Tuesday, August 2, 2022

Queen v Guthrie Alberta Count of Appeal no ID necessary

In the Court of Appeal of Alberta Citation: R. v. Guthrie, 1982 ABCA 201 Date: 19820622 Docket: 14019 Registry: Calgary Between: Her Majesty the Queen Respondent - and - Patricia Gwenne Guthrie Appellant The Court: The Honourable Mr. Justice Laycraft The Honourable Mr. Justice McClung The Honourable Mr. Justice Belzil Reasons for Judgment of The Honourable Mr. Justice McClung Concurred in by The Honourable Mr. Justice Laycraft And Concurred in by The Honourable Mr. Justice Belzil COUNSEL: A.R. Robertson, Esq., for the Appellant Crown C.E. Musk, Esq., for the Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE McCLUNG [1] This is an appeal in law from a case stated by His Honour Judge Robbins of the Provincial Court following the conviction of the appellant after trial of an information alleging that the appellant “… did unlawfully and wilfully obstruct W. Gentle, a Peace Officer, in the execution of his duty contrary to paragraph (a) of s.118 of the Criminal Code.” 1982 ABCA 201 (CanLII) [2] The issue for determination is whether the appellant was under a legal obligation to identify herself to the police in the circumstances under which she was found and whether her refusal to do so constituted an obstruction as envisaged by s.118 of the Code. [3] The facts found in the Provincial Court included the following. At 1:10 a.m. on July 2nd, 1981 Constables Gentle and Simonson of the Calgary City Police were exiting the police garage onto 6th Avenue S.E. at the intersection of 6th Avenue and 3rd Street S.E. in Calgary. Both were in uniform and occupied a marked police vehicle operated by Constable Gentle. At this time Constable Gentle noticed movement in the darkness inclosing the Calgary Police Association parking lot located at 428-6th Avenue S.E. The movement was about 15 ft. to 20 ft. into the lot as measured from the sidewalk. At the time the police were conscious of earlier break-ins of police officers’ private vehicles parked in the lot. Constable Gentle engaged the overhead lights of his vehicle and moved on to 6th Avenue to investigate. As he turned on to 6th Avenue he saw the accused. She was wearing a black leather jacket and denim jeans. She carried nothing and was walking in an easterly direction from the parking lot towards the sidewalk. Constable Gentle drew level with the appellant, pulled the vehicle across her path and called to her to stop for a moment. The appellant asked “Why?”, walked around the police vehicle across 6th Avenue to the south curb, still heading east. Again Constable Gentle moved the police vehicle across her intended path and both constables instructed her to stop. Constable Gentle asked “What were you doing in the parking lot?”. The accused stopped, looked at the officers and walked around the vehicle again. At this time Constable Simonson got out, approached her and told her to stop. She refused and Constable Simonson took hold of her right arm and stood in front of her thereby preventing her further progress. She was then told she would be detained until she gave her name and her identification could be verified. She was then told to get into the rear of the police vehicle. She refused. She was then arrested for obstruction and put into the vehicle. Inside the police vehicle she refused to answer questions concerning her name and address etc., but was heard to observe “This is going to be interesting to see the system working.” The police vehicle was driven back to the parking lot. At that time an Oldsmobile vehicle within the lot was found with its door open. It had not been forcibly entered and nothing had been removed from it. Under questioning concerning her possible involvement with that vehicle the appellant maintained her silence. Apart from some minor resistance to being placed in the police vehicle the appellant was described as polite, not nasty or abusive. Upon escort to Police Headquarters and then to the Calgary Remand Centre the appellant relented and identified herself. 1982 ABCA 201 (CanLII) [4] The learned Provincial Court judge held that failure to identify herself in the circumstances amounted to an obstruction of the officer in the execution of his duty and convicted the appellant. “We go over to this case”, he noted, “where Constable Gentle observed that he saw this person in the shadows of the police garage; there had been difficulties there before. He observed her under what, in his mind, would be suspicious circumstances. And in so doing, he requested that person to identify themselves. Now, in those circumstances, I am satisfied that he is in the execution of his duty and in my mind it would place the matter in the Moore and The Queen case, where the officer, by requesting the accused to identify himself, was carrying out the duty of enforcing the law. And when the accused refused to accede to the officer’s request, he was obstructing the officer in the performance of his duty. Looking at the evidence here in totality, Mr. Robertson, I must conclude that although she perhaps only made the officer’s duty more difficult, that under the circumstances her conduct does come within Moore v. The Queen and I must find her guilty.” [5] Clearly, the time of night, the location and the history of recent offences leave little doubt that the officers acted in furtherance of their duties in attempting to clarify the appellant’s identity and presence. If authority were required it could, at least, be found in the duties prescribed by The Police Act, now R.S.A. 1980, Chap.P-12,s.31(1) which include (i) the preservation of the peace, (ii) the prevention of crime and of offences against the laws in force in Alberta, and (iii) the apprehension of criminals and offenders and others who may lawfully be taken into custody. But that does not conclude the matter. The real question here is whether the appellant’s silence amounted to a wilful and unlawful obstruction and in my opinion it is answered in Rice v. Connelly (1966) 2 All E.R.649 