be dismissed for failure to file a timely Notice of Appeal.
Slander: Harmful remarks that might injure a person's reputation that are made verbally. Libel refers to similar remarks that are made in writing, pictures, etc. In both cases, the remarks must be false and the person who makes the oral or written remarks must know those remarks are untrue.
Stare Decisis: Latin for "let the decision stand." This is the doctrine under which courts follow previous court decisions or precedents on questions of law in order to insure certainty, consistency, and stability in the way the law is applied.
Statute of Limitations: a legally established time limit (based on the date of the claim for civil cases or the crime for criminal cases) for entering a suit (civil) or beginning a prosecution (criminal). A reasonable time limit is established so that the defendant may still be able to find witnesses, evidence, etc. pertinent to the case.
Stay: A court order which temporarily suspends court proceedings or the effect of a judgment. Initiating an appeal does not stay enforcement of a trial court judgment.
Summary Judgment: A judgment issued by a judge where there is agreement about a set of relevant facts. It is a procedural device that allows for the speedy resolution of some controversies without the need for a trial.
Supreme Court: The highest court in the State of Indiana. The Supreme Court consists of five justices. The Supreme Court hears criminal cases where the defendant was sentenced to death or life without the possibility of parole. The Court also hears all cases involving attorney admission and discipline and original actions. Once a case has been decided by the Court of Appeals, parties may file a Petition to Transfer asking the Supreme Court to hear the case. The Court has the discretion to decide whether or not to take these cases.
Table of Authorities: A listing of all the legal cases, statutes, and secondary authority used in the brief and the page(s) on which each authority was cited.
Toll: To stop the running of time, especially regarding time allowed before filing a lawsuit. See Statute of Limitations.
Tort: A private or civil wrong or injury where there is no contract (for example: trespass); the remedy that is sought is usually a monetary award for damages.
Transcript: The written version of everything that was said at the trial or hearings in the case. The transcript is prepared by the court reporter assigned to the trial court.
Trial: Proceedings in open court after the pleadings are finished, from jury selection to presentation of evidence and arguments, concluding with a verdict or judgment.
Trial Court: The city or county court where a case starts; the court that decides the facts and law in the case.
Trial Record: A written copy of the trial court proceeding and other documents that are filed with an appeal to an appellate court.
Verdict: A formal decision or finding made by a jury.
Voir Dire: The act or process of questioning prospective jurors, by the trial counsel or the trial judge, to determine which are qualified for service on a jury.
Witness: One who testifies under oath to what he/she saw, heard, or otherwise.
Writ: An extraordinary remedy that can be sought from the Indiana Supreme Court. A writ can be sought to compel a person to do something or to stop doing something. Writs are usually sought to compel the trial court to perform a duty or obligation that it is required to do. This option should be used when there is no other legal remedy to solve the problem.

Tuesday, January 01, 2013

IS TRIAL JUDGE MADAME JUSTICE JUDY CLENDENING A LIVING QUEEN OF HEARTS ?



December 17, 2012.

NAKED FASCISM

EXPERIENCED WITHIN

NEW BRUNSWICK COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, FREDERICTON, TRIAL DIVISION, PROMOTES THE QUESTION:

IS
COURT TRIAL JUDGE
MADAME JUSTICE JUDY CLENDENING
A LIVING QUEEN OF HEARTS ?

Readers please take NOTICE!
MADAME JUSTICE JUDY CLENDENING did, December 17, 2012, issue a most incredulous Court Order, consequentially, denying Andre Murray, his Charter Rights. A copy of the subject is provided herein below as a link to Scribd where a PDF is waiting for readers to be shocked. You will after reading the subject decision and Court Orders of MADAME JUSTICE JUDY CLENDENING seriously have to ask yourself can this be true?

&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp A copy of the subject New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Fredericton, Trial Division - Orders of Judge Judy Clendening in itself are evidence of a blatant disregard for Andre Murray's Charter Rights, is hereby provided, simply click here, as a link to Scribd where a PDF is waiting for readers to be shocked.






