Frequent Stops Seatbelt Exemption

Mr. Stein's appeal to this decision was ordered June 26, 2013. (See Her Majesty the Queen v. Stein, Victoria Reg'y AH48406012)

When clarifying the "Law" while exercising your Constitutional right to a "fair" trial, no dispute is a "pointless dispute" - especially when the children of numerous generations are not given a single day of formal education on the history of Law (common, statute, ecclesiastic, admiralty, natural, etc) and it's necessity for the application and preservation of a "free and democratic society."

Instead the children of today are babied into "group think" collectivism ideologies as presented by the majority of posts on this website. After all - it's not the State's job to educate the citizens of their inherent common law rights; it is the duty of the family unit to continue the traditions to hold government accountable using the Rule of Law. And here in lies the rub - the loss of the "dignity and worth of the human person and the position of the family in a society of free men and free institutions" - CBR 1960.

At the very least each individual's 'day in court' is the formal education that 's needed to correct the growing revenue collecting Police State that Canada and other common law countries are facing. But then again, it's much easier being a slave to a system of deception than it is standing for what is right and unpopular in a corrupt and unjust system. Don't ask questions - just pay the fine and don't rock the boat!

It's nice and cozy to agree with the logic behind Justice Gordon's judgement but unfortunately Gordon made a fundamental error of Law by adding to the legislation "within a block" or "no longer than 3 minutes" in his test.  As observed in R. v. McIntosh (1995) 1 S.C.R., Lamer C.J. (26) and in Pierre-Andre Cote’s book The Interpretation of Legislation in Canada,  its concluded that the adding to the terms of the Law such as “within a block” or “intervals less than a minute or two” as outlined in Justice Gordon’s Judgement of March 26, 2013 contradicts the rule and interpretation of law.

R. v. McIntosh (1995) SCC (26) "Since the judge’s task is to interpret the statute, not to create it, as a general rule, interpretation should not add to the terms of the law. Legislation is deemed to be well drafted, and to express completely what the legislator wanted to say."

What was that post about the "to-the-point recommendations to the "legislators" to do their jobs better"? I would argue alongside Pierre-Andre Cote that the legislature expressed "completely what the legislator wanted to say" and that JJ Gordon along with any Police officer who enforces the Law needs to improve their knowledge of fundamental justice and constitutional law. This is scary when authoritative figures agree with such nonsense. But this is to be expected from traffic court where "police/citizen interactions... are the bread and butter of Provincial Court. (R. V. Duncan, 2013 ONCJ 160 (CanLII) This is business as usual in our justice system - tax revenue collection.

Also first pointed out in my testimony and reinforced in a previous post that the word "delivery" isn't found anywhere within the MVA 220. But during cross examining Sgt Leblanc testified that there's "case law that has dealt with the delivery driver exemption". My question is, was Sgt Leblanc lying to the courts with this testimony, was he trying to chum-chum the Justice in his favour, or was he given misinformation from his supervisors about this law - especially since JJ Gordon admitted in his Reasons for Judgement that there is no previous case law in BC about this subject matter? Is this the "best of his knowledge and ability to perform and fulfill the duties and requirements of his office"?

The facts are that the words written in sec. 220(5)(c) of the MVA describe Mr. Stein's lawful excuse with evidence provided under oath which weren't countered by Sgt Leblanc during cross examination. For Justice Gordon to intervene by "adding to the Law" begs the question of how many other injustices he's approved while at the bench.

JJ Gordon erred in numerous ways, including "courtroom irregularities" which hints to his bias for the Crown's position, not to mention both of their relentlessness to find Mr. Stein guilty. Read the transcripts to this case and you'll see how the Reasons for Judgement will lead the reader to agree with the Justice, failing to identify the facts of Law which the Justice should have taken into account in his ruling.

The reduction in fine to $50 was the carrot in front of the mule not only to create a guilty precedent setting case but to make him feel he had a "fair trial" and to give him a discount for his efforts. (Kinda like the "reduce the fine if you pay within 30 days discount" propaganda)

In my personal opinion and within the support network of legal researchers, the blatant collusion between the Learned JJ Gordon and Sgt Leblanc (the Crown) to withhold fundamental justice to Mr. Stein is a tell-tale sign of our revenue oriented Police State times - where the only real place for proper justice is found at the highest levels of our Constitutional Courts (I hope), not in a "business as usual" kangaroo court.

This case is not about a seatbelt ticket - its about keeping the revenue flowing under the guise of 'public safety' and the illusion of the necessity of government intervention into the privacy of the people. That's why Police have resorted to hiding in bushes and using telescopes to hunt down their daily revenue. (R. v. Thnadi 2013) Sound familiar NSA and CSIS?