where Lord Parker, C.J. noted “Wilful in this context means not only intentional but also connotes something which is done without lawful excuse … Accordingly the sole question here is whether the appellant had a lawful excuse for refusing to answer the questions put to him. In my judgment he had. It seems to me quite clear that though every citizen has a moral duty or, if you like, a social duty to assist the police, there is no legal duty to that effect and indeed the whole basis of the common law is that right of the individual to refuse to answer questions put to him by persons in authority, and a refusal to accompany those in authority to any particular place short, of course, of arrest.” [6] In Rice v. Connolly a conviction for obstructing a peace officer based on facts invitingly similar to those set out by the learned Provincial Court judge in the case herein stated was quashed. A suspect refused to give his full name and address to police officers 1982 ABCA 201 (CanLII) after being seen in early morning hours behaving suspiciously in an area where break and entry offences had earlier occurred. To the same effect is Ingleton v. Dibble, [1972] 1 All E.R.275. In Canada we have, amongst the many authorities reviewed in Moore v. The Queen (1978) 43 C.C.C. (2d) 83, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 195, post, R. v. Patrick (1960) 32 C.R. 338, 128 C.C.C. 263 and R. v. Bonnycastle [1969] 4 C.C.C. 198, 68 W.W.R. 407 where McFarlane J.A., speaking for the British Columbia Court of Appeal, carefully separated the duty of peace officers to make inquiries and the legal right of a suspect to refuse to answer them in circumstances where the law did not mandate that he do so. [7] The learned Provincial Court judge felt obliged to follow Moore v. The Queen in equating the appellant’s silence to a wilful obstruction. But critical to the result in Moore was the fact that a constable on duty had witnessed the commission of a statutory infraction - the running of a red light - and the fact that the constable had no power to arrest the suspect for any offence unless and until he had attempted to identify him so that he might be the subject of summary conviction proceedings. Criminal Code s.450 (2)(d)(i). The authority of Rice v. Connolly was neither doubted nor diminished by Spence, J. who wrote for the majority of the Supreme Court of Canada in holding that Moore’s silence during his interrogation amounted to an act of obstruction. Spence, J. said, referring to Rice v. Connolly: “It is paramount to note that the appellant there had not committed any offence in the presence or view of a police officer.” [8] That is what happened, or more precisely, what didn’t happen here. To supply the needed wrongdoing Mr. Musk argued, somewhat faintly, that a violation of The Petty Trespass Act, R.S.A. 1970, Chap. 273 had been observed. But no evidence was led, or finding made, that the City Police Association parking lot was land protected by the operation of that Act which provides: “2.(1) No person shall trespass upon (a) privately owned land, or (b) Crown land subject to any disposition granted under The Public Lands Act, except a grazing lease or a grazing permit, or (c) a garden or lawn, with respect to which he has had notice by word of mouth, or in writing, or by posters or signboards, not to trespass.” [9] We view the right of silence in response to police interrogation, custodial or otherwise, as too firmly established within the common law to be unseated by mere judicial 1982 ABCA 201 (CanLII) erosion. It must await statutory impetus as exampled in the Immigration Act R.S. (1970) c.325, s.19(2), the Customs Act R.S. c.58, s.239, s.233(2) of the Criminal Code (leaving the scene of an accident) and the various provincial enactments concerning the investigation of highway traffic accidents. See Ratushny, Self-incrimination in the Canadian Criminal Process (1979), page 144. To this extent the result in Moore v. The Queen, supra, may be said to turn on the inferral of an obligation to speak out drawn from a peace officer’s power of arrest without warrant in summary conviction offences as recited in Criminal Code s.450. [10] The common law right of silence in an interrogative setting is separably supported in recent judgments issued within the Supreme Court of Canada. Lamer, J. in Rothman v. The Queen (1981) 59 C.C.C. 30 would locate it within freedom of speech. Dickson, J. writing in minority in Moore v. The Queen, supra, noted that the proposition took root in two other fundamental common law principles, namely; the presumption of innocence and privilege against self crimination, although as made clear in Regina v. Marcoux and Solomon [1976] 1 S.C.R. 763 the latter is now relegated to simple privilege against testimonial compulsion. Additionally, and the point is made by Dr. Glanville Williams, if silence in the absence of a statutory compulsion to answer were obstruction all such statutory imperatives would be unnecessary. Demanding Name and Address (1950) 66 Law Quarterly Review 465. [11] In quashing this conviction comment is not taken upon the legality of the appellant’s arrest. It is an issue distinct to the issue of obstruction. The officers’ beliefs and whether they were reasonable and probable as influenced by the appellant’s refusal to account for herself in the circumstances all weigh in such an inquiry. Demanding Name and Address, supra. [12] The questions raised by the learned Provincial Court judge in the case stated do not entirely coincide with the grounds of appeal that were argued. Therefore I would answer them in this way. In the circumstances disclosed by the facts given us including the absence of the apparent commission by the appellant of any offence known to law, her failure to identify and account for herself at the request of Constable Gentle arose within lawful excuse and did not constitute the obstruction charged. [13] The appeal is allowed and the conviction quashed. DATED at Calgary, Alberta, this 22nd day of June, A.D. 1982.

