False Criminalizing

c. False Criminalizing

Note that all parts highlighted in bold is what is illegally omitted from our laws and enabling secret war crime. Reading the laws by skipping the bolded wording is roughly how our laws read at the present time.

The rule on presumption of innocence is worded so as to violate the right to be presumed innocent. The prisons who takes possession of the accused, do not separate the type of punishing treatment administered between those convicted and those who are innocent until proven guilty. In fact, treatment is harsher for a newbee who is not near a trial as of yet. The punishments and “blocking the right to defend” by the prison staff starts immediately. The courts can separate those they feel need medical attention but the medical unit of the jail is far from medical but even worse harsh, isolating, treatments and rights violations possibly that a detainee ought not to have to endure. We must keep in mind that the reason a person is detained, is to determine a balance of protection from risk to the public during the time awaiting trial, not as a sentence of guilt. The mentality of treatment by the prison officials is guilty until proven innocent and implemented by the ideals formulated by Rosenberg (aka Warner) of the occult called “Est de Warner”. This guilty harsh treatment results in intimidation of true native multicultural citizens against ever thinking about defending themselves. An entire nation can be taken over in their frozen fear and the citizens just disposed of.

6. ccc. PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE: (1) When an enactment creates an offence and authorizes a punishment to be imposed upon conviction in respect of that offence,
(a) a person shall be deemed not to be guilty of the offence until he is convicted, discharged under section 730 of the offence, or deemed not guilty or by absolute discharge under section 27., 34., 35., 36., 37., 38., 39., 40, 41., 42., 43., 611., 612., and 730 ccc. or other of the offence;
(b) a person who is convicted or discharged under section 730 of the offence is not liable to any punishment in respect thereof other then the punishment prescribed by this Act or by the enactment that creates the offence and a person who is discharged absolutely under section 27., 34., 35., 36., 37., 38., 39., 40, 41., 42., 43., 611., 612., and 730. ccc. or other of the offence is not liable to character discrediting in respect thereof other then prescribed through justifiable grounds proven by evidence in and reasonable law.
(2) Subject to this Act, any other Act of Parliament, or reasonable inherent rights of the Native multicultural citizens that there ought to be, no person shall be convicted or discharged under section 730. ccc. of an offence committed outside of Canada and or against a person who is in conflict of interest of true Canadian citizenship by swearing alternative allegiances to an organization or another nation that cause or may cause abuses of the accused or other original Native multicultural citizens.
(3) In this section, “enactment” means
(a) an Act of parliament,
(b) an Act of the legislature of a province that creates an offence to which Part XXVII applies, or
(c) innate moral and reasonable principles and protections that Native multicultural individuals and communities ought to enjoy,
or any regulation made thereunder. R.S., c.C-34, s. 5; R.S.C. 1985, c. 27 ( 1st Supp.), s. 4; 1995, c. 22, s. 10.

19. CLRA -- PURPOSES -- The purposes of this Part are,
(e) to recognize and provide protection from acts of the abduction and arbitrary detention of children and family members as an alternative to the determination of Constitutional Questions, custody and of a child’s rights within or to associate with their original families, or parental, property and protection rights by an accountable reasonable due process; & (d) to provide prompt and effective enforcement of custody and access orders and for the recognition and enforcement of custody and access orders made outside Ontario and or where made against a Children's Aid Society.

If an accused is innocent and detained unjust adjournments can be considered torture. If an accused needs to wrap up criminal matters for access to justice in overlapping family legal issues, a child may be extorted by adjournments. Also well the accused is prolonged under the position of accused it is difficult, if not impossible, to obtain protection from on-going crimes against the accused as guaranteed under Charter section 7. especially by Freemasons etc. While under the position of accused, the courts can impose torturous further accusations and repetitive appearances, blackmails against freedoms and forced administrations of poisonous, noxious substances in their overzealous endeavors for control or silence. The organization can extort property and interfere with reasonable living. They can rape the children of the accused at Freemason lodges while controlling prolonged detentions and positions of accused.


474. ccc. ADJOURNMENT WHEN NO JURY SUMMONED 474. (1) Where the competent authority has determined that a panal of jurors is not to be summoned for a term or sittings of the court for the trial of the criminal cases in any territorial division, the clerk of the court may, on the day of the opening of the term or sittings, if a judge is not present to preside over the court, adjourn the court and the business of the court to the immediate subsequent business day, i) to address issues of possible prejudice by the adjournment, ii) to address issues of previous orders to go forward with trial on that day, and unjust or unlawful prolonged delay, iii) to proceed with trial, or iv) to decide upon a new date.
(2) A clerk of the court for the trial of criminal cases in any territorial division may, at any time of pressing , on the instructions of the presiding judge or another judge of the court, adjourn the court and the business of the court to the immediate subsequent business day, i) to address issues of possible prejudice by the adjournment, ii) to address issues of previous orders to go forward with trial on that day, and unjust or unlawful prolonged delay, iii) to proceed with trial, or iv) to decide upon a new date.