This herein above mentioned subject Court Order was issued, by MADAME JUSTICE JUDY CLENDENING, evidentially, with encouragement from the New Brunswick, Provincial Minister of Justice - Attorney General's Office, however, this event is well documented. For this reason, we can and will be electronically scanning, then providing all the subject evidential official Court documents for examination; we will be publishing same, here, within this week....
Readers please stand by and return for shocking evidence of a completely corrupt judiciary of New Brunswick, Canada.

Historians, political scientists and other scholars have long debated the exact nature of fascism NEVERTHELESS WHAT DOES REMAIN CONSTANT IS THE BLATANT INTEREST OF CORPORATIONS TO CONTROL THE PROLETARIAT BY CREATING A CHIMERICAL SENSE OF THE PUBLIC'S NEED FOR SECURITY WHILE AT THE SAME TIME TRANSVERSELY REMOVING ALL LIBERTY.

Self Represented, litigant, Andre Murray, unravels, for us readers, the convoluted - corrupt, nefarious genius of, City of Moncton, Mayor, George LeBlanc, leader of the Atlantic Provinces "RELOCATION SYNDICATE" , thereby revealing the local corrupt Law Society OF NEW BRUNSWICK which appears to manipulate the entire ECONOMY AND society of New Brunswick, Canada.

IN A JUST SOCIETY WE WOULD COOPERATE IN CREATING A MOST HUMANE AND COMPASSIONATE SOCIETY.

IN A JUST SOCIETY WE WOULD NOT BE DENIED THE MEANS AND THE MOTIVATION TO PARTICIPATE.

A JUST LAW SOCIETY (which does not exist in New Brunswick) SHOULD CONCERN ITSELF WITH MAINTAINING THE 'RIGHTS' OF EVERYONE EQUALLY, NOT JUST SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS,

REGRETTABLY, THE OPPOSITE IS THE REALITY,IN NEW BRUNSWICK, CANADA, WHERE MORTGAGEES AND OR FINANCIAL INVESTMENT GROUPS ARE EAGERLY ASSISTED BY MEMBERS OF THE LAW SOCIETY OF NEW BRUNSWICK (WHEN THEIR SELFISH NEEDS REQUIRE SATISFACTION) TO CIRCUMVENT THE LEGISLATION (law) WHICH RESIDENTIAL TENANTS, REASONABLY, MUST RELY UPON TO MAINTAIN THEIR LEASEHOLD, CONSEQUENTIALLY, MEMBERS OF THE LAW SOCIETY ARE OBTAINING EVICTION ORDERS,FROM CORRUPT JUDGES, THEREBY DEPRIVING RESIDENTIAL TENANTS OF THEIR CHARTER RIGHTS.

ONE WOULD BELIEVE, 'NAIVELY' (AS in this case) THAT IN THE INTEREST OF SO CALLED 'JUSTICE' SELF REPRESENTED LITIGANTS WOULD BE ENCOURAGED BY THE JUDICIARY (JUDGES) OF NEW BRUNSWICK, TO TAKE GREATER RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR OWN FUTURE, THEREBY EXPERIENCE MORE MEANINGFUL EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY.