Tuesday, July 12, 2022

Saturday, July 9, 2022

July 7th 2022 Private agreement reached between the man John Cipolla and Jessica Woodley as posted in "Midland Today" Ontario Canada.

Statement of Facts/Request for Admissions 1. It’s agreed by Jessica Woodley that there is no dispute to the fact that On 8/21/2009 Jessica and I were married in Niagara Falls, NY. That same year we moved from Buffalo, NY to Emsdale, Ontario. 2. It’s agreed by Jessica Woodley that there is no dispute to the fact that in the Summer of 2010 we moved to Utterson, Ontario where I landed a new job. On July 29 2015 our daughter Vela was born, with the help of our midwife, in Huntsville, Hospital. 3. It’s agreed by Jessica Woodley that there is no dispute to the fact that in October 2017 we sold our Home and I accepted a job with the state of Hawaii. Jessica did not want to go to Hawaii so I went to test the job for 6 months. Jessica and Vela moved to Midland. 4. It’s agreed by Jessica Woodley that there is no dispute to the fact that in 2017 we met half way in Venice, California and spent Christmas together. 5. It’s agreed by Jessica Woodley that there is no dispute to the fact that March 2018, we spent 2 weeks together on vacation in Hawaii. Jessica and Vela returned to Midland and I returned to Oahu to pack up. In may I quit my job and returned to Midland to live with Jessica and Vela in the in law suite of Jessica’s parents basement. 6. It’s agreed by Jessica Woodley that there is no dispute to the fact that In December 2018, Jessica applied for, and I agreed to, with intent to avoid State interference with our marriage , an uncontested New York divorce which was granted January 2019. 7. It’s agreed by Jessica Woodley that there is no dispute to the fact that in January 2020, upon our return from a 2 week vacation in Florida, I learned that my father’s health and life expectancy had taken a turn for the worse so I stayed in Buffalo for a week to spend time with my father. 1 of 5 8. It’s agreed by Jessica Woodley that there is no dispute to the fact that on or about February 15, 2020 Jessica and I had a minor disagreement about who would get Vela on the school bus each morning. Jessica’s mother over heard and intervened. The disagreement was exasperated by Jessica’s mothers’ previous threat to subject Vela to an experiment to forcibly vaccinate Vela without our consent. Jessica’s mother upon hearing our minor argument told me to leave at that time. I moved 4 minutes away. 9. It’s agreed by Jessica Woodley that there is no dispute to the fact that on or about March 1, 2020 Jessica Woodley without my knowledge or consent or without a required travel order removed Vela, age 4 from my my custody, and intentionally hid, contrary to the courts endorsement, at 101 Picnic Island Rd, Honey Harbor with the man she revealed to me had raped her at 15 years old. This was done while I was in Buffalo, a couple of days, as of a compassionate necessity, caring for my dying father. 10. It’s agreed by Jessica Woodley that there is no dispute to the fact that Christine Woodley, Frank Woodley, and the named Child rapist, Andrew Nicholson, all aided, abetted and conspired in Vela’s non consensual removal separation and seclusion from my dutiful ministerial care. It was Jessica’s own uncoerced admission that when Jessica was 15 Andrew the man she is living with and subjecting my daughter to, unsafe, as he raped her. Because of Andrews age at the time of the rape, that makes Andrew a Pedophile. Andrew has also been a chronic alcoholic for over 20 years. 11. It’s agreed by Jessica Woodley that there is no dispute to the fact that up and until March 1, 2020 that I was Vela’s safe and secure primary Care giver, and financial provider. 12. It’s agreed by Jessica Woodley there is no dispute to the fact that on or about June 19, 2020, Father’s day Weekend, Vela found Jessica’s cell phone, called me and told me she was near picnic island, close to the water and that mommy’s abusive boyfriend, Andrew, drove a blue pick up truck. Jessica heard Vela talking to me and took the phone away from Vela. At that point Vela was crying and telling Jessica she wanted her Daddy before Jessica hung up the phone. 2 of 5 13. It’s agreed by Jessica Woodley that there is no dispute to the fact that on June 19th 2021 that Jessica’s car was parked in the driveway of the 101 Picnic Island Rd when I pulled in and yelled up to Jessica to bring Vela and come down. Jessica, was shocked that I found her, came down and handed me Vela. I buckled Vela into her seat, put Vela’s bike in my trunk and pulled away to return to my home address.. 