- CONVICTION BY BLACK MAIL –

It seems that a common strategy of false criminalizing by Freemasons today is to gang up false unviable charges onto a person to hold them in unjust detentions. If the person wants to fight for their innocence, the Crowns, who act with the weight of a judge will force prolonged detention or harsh conditions until the person agrees to falsely state they are guilty of a crime that they did not commit or never occurred. If the person co-operates with the false guilty plea, they can be freed relatively easily from the unjust physical bandage. Unfortunately the affects of bondage continue as the persons credibility is ruined as an upstanding citizen and the Freemasons can continue to extort the persons property and rape their children. Who would believe someone who plead guilty of a crime they did not commit? An innocent tortured citzen would have no other choice. Freemasons are a criminal organization and it is best to ask persons employed in public services who impose their dealings upon you if they are a “Freemason” on audio tape. Freemasons don’t mind lying.

- JURISDICTION –

468. ccc. SUPERIOR COURT OF CRIMINAL JURISDICTION 468. Every superior court of criminal jurisdiction has jurisdiction to try any indictable offence committed in their territorial area unless ordered otherwise. R. S., c. C-34, s. 426.

470. JURISDICTION OVER PERSON 470. Subject to this Act, every superior court of criminal jurisdiction and every court of criminal jurisdiction and that constitutes that courts officials that have lawful power to try an indictable offence in proper reasonable process and in absence of conflict of interest is competent and obligated by duty to try an accused for that offence
(a) regardless if the accused is found, is arrested or is in custody within the lawful territorial jurisdiction of the court where the offence was committed; or
(b) tried by a court if the accused has been ordered as a result of a fair hearing to be tried by
(i) that court which is free of conflict of interests, or
(ii) any other court, the jurisdiction of which has by lawful authority been ordered as a result of a fair hearing airing any conflicts and transferred to that court.

479. ccc. OFFENCE OUTSTANDING IN SAME PROVINCE 479. CCC. where an accused is charged with an offence that is alleged to have been committed in the province or vicinity in which s/he is, s/he may, regardless if the offence is, or is not an offence or prosecution of or by offences mentioned in section 469, and
(a) in the case of proceedings instituted at the instance of the true, non-foreign Government of Canada or it’s multicultural native inhabitants including sections 46., 467.1 and 467.11 to 13 and conducted by or on behalf of that Government or it’s multicultural native inhabitants, or the Attorney General of Canada consents, or
(b) in any other case, the Attorney General of the province where the offence is alleged to have been committed consents,
appears before a court or judge that has and would have had jurisdiction to hear motions and try the offence if it had been committed in the place where the accused is, and where the accused consents to plead guilty and pleads guilty to that offence, the court or judge shall determine the accused to be guilty of the offence and impose the punishment warranted by law, but where the accused does not consent to plead guilty and does not plead guilty, the accused shall, if the accused was in custody prior to his appearance, be returned to the custody and shall be granted a fair bail hearing with true concerns of possible risks to multicultural native communities and dealt with according to reasonable law, in the court of the nearest jurisdiction to the place of the alleged offence where in absence of any arguments of jurisdicational conflicts of interest.

At any time officials become aware of the perpetration of crime, they are under a duty to respond with reasonably protective law. Every area where a crime may be committed has a justice or judge nearest to preside. Crime and mental health are largely not territorial but criminal organization is and grows, whereas a conflict of interest may lie. Criminal organization would base itself at the venue able to force confinement, torture for intimidation and force unnecessary mental health drugs in inducing silence, which location is Old City Hall in Toronto Ontario. A party does not take a prosecution to another jurisdiction without a reason.

In cases where the perpetrator is in position of the alleged victim and the alleged perpetrator is the victim, as herein, by removing the matter from the correct jurisdiction, aiding criminal organization members can avoid prosecution when evidence surfaces during hearings held in courts without true jurisdiction. This is in violation of the accuseds’ right to protection, under Charter sec. 7., from crime merely because they are accused but not yet convicted. This is a strong motivator for criminals organized in positions of authority to move a matter away from its true jurisdiction and to a jurisdiction that can be used as a parallel secret war crime base under the guise of a public court. This switched senerio is highly likely if a complainant is anti-social with criminally organized contacts. Criminally organized crime and anti-socialism are on the rise.

