video!!!

Charles Jackie

:Seperator bar Lower

E-mail-Courriel: oldmaison@yahoo.com
News - Stories and Rants

Thursday 2 February 2017

Blogger just send a complaint to the Canada Judicial Review!!!

To whom it may concern in the Canadian Judicial Council,

On January 30th at 1:30pm, I attended Court before Judge Judy L. Clendening. It's a lawsuit that I launched against the members of the Fredericton Police for telling the public and my internet provider that I was exploiting kids for Sex!!!

Below is the evidence of my case.

1-cdcc0fded9

Judge Judy L. Clendening entered the Court Room and handed a piece of paper to the Sheriff to pass on to me.

This is the paper -



nbcourt




I suffer from a mental illness < ADHD > and they told me in the paper that I had to pay $50.00 to each Cop who I wanted to cross examine for my lawsuit.

The 17 members of the Fredericton filed sworned papers with the Courts about my case being labelled as a Pedophile and I'm not allow to cross examine the Police Officers because I don't have the money. < I'm on Social Assistance >

The total cost would be over $1,000 and the Judge expected me to read and understand the paper in minutes????

The language in a Court is VERY new to a citizen who enters the building but they expect a person with a mental illness to understand????

Now....Judge Judy L. Clendening suggested that I could dis-continue my lawsuit and that would be it!!!

I was put ON EXTREME pressure and it put me in a very bad situation.

It came close to drop everything but I decided to continue my lawsuit against the members of the Fredericton Police who have been on a witch-hunt against this good law-abiding citizen.

Now....the Court is not interested the assault that took place on November 8th by the Edmundston Police by orders of the same members of the Fredericton Police who I am suing.

Here's a video - < the name of the Police Officers are mentioned >

I want the Attorney General Office to investigate Judge Judy L. Clendening and the manner this issue is moving forward and the manner the Court are ignoring my concerns.

The Edmundston Police told the media their file will be handed to the Prosecutor office in a couple of weeks. This was almost 3 months ago!!!! I want to know what's going on in this case!!!

Judge Judy L. Clendening stated that the new case that happened on Nov 8th is of non-importance to the Court.

I reminded the Judge that these are the same officers involved. But the Judge denied my concerns.

I am going to Court on February 6th at 9:30am < motion day > to set up a trial date but I am NOT ready and the Court are ignoring my concerns.

I might add the Court told me the 4 officers who MIGHT testify only if they don't demand $50.00 from me. This is insanity!!!

In closing, is the law there to discriminate against people with mental illness, less fortunate or the working poor?

If a Cop goes after a law-abiding citizen labeling them as a pedophile but if the individual don't have money? There's nothing that can be done?

I want the Canadian Judicial Council to investigate this case AS SOON AS POSSIBLE...

I am ONCE AGAIN appearing in front of this Judge this Monday to set up a trial date.

P.S. Let me know if you have received this email?

Charles LeBlanc

APT#1

145 Westmorland Street

Fredericton

New Brunswick

E3B 3L4

Merci

5 comments :

  1. You're afraid Charles.....

    Nice to see you actually experience the realization that your free ride is about to end

    ReplyDelete
  2. Charles, you just won't learn from your mistakes and your aggressive approach. It's your ego against theirs and that is a fait accomplis. The system will win. Courts and law enforcement have the financial backing to make sure their egos win. You are screwed and it's now up to you to say sorry to them. Drop it and let it go.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Charles, Clendening LIED TO YOU! Under Rule 55.05(4) you do not have to pay witnesses who are adverse to your case. It says:

    (4) A Summons to Witness shall be served personally
    and at the same time, unless the person summoned
    is an adverse party, or an officer, director, partner or sole
    proprietor of an adverse party, he shall be paid or tendered
    proper attendance money as prescribed in Tariff
    ‘D’ of Rule 59.

    The FP officers were adverse parties and officers of an adverse party. I say again, CLENDENING LIED TO YOU and you did not have to pay the FPF anything.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If I remember correctly Charles, I think you said it was the lawyer for the City who called the witness FPF officers. If that's the case 20:37 is right and you did not owe them anything, unless you served them summons to witness forms.

      Delete