REGRETTABLY, THE LAW SOCIETY OF NEW BRUNSWICK DOES NOT PRACTICE LAW TO INSURE MEANINGFUL EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY IN NEW BRUNSWICK, CANADA. THE HEREIN BELOW LISTED NAMES ARE OF MEMBERS BELONGING TO A "RELOCATION SYNDICATE" WHICH OPERATES THROUGHOUT THE ATLANTIC PROVINCES... A GROUP OF LEGAL SAVVY PROFESSIONALS, COERCING RESIDENTIAL TENANTS, WITH THREATS OF LITIGATION, WHICH USUALLY REQUIRES LEGAL REPRESENTATION, THAT IS IF THE RESIDENTIAL TENANT INTENDS TO ATTEMPT ENFORCING THEIR RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES RIGHTS AT LAW. THE OBJECT IS TO OBTAIN VACANT POSSESSION... THIS WOULD BE OBTAINED TO THE BENEFIT OF THE "RELOCATION SYNDICATE'S" CLIENTS WHO ARE MORTGAGEES. ATTRITION (FINANCIAL RUIN) WILL USUALLY BE THE RESULT OF RESIDENTIAL TENANTS FIGHTING FOR THEIR RIGHTS IN THE COURTS OF LAW, AS THE AVERAGE NEW BRUNSWICIAN SIMPLY CAN NOT AFFORD LEGAL REPRESENTATION AT A RATE OF 2000 TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS PER COURT HEARING SESSION. a LEGAL LETTER DISBURSEMENT WILL AVERAGE 200 - 300 DOLLARS EACH, NOW CONSIDER HOW MANY LETTERS AND TELEPHONE CONVERSATION BETWEEN LAW FIRMS MUST OCCUR =BEFORE GOING TO COURT AND THE MATH WILL EASILY REVEAL THAT A GOOD OLD MOVING TRUCK AND CREW WILL SAVE THE POOR BASTARD A FORTUNE RATHER THAN STANDING AND FIGHTING FOR YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS IN NEW BRUNSWICK.

CITY OF MONCTON, MAYOR, GEORGE LEBLANC, MANIPULATES HIS INFLUENCE AT LOCAL COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, MONCTON, TRIAL DIVISION, (TO OBTAIN ILLEGAL EVICTION ORDERS) AS HE CURRENTLY CONTINUES PRACTICING AS THE INFAMOUSLY NEFARIOUS LAWYER AND PARTNER OF COX & PALMER LAW FIRM THAT WHICH HE HAS ALWAYS BEEN;

ROYAL BANK OF CANADA; COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH FREDERICTON, TRIAL DIVISION, JUDGE JUDY CLENDENING;

MECCA CORPORATION OF 211 DOAK ROAD, FREDERICTON, NEW BRUNSWICK, CANADA WHO'S PRESIDENT COVERTLY PURCHASES MORTGAGEE DEEDS USING A EMPTY SHELF (NO EQUITY OR ASSET) COMPANY...
IN THIS CASE a "shelf company" called: 501376 N.B. Ltd., a body corporate,... used to deflect liability for criminal stalking then harassment (with threats of expensive legal litigation... amongst other things) ALL INNOCENT RESIDENTIAL LEASEHOLD TENANTS WHO MAY ATTEMPT TO ENFORCE THEIR LEGAL RIGHTS
(as assured by New Brunswick government legislation called Residential Tenancies Act.) TO REMAIN IN THEIR HOMES, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT NOBLE SOULS WHO WILL DEFEND THEMSELVES RATHER THAN SUBMISSIVELY VACATE THE PREMISES, JUST SO THE LIKES OF "CARPET BAGGERS" SUCH AS PRESIDENT RICHARD MCGUIGAN MAY OBTAIN VACANT POSSESSION;

- Role of
A good representative government must be one whose 'ELECTED' seek the welfare of the general population, whereas a corrupt government is one whose 'ELECTED' are primarily interested in selfish ends. A good government may therefore degenerate into a corrupt one if the 'ELECTED' begin to devote themselves to private gain instead of public welfare.

Friday, December 21, 2012

A look at cases when judges judge themselves - CANADIAN JUDICIAL COUNCIL



They are the arbiters of the arbiters of justice, a council of Canadian judges whose collective gavel is used every so often to investigate and reprimand their peers.


Since its inception in 1971, the Canadian Judicial Council has held the power under the federal “Judges Act” to investigate complaints about any of the roughly 1,100 federally-appointed judges of Canada’s superior courts.


“Judges exercise tremendous power and tremendous responsibility in Canadian society . . . but nobody expects that judges are going to be flawless,” said University of Ottawa law professor Adam Dodek. “It reinforces public confidence that there is a process dealing with public complaints.”
The council, a 30-member board of chief justices, associate chief justices, and senior judges from provincial and federal superior courts across the country, receives “200 or so” complaints regarding judicial conduct every year, according to its website.