Not only should the prosecutor prosecute the one in position of accused but automatically also, within their duty and equal benefit and protection of both the complainant and accused, the complainant, if the case may be. The courts should responsibly focus on the “issues” by evidence rather then focus on an accused. If the complainant is found to be committing a crime by the complaint being in existence or aired such as obstruct justice there is a duty to equal protection by the officials involved. A prosecutor does not have a right to choose, separate or individualize persons or pockets or groups of persons they will or will not prosecute at any given time under public contract of equal benefit and protection.

The court and prosecutor do not have the liberty to decide to prosecute in matters where a person is the direct offender of an original offence but then not prosecute when an offender is a third party or organization by participating in a common preplan, or aiding after the fact. Nor do these officials have the liberty to decide to protect a persons property but not their family members and children under public contract.


504. ccc. IN WHAT CASES JUDGE / JUSTICE MAY RECEIVE INFORMATION 504. Any one who, on reasonable grounds, believes that a person has committed an indictable offence may lay an information in writing or by evidence shown and testimony of criminal violation depicted and under oath before a judge or justice, and the judge or justice shall receive the information aired by witnesses, affected and or affecting parties, where it is alleged
(a) that a person has attempted to commit, committed, or aided in the intention to commit, anywhere, an indictable or summary offence that an information may be laid and to be tried in the province and regional jurisdiction of the offence and in which is nearest the judge or justice office or court, in absence of conflict of interest, and that the person
(i) is or is believed to be or was at the time of the offence, or
(ii) resides or is believed to reside at the time of the offence,
(b) that the person, wherever he may be, has committed an indictable offence within the territorial jurisdiction of the justice;
(c) that the person has, anywhere, unlawfully received or aided to extort finances or property and or children that were unlawfully obtained or taken from within the territorial jurisdiction of the justice; or
(d) that the person has in his possession stolen property or had aided another party or organization to extort finances or property and or children from within the territorial jurisdiction of the justice.

Often, the right to remain silent is forced upon an accused when it may be in their best interest of innocence to exercise freedom to speak. This creates unfair advantage to the prosecutor to obtain over zealous bail conditions or judges decisions while forcing delay on the accused right to equal defense on the issues raised.

524. ccc. ISSUE OF WARRANT FOR ARREST OF ACCUSED - (7) Where the judge does not make a finding or the accused shows cause why his detention or conditions under consideration are not justifiable under paragraph (4)(a) or (b), he shall order that the accused be released from custody or unreasonable restraint.
(9) Where the accused shows cause why his detention in custody is not justified within the meaning of subsection 515(10), the justice shall order that the accused be released upon his giving an undertaking or entering into a reasonable recognizance described in any of paragraphs 515(2) (a) to (e) with such conditions, described in subsection 515 (4), as the justice considers justifiable.
(10) Where the justice makes an order or the accused shows cause why his detention or conditions imposed are not justifiable under subsection (9), he shall include in the record a statement of his reasons for making the order, and subsection 515 (9) is applicable with such modifications as the circumstances require in respect thereof.
(11) Where the justice does not make a finding or the accused shows cause why his detention or conditions imposed are not justifiable under paragraph 8 (a) or (b), he shall order that the accused be released from custody.

When presenting evidence of character in court according to written law, the crown is allowed to return evidence of previous convictions, issues that may have been resolved without admissions to guilt or an absolute discharge to over-prosecute in mud slinging. The accused can be barred from adducing evidence in the first instance as to character and responding to the issues raised by the crown concerning character as well. In this situation equal benefit of the law is completely voided.

666. EVIDENCE OF CHARACTER: Where, at a bail hearing, any hearing of deliberation or trial,
i. the prosecutor adduces evidence, whether or not they are issues to be raised at trial, or unsubstantiated hearsay of the accused character, the accused may,
a. immediately in direct answer thereto, adduce evidence of the contrary to issues raised,
b. erect any equal defence necessary by reason of which slanderous materials in court by an official shall not cause unjust prejudice to an accused, or
c. to argue a lesser punishment be imposed.
ii. the accused adduces evidence of his good character, the prosecutor may, in answer thereto, before a verdict is returned, adduce evidence of the previous conviction of the accused for any offences, including any previous conviction by reason of which a greater punishment may be imposed. R.S., c. C-34, s. 593.

The right to a review is an inept replacement to the right to Appeal. It is unreasonable to have to ask permission from your opponent to Appeal. This unjustly gives the power of a judge to the opposing litigant to remove access to justice. It’s a bad case of leaving the mouse to guard the cheese.