14. It’s agreed by Jessica Woodley that there is no dispute to the fact that Vela stayed with me the entire father’s day weekend. I exchanged Vela with Jessica at my home, with the mutual understanding that Vela will be returned immediately to the safety of Jessica’s mothers family home just 4 mins from me. Jessica took Vela back to 101 Picnic Island w/o my knowledge or consent. Subsequently, Jessica retained a lawyer, Jeremy Herron, who advised Jessica to keep(kidnap) Vela. Jeremy foolishly, in an attempted adhesion parenting agreement sent via email, threatened me, with out a court order, that I would not see Vela again unless I agreed to his terms(threats). 15. It’s agreed by Jessica Woodley that there is no dispute to the fact that Justice Wildman issued an Endorsement DATED acknowledging mothers (Jessica’s) and Vela’s home address as 36 Dawlish Ave. Port Mc Nicoll. In contempt of J. Wildman’s Endorsement, Jessica continued to keep Vela at 101 Picnic Island. Jessica has claimed Andrew Nicholson was her childhood pedophile rapist and staying with him is endangering vela. 16. It’s agreed by Jessica Woodley that there is no dispute to the fact that subsequently, in contempt of Justice Graham’s 02/2021 ruling, and 10 minute court admonishment to Jessica and her Attorney, Jeremy Herron, that Vela be returned to 36 Dawlish Ave Port McNicholl. Jessica has remained, and still is, in contempt of J Graham’s ruling over a year ago. J. Graham further directed Jessica and Jeremy that they needed a mobility order which they never applied for or received! 17. It’s agreed by Jessica Woodley that there is no dispute to the fact that at the 02/21 hearing, I informed J Graham that Vela had been unlawfully taken, again, from the family home and from Vela’s Tay Shores Elementary school without my knowledge or consent and registered at Honey Harbour Elementary(30 minutes north of Tay Shores) with a fraudulent address, fraudulent last name and Andrew Nicholson fraudulently listed as Vela’s step father! Weeks earlier Vela informed me that Jessica told Vela that she had two fathers-me and Andrew. When Vela informed me of the Child abuse(psychological and emotional manipulation) I drove with a friend to Honey Harbour Elementary and met with the principal who confirmed the same information that Vela had conveyed to me. 18. It’s agreed by Jessica Woodley that there is no dispute to the fact that subsequently, Jessica’s co-conspirator, pedophile rapist, Andrew Nicholson, threatened to kill me in front of Vela. CAS investigated and confirmed that Andrew admitted to the CAS workers he had uttered death threats to kill me in front of Vela age 5. Vela is being held against her will under Andrew’s roof with nobody to help Vela. Jessica in contempt of both J. Wildman’s and J. Graham’s Endorsements and continues to violate both Endorsements with impunity. 19. It’s agreed by Jessica Woodley that there is no dispute to the fact that on or about March 2021, I retained a process server to serve a civil suit on Jessica and her criminal co-conspirators: Andrew Nicholson, Christine Woodley, Frank Woodley and Jeremy Herron. The process server went to 101 Picnic Island to serve Jessica and pedophile rapist Andrew. Jessica dialed 911 and in violation of the criminal code committed mischief as she falsely claimed I was kidnapping Vela. Approximately 10 minutes later, OPP arrived and witnessed that my process server was lawfully serving process and that Jessica had intentionally falsified her 911 kidnapping call. No charges that may have rightfully been laid against Jessica were preferred at that time. 20. It’s agreed by Jessica Woodley that there is no dispute to the fact that Jessica committed child abuse(parental alienation) and separation trauma to Vela and I for 6 weeks the summer of 2021 including, but not limited to, blocking Vela’s grandmother, aunts, uncles, cousins and my cell phone number. 21. It’s agreed by Jessica Woodley that there is no dispute to the fact that Jessica is currently Committing intentional selfish child abuse(parental alienation) by withholding Vela, for the 3rd time. Jessica has not returned Vela since February 27, 2022, our agreed upon exchange date, witnessed by a disinterested 3rd party, Vince Spacone, until present. 4 of 5 22. It’s agreed by Jessica Woodley that there is no dispute to the fact that I never ever assaulted Jessica or took her cell phone that she forgot and left at my house which was returned to her. Jessica assaulted me on my private property, on or about May 2, 2021 in retaliation for relating the facts relative to our sharing parental time agreement to her, by scratching my face then grabbed Vela, on my access day, fleeing the scene of her crime and falsely reporting(committed perjury) that I assaulted her. Jessica, after calling 911 and refusing a 911 ambulance twice , was coached for approximately 90 minutes by two female police officers to go to the hospital and feign head injuries that had zero connection to or were a result of any of my actions. 5 of 5 https://www.midlandtoday.ca/classifieds/announcements-and-events/business-announcements/1727681