Most complaints are resolved within three months, but those containing serious allegations go through a multi-step process to determine whether the judge should be removed from office.
Serious allegations could result in a full public inquiry where a committee of council members and senior judges may recommend that the judge be removed. In that case, the Minister of Justice would bring the council’s recommendation to Parliament for final consideration.


These proceedings are rare, however.
The Canadian Judicial Council has referred just nine complaints to an inquiry committee in its 41-year history, including Lori Douglas, an associate chief justice of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench whose public inquiry began earlier this month. Of the few times when a committee has recommended that a judge be removed from office, no judge has allowed Parliament decide their fate, resigning before that step is taken.


2009: Justice Paul Cosgrove
A former Scarborough mayor and Liberal cabinet minister, Ontario Justice Paul Cosgrove grabbed headlines in the late 1990s during a sensational murder case involving Julia Elliot,a former Barbados masseuse on trial for killing a mechanic.
After two years of pre-trial arguments, Cosgrove set Elliot free and instead said police and Crown attorneys had committed more than 150 violations of her Charter rights. Those charges, however, were overturned four years later when the Ontario Court of Appeal determined that Cosgrove’s conclusions were baseless.
At a judicial inquiry into Cosgrove’s handling of the case in 2009, a committee found that his misconduct was “pervasive in both scope and duration” and recommended that he be removed from office. He resigned two days later, before Parliament made its decision.


2008: Justice Theodore (Ted) Matlow
The Toronto resident and Ontario Superior Court Justice wound up before a judicial inquiry in 2008 after he became involved in a citizen’s committee that opposed a development proposal for a retail-condominium complex in his Forest Hill neighbourhood.
A judicial inquiry was called and a five-person inquiry committee concluded that there were grounds for the CJC to recommend he be removed from office. . But, in Dec. 2008, the entire CJC decided not to follow the committee’s recommendation and allowed Matlow to keep his job..


2003: Justice Jean-Guy Boilard
The Canadian Judicial Council launched an inquiry into the conduct of Superior Court of Quebec Justice Jean-Guy Boilard after he recused himself from a Hells Angels trial in 2002. The committee concluded in 2003 that his decision to withdraw from the case was “improper,” but ruled that his actions did not warrant his removal from office.


2003: Justice Bernard Flynn
Superior Court of Quebec Justice Bernard Flynn landed in hot water after he allegedly made comments to a Le Devoir journalist in 2002 about a controversial land purchase outside Montreal. In 2003, a judicial committee said it “disapproved” of the statements made by Flynn, but concluded that his actions did not constitute misconduct. He remained in office.


1999: Justice Robert Flahiff
Quebec Superior Court Justice Robert Flahiff was brought before a judicial inquiry committee in 1999 after he was sentenced to three years in prison for money laundering, a crime that took place in the 1980s, prior to his appointment to the bench. Flahiff resigned after the committee recommended that he be removed from office.


1996: Justice Jean Bienvenue
Derogatory comments about women and the Holocaust brought Superior Court of Quebec Justice Jean Bienvenue before an inquiry committee in 1996. The committee — after reviewing the comments made during a sentencing hearing for Tracy Theberge, who was convicted of second-degree murder in the death of her husband — recommended his removal from office, but Bienvenue resigned before Parliament could decide his fate.


1994: Justice Fernand L. Gratton
Gratton, a judge of the Ontario Court of Justice, was accused in 1992 of continuing to receive a regular judicial salary over a two-year period despite the fact that he was unable to work due to medical problems, including a “severe and debilitating stroke.” In 1994, an inquiry committee began to examine whether Gratton should be removed from office due to “infirmity or incapacitation.” He resigned before the hearing concluded.


1990: Justice Gordon Hart, Justice Malachi Jones and Justice Angus Macdonald
The three Nova Scotia Appeal Court justices came under scrutiny after they partially blamed a Nova Scotia man for his wrongful murder conviction in 1983. In their inquiry decision, the judicial committee criticized the judges for “inappropriate language” levelled against the wrongly accused, Donald Marshall, but ultimately decided not to recommend the judges’ removal from office.


Note: This article was edited to correct a previous version that included errors about Justice Theodore Matlow.