O Canada, what do we stand on guard for? I hope it's the Rule of Law!

This case was first heard on Dec 7, 2012 with a reserve judgement from JJ Gordon. Mr Stein was found guilty and Gordon's decision was appealed and ordered for a new trial on June 26, 2013. This new trial on October 16th, 2013 found Mr. Stein guilty once again. And once again Mr. Stein has appealed JJ Edwards' decision to the BCSC for a date of Feb. 26 2014.

Reading the Reasons for Judgement without reading the transcripts of this trial leaves one only with the bias of the Learned Judicial Justice - which hardly promotes the facts around the proceedings.

Once again this trial shows massive evidence of bias in favour of the Crown. This appeal will be heard and the conviction overturned based on these basic appealable grounds:

1. The JP failed to adjourn and provide both parties with a reasonable opportunity to address certain issues and points which she was considering and/or came to her attention during the course of her deliberations upon her judgment, specifically:

a. case law and authorities from other provinces;

b. statute law from other provinces;

c. various findings and interpretations from these authorities that she was considering to be relevant to this case,

such being contrary to natural justice and procedural fairness.

2. The trial judge's finding of guilt prior to fully considering and researching the relevant issues, is evidence of bias and determining the case prior to the entire case being fully presented to her, including evidence and argument on those points raised in paragraph 1 above.

3. After admitting that this case was "substantially" on point, the JP then failed to give proper weight to R v Vineberg and found that the decision was of "limited use." These findings were contradictory. A case cannot be simultaneously on point, and of limited and no use, on the very issue before the court. If it was on point, it should have been followed. Any ambiguities should have been resolved in favour of Mr. Stein.

4. Mr. Stein was denied a fair and/or impartial hearing, as a result of:

a. Edwards' repeated interruptions, which cause Mr. Stein to lose focus and affected his cross examinations of the Informant; and,

b. prohibiting Mr. Stein from asking relevant questions to the Informant, especially in relation to:

i. time issues. Time is a relevant factor in considering how many times someone has entered and exited the vehicle, as is the actual nature of the job, office, trade, calling, profession, employment or occupation and duties pursuant to same. The Justice's findings that the questions were "hypothetical", was in error, where the questions related to actual factual conditions of the allegations;

ii. the Informant's understanding, competence and knowledge of the relevant legislation he was enforcing.

5. The Justice failed to understand the interpretation and applicability of the statutes at issue. JJ Edwards’ findings that Mr. Stein’s questions were "unusual", displayed direct evidence of bias and prejudice towards Mr. Stein, and ignorance of the law in relation to the exemptions of 220(5) of the Motor Vehicle Act.

6. The finding and interpretation at paragraph 41 of the Judgment of JJ Edwards is incorrect, where the she states, "I do not accept that the Legislature intended a 'blanket exemption' from the provisions of s. 220(4) for employees such as Mr. Stein, who, in the context of their employment drive a commercial vehicle where they are required to alight and re-enter the vehicle at frequent intervals as they carry out their duties." This is exactly the wording that is used in s. 220(5)(c) of the Act, and her findings are an error of law.

7. The Justice erred in misapplying the Crown's duty to prove each essential element of the offence, and finding against the accused on an essential element of the offence because he could not prove he had not violated it. There was no evidence that Mr. Stein had exceeded the 40 km/h limit in s. 220(5)(c), while actually doing his work.

These are but a few of the appealable grounds the BCSC will hear on Feb 26, 2014.

It's really unfortunate that Justice cannot be served at the appropriate level of the courts, and that one must take such an insignificant traffic infraction to the BCSC not once but - TWICE! 

As stated in my previous post - this is not about a measily seat belt ticket - its about keeping the revenue flowing under the guise of 'public safety' and the illusion of the necessity of government intervention into the privacy of the people. That's why Police have resorted to hiding in bushes and using telescopes to hunt down their daily revenue quota's (R. v. Thandi 2013).

Simply google or YouTube "ticket quota police" + national post, or ask your local police if this is true - watch them squirm!

(PS - Officer Graeme Leblanc (IRSU) testified that he could/has issued up to 10 tickets per hour on any given day. 10x$167 = $1670 per hour. That's up to $13,360 per officer per 8 hour day!! And most Police work long hours. Thats not a bad little business if you have 100-200 employees! No wonder why Traffic Courts will do anything to protect the "..bread and butter of Provincial Courts". (R. v. Duncan, 2013 ONCJ 160 (CanLII)