Monday, June 13, 2022

Brother Robert's agreement with the head of home depot Ted Decker.

Hello Joyce in the name of our risen Savior Jesus, I as per my faith and as witness for brother Robert am writing to you privately as a woman and not a corporate employee utilising a SSN. I have heard from my good brother Robert that you have an opinion that Ted Decker is not privately liable with regards to brother Roberts agreement with him in his private capacity.. You may find it interesting that a public prosecutor in Front Royal Virginia withdrew from a 50 pounds of trafficking Cannabis Charge against another good brother when he received a private agreement to the facts on behalf of brother Dean Harting. He heard from 6 witnesses that he failed to dispute the facts sent to his private self. I am attaching a copy of that letter for your benefit so you can see why that man acting as a prosecutor knew he could not escape private communication performed to save the brother harmless from submitting to and respecting persons. That word person is evident in the scriptures and it is a sin to respect as found in Deuteronomy 1:17,10:17, 2nd Samuel 14:14,Matthew 22:16 ,Acts 10:34 Romans 2:11 and for emphasis James 2:9 in the 1611 King James Bible. Our good brother Robert is not only scripturally directed to not respect persons but is sanctioned and of a duty to exercise the right of self-determination(resurrection) as per Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political rights in order to save his article 18 freedom of faith harmless by waiving article 16 as of it being offensive to his faith. That covenant, unlike the US Constitution is of application to all service providers that when a demand to save one's faith harmless, as was brother Robert's, is received it will be respected and if necessary the service provider must go to a hardship to accommodate the demand. Ted will encounter no hardship what so ever by privately contacting brother Robert in order to be coming to amicable terms with brother Robert. He will in fact be standing in honor by privately addressing the damage and discrimination infringing upon our good brothers liberty that brother Robert has experienced upon his reputation, his ability to gain a livelihood, his ability to maintain his family and commitments to his relations. Your attempt to subject brother Robert to a corporate submission to a person of law is noted and is ill advised. You are now aware that brother Robert cannot subject himself to such dialogue as he sent that agreement to Ted privately as a living man as he cannot communicate with the dead corporate person as CEO of a corporation. I do hope you grasp the sincerity and severity of this communication as it is of intent to confirm brother Roberts faith based inability to communicate to Ted as a person of law. I thankyou for your attention to this private matter and do suggest that Ted contact brother Robert to privately resolve this issueprivately as I assure you that using legal fiction corporate employee's corporate lawyers and corporate funds to settle a clearly private matter is a fraud upon the corporation. The attached letter is an open office document. Bliss and light upon your path Joyce! ICCPR. Article 7. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation. If you love your creator you will walk only in his ordinances and no others! Matthew 15:9 KJVB