Niamh Scallan
Staff Reporter  

THE STAR
Reference:
http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/article/1233075--lori-douglas-sex-scandal-inquiry-a-rare-public-inquiry-by-canadian-judicial-council

Tuesday, November 27, 2012

Moncton, City Mayor, George LeBlanc & "his" corrupt local Judiciary - Court of Queen's Bench, Moncton, Trial Division; SHELL GAME: fraud; involving last minute substitution of Judges, to cause the delay of 'hearing' of a " Motion (filled against George LeBlanc by his victim Andre Murray) to Strike - Fraudulent Evidence " false evidence - affidavites worn by oath then used by Mayor, George LeBlanc during his contrived ex parte hearing, thereby, further victimizing innocent Andre Murray




Date: November 6, 2012               
RE: Royal Bank of Canada & 501376 N.B. Ltd., a body corporate v. Andre Murray   MC/0642/09 
Facsimile to Clerk of the Court Fax  506 – 856 – 2951 
&  Solicitor George H. Leblanc Fax 506 856 8150
Attention Honorable Mr. Justice Zoël R. Dionne

Care of:  
Anne M. Richard,
Clerk of the Court
Judicial District of Moncton
145 Assumption Blvd. 
 Moncton, NB, E1C 8R3
 Dear Clerk of Court and whom it may concern:
                                                                            Kindly forward, without delay, to the Honorable Mr. Justice Zoël R. Dionne. 
Thank you.
NOTICE
Notice this is my Claim: 
                                       over the entire span of my many appearances before you Justice Zoël R. Dionne that is while you are acting as presiding Judge I have not experienced a fair/balanced, moreover an unbiased Court room hearing of any of the legal matters which concern me. 
 
Be advised: I have not submitted a Brief on this matter, because a Brief on this Motion will be a substantial undertaking, one which I am not capable to undergo in the circumstances of my medical/physiological diagnosed condition. Reasons, both legal and health wise.

However, I do claim that you Mr. Justice Zoël R. Dionne, cannot reasonably grant me the legal relief which I am seeking, because the consequence of doing so will reveal your past: 
 "reasonable apprehension of bias”, that, which, is evidenced by your numerous erroneous, biased - based decisions, during and after 'Court Hearings' of these subject matters concerning me .
 Furthermore, for you Mister Justice Zoël R. Dionne, to now, paradoxically, for the first time, grant me a fair hearing of my herein requested subject matters, will reasonably reveal your (to date) bias against me, furthermore, this subject hearing will require the review of the very same material, that, which, will again consequently reveal evidence of your inappropriate bias against me in these matters, as is and or was previously Court filed.
 Moreover, I am writing about the erroneous evidence (earlier treated by you Mr. Justice Zoël R. Dionne as legitimate) will be revealed during the 'Court Hearing' of this Motion scheduled to be heard October 6, 2012  (which I believe should be struck from the record) however, and nevertheless was and or is the foundation of your erroneous decisions to date (regarding my subject matters) as evidentially must have, therefore, been previously planned  and based on your personal bias, prior to said hearings, therefore, a premeditated  design to favor the solicitor “ Mayor of Moncton” a blatant design of such magnitude, that, which required collaboration with the solicitor “ Mayor of Moncton”  lawyer George H. LeBlanc, who I exposed as committing "Fraud upon the Court"; 'which I may add..., you Mr. Justice Zoël R. Dionne, in his stead, offered your own excuses for George LeBlanc, the solicitor, “ Mayor of Moncton,”  despite, and without receiving any substantive material evidence, that, which could have possibly vindicated the solicitor  George LeBlanc who is also “ Mayor of Moncton”.

This is of course, under the circumstances, a outrageously impossible task, nevertheless you Mister Justice Zoël R. Dionne appear to be eager to accommodate the solicitor “Mayor of Moncton” at each and every incident that George LeBlanc's dishonesty, (surrounding the subject matters) was and or is revealed.
To date, what is outstanding in my mind, regarding the within mentioned subject matters, and beginning, as early as the initial ex parte Court hearing of October 20, 2009, which you Mr. Justice Zoël R. Dionne conspicuously chose to grant an Eviction Order without taking Judicial Notice. 

For the reason, you Mr. Justice Zoël R. Dionne then neglected, to act appropriately, whereby, taking Judicial Notice would have caused what most readers would consider a conscientious presiding Judge, to be taking into account that I, the Defendant, in the matter of that ex parte Court hearing of October 20, 2009, was absent, further, that Jurisprudence, and well established precedent, would have required the presiding Judge over such a paradox, to issue a Summons, thereby requiring the absent party to attend.

However, despite well established protocol, you Mr. Dionne chose to grant the lawyer George LeBlanc, who happens to be “Mayor of Moncton" , his request to provide Vacant Possession of my residential home to his alleged Mortgagee Clients, for that reason, you Mr. Justice Zoël R. Dionne did issue Court Orders to evict me from my Residential Tenancy. 

For the sake of brevity, I will not explore in great depth the implications (in this subject matter) of your obvious (to me) negligent, biased decision, although it is undeniably, further, conspicuously evident, that you had no concern for 'Balance of Convenience' in your decision to grant an eviction Order against me - Ex Parte (without hearing the other side).  
I must add, that the Orders for my eviction, which you Mr. Justice Zoël R. Dionne issued resulted from an Ex Parte Court Hearing, were later revealed and unquestionably proven (beyond any doubt) that the solicitor George LeBlanc “Mayor of Moncton” had committed "Fraud upon the Court", to obtain this clandestine subject Order of Eviction.  
 
I pointed your attention Mr. Justice Zoël R. Dionne to sufficient evidence of George LeBlanc intentionally committing "Fraud Upon the Court" as I had discovered within various Affidavits sworn by the solicitor George LeBlanc “ Mayor of Moncton” and his group of conspirators, such as Court Document Process Server David A. Daneliuk, a.k.a. Dave Daneliuk and the multitude of “Hearsay” affidavits  provided by obscure RBC employees, and the like; furthermore, all of these subject affidavits, when examined, were later required to be retracted and altered to your satisfaction, that you may assist in the cover up of a "Vacant Possession Syndicate" operated by yours truly the solicitor “ Mayor of Moncton”.  
Even as I write this letter Mr. Justice Zoël R. Dionne , my mind reflects upon your shameless indiscretions to blatantly utter words 'ON THE RECORD'  and I quote you Mr. Justice Zoël R. Dionne: 
 “although no one has mentioned it the solicitor acting for the Plaintiffs is none other than George H. LeBlanc Mayor of Moncton."

Incredible ! 
This is not a finding in fact!

Despite the absence of Material Facts, further, that there had never been at any time during the Court hearings words introducing George LeBlanc as Moncton City Mayor, moreover, and no mention is found within the writings of the Court Filed submissions. whereas, no substantive material evidence had been Court filed establishing George LeBlanc as Mayor of Moncton, how then could you Mr. Justice Zoël R. Dionne say out loud and onto to the Court RECORD as you Mr. Justice Zoël R. Dionne can be heard blurting out the words: “although no one has mentioned it the solicitor acting for the Plaintiffs is none other than George H. LeBlanc Mayor of Moncton." 
Dear Mr. Justice Zoël R. Dionne you refused my Motion to transfer the Court File to a proper jurisdiction and thereby willingly participated in the attrition efforts of and by your friend Solicitor George H. LeBlanc, who is George H. LeBlanc Mayor of Moncton
Dear  Mr. Justice Zoël R. Dionne you have evidently positioned yourself to array on the side of or against any party, or cause. which will reveal your friend George H. LeBlanc as the leader of a nest of vipers, a reasonably criminal syndicate, operated by the solicitor George H. LeBlanc, who you Mr. Justice Zoël R. Dionne unfortunately were so indiscreet as to have pointed out is the “Mayor of Moncton”. 
Furthermore, I cannot appear before you, because as I have indicated herewithin, that I am unwell (being treated medically for depression and anxiety), consequences (to a large degree) of your actions thus far.
-         You have continuously revealed bias, moreover, in declaring that George H. LeBlanc is the Mayor of Moncton, revealing that you were considering same, when deciding the implications of George H. LeBlanc as the Mayor of Moncton being accused of Fraud upon the Court. This poses the question, did you want to avoid being known as the Judge who recognized, that, the Mayor of Moncton to has committed Fraud upon the court. Evidently you did not.

-         Most conspicuously you had Justice Rideout act out a apparent mistake in scheduling to therefore appear in your stead on a matter you had been scheduled to preside over, furthermore a matter concerning these herein subject matters on as scheduled August 25, 2012.

-         A Motion as herein mentioned was scheduled August 25, 2012 requesting Orders inter alia for an Injunction, for that reason, stopping you Dionne from making a premature biased decision, on five Motions.

-         Conspicuously Justice Rideout was so indiscreet to “on the record declare” an affirmation of your whereabouts as being and  acknowledged that you however were at that moment, however, reasonably in your Court House Office, yet  Justice Rideout refused to and did not send for you, instead went along with the deception that there had somehow been a scheduling confusion beyond his control or comprehension, while at the same time contradicting himself on the record as being fully aware that you Justice Zoël R. Dionne are seized of the matter his Alice in Wonderland game that you intend to play with me is not going to work as I have fully documented the conspiracy which in this herein subject  matter resulted in an dilatory tactic to further damage control matters for your friend Solicitor George H. LeBlanc who is the Mayor of Moncton (as you so indiscreetly pointed out ‘on the record’) this game resulted in an adjournment of the matter (as scheduled August 25, 2012 requesting Orders inter alia for an Injunction), without a date, thereby taking away all vital or essential parts of my efforts to fully inform and or advise with substantive material evidence required for the Court,  before arriving at its expected decision. 

-         Other incident of your indiscretions involve the inappropriate allowance of a party to the cause who wishes to withdraw from an action, although the Rules of Court clearly state that if a party wishes to withdraw they must pay cost to that date, you did refuse to Order 501376 N.B. ltd, a body corporate to pay any costs, whatsoever and grated them leave to withdraw from the Action, an action which incidentally, was initially filed, to substantially benefit 501376 N.B. ltd, a body corporate. 

NOTICE
I claim that you Justice Zoël  R. Dionne are in conflict of interest, for that matter, have sufficiently demonstrated "reasonable apprehension of bias" and are not competent to preside over any matters concerning me Andre Murray, as a party in opposition with your friend Solicitor George H. LeBlanc (as you pointed out) Mayor of Moncton.
I have consequently suffered great physiological harm and or damages, as a result of your unbalanced decision making, which resulted in your issuing Court Orders inconsistent with the circumstances, thereby, demonstrating subjective favoritism, which, for that reason has caused me emotional shock.   

Be advised I am consequently, currently under professional physiological care and have been prescribed by these same doctors a regular regime requiring that I orally consume medication to treat my nervous break down.
Needless to say ,I will not be attending your corrupt Court Room environment as I cannot expect, as I have never received to date, a fair hearing of any of my matters of which you have, to date, presided over. 
 
I therefore require that you adjourn this matter to a date at which time my doctors have determined that I have fully recovered from the psychological shock of being illegally evicted from my residential tenancy which any fair minded presiding Judge, is required to take Judicial Notice of the Residential Tenancy Act which is Notwithstanding all others in the Province of new Brunswick. 
Mr. Zoël  R. Dionne I recommend that you do the honorable thing and recuse yourself from this mater as I will not allow this matter of your transgressions against me to rest until your wrongdoings and your collaboration with your friend Solicitor George H. LeBlanc (as you pointed out) Mayor of Moncton, who is the leader of a nest of vipers, a criminal vacant possession - relocation syndicate operated by the solicitor George H. LeBlanc on behalf of allegedly the Royal Bank of Canada, has been entirely revealed.
Govern yourself accordingly. 
Sincerely without malice, aforethought, ill will, vexation, or frivolity.
  ________________
André Murray
Fredericton New Brunswick 
Previous Post Home