680.ccc. REVIEW BY COURT OF APPEAL - (1) A decision made by a judge under section 522 or subsection 524 (4) (5) (7) (9) (10) or (11) or a decision made by a judge of the court of appeal under section 261 or 679 may, on the direction of the chief justice or acting chief justice of the court of appeal, be reviewed and or appealed by that court or a high court and that court may, if it does not confirm the decision,
(a) vary the decision; or
(b) substitute such other decision as, in its opinion, should have been made.
(2) on or without consent of the parties, the powers of the court of appeal under subsection (9) may be exercised by a judge of that court.

Although Canadians are led to believe that they have the right to appeal, as illusion, they actually don’t have the right to Appeal a criminal conviction or finding or guilt at the Supreme Court of Canada written into law. The Supreme Court may grant to receive the paperwork of the appeal but is not inspired to fair appeals as law pressures them to automatically agree with the Appeal Court being Appealed from which is conflict of interest of equal benefit of the law.

695. ccc. (1) ORDER OF SUPREME COURT OF CANADA: The Supreme Court of Canada may, on an appeal under this Part, may make any order that the court of appeal might have and may make any rule or order that is necessary to give effect to its judgement.
Correction: 695. (1) ORDER OF SUPREME COURT OF CANADA: The Supreme Court of Canada may, on an appeal under this Part, i) make any order that is reasonable, just, corrective and or resolving; or ii) reaffirm the order the court of appeal issued; and iii) may make any additional rule or order that is necessary to give effect to reasonable judgement.

In section 730. ccc., a person who acts with justifiable force is stigmatized to carrying a percentage of false guilt in discredit, regardless that justifiable force and other such in defence is not a crime calling for arrest much less convictable at all if the trial proceeded. As the present law is written a citizen is refused the right to of option to be “absolutely” discharged under it’s meaning if they do not agree to falsely state “guilty” in conflict of interest of it’s meaning. to defence in the face of innocence. In this section, even circumstances of innocence, justifiable force or defence, is twisted by the Monarchy and Freemasons to discredit a native multicultural Canadian in any case.

730. ccc. CONDITIONAL AND ABSOLUTE DISCHARGE (1) Where an accused, other than a corporation, pleads guilty to or is found guilty of an offence, or acted in justification in the commission of the offence as defence or justifiable force under section 27., 34., 35., 36., 37., 38., 39., 40, 41., 42., 43., 611., 612., and 730. ccc. or other, other than an offence for which a minimum punishment is prescribed by law or an offence punishable by imprisonment for fourteen years or life, the court before which the accused appears may, if it considers it to be in the best interests of the accused and not contrary to the public interest, instead of convicting the accused, by order direct that the accused be discharged absolutely or on the conditions prescribed in a probation order made under subsection 731 (2).
Editorial Note: ……
(2) Subject to Part XVI, where an accused who has not been taken into custody or who has been released from custody under or by virtue of any provision of Part XVI pleads guilty of or is found guilty of an offence but is not convicted, the appearance notice, promise to appear, summons, undertaking or recognizance issued to or given or entered into by the accused continues in force, subject to its terms, until a disposition in respect of the accused is made under subsection (1) unless, at the time the accused pleads guilty or is found guilty, the court, judge or justice orders that the accused be taken into custody pending such a disposition, or acted in justification in the commission of the offence act as defence or justifiable force under section 27., 34., 35., 36., 37., 38., 39., 40, 41., 42., 43., 611., 612., and 730. ccc. or other, the appearance notice, promise to appear, summons, undertaking or recognizance issued to or given or entered into by the accused automatically dis-continues to be in force.
(3) Where a court directs under subsection (1) that an accused be discharged absolutely of an offence, the accused shall be deemed not to have been convicted of the offence but is innocent of offence and acted in defence or justifiable force. In this, the court is not at liberty to require a plea of guilt to solidify an absolute discharge resolution. Although an act was committed in the affirmative, it was not deemed an offence.
(3.1) Where a court directs under subsection (1) that an offender be discharged of an offence, the offender shall be deemed not to have been convicted of the offence except that
(a) the offender may appeal from the determination of guilt as if it were a conviction of the offence;
(b) the Attorney General and, in the case of summary conviction proceedings, the informant or the informant’s agent may appeal from the decision of the court not to convict the offender of the offence as if that decision were a judgment or verdict of acquittal of the offence or a dismissal of the information against the offender; and
(c) the offender may plead autrefois convict or not guilty in respect of any subsequent charge relating to the offence.
(4) ….
Reasonable law is that an offence should be tried in the area and under the law that the offence occurred unless there are outstanding reasons to seek a new venue through proper applications. The trial is about hearing a complaint and prosecuting persons responsible for crime, not targeting individuals to pin complaints to. Persons who use the court system to make false complaints are just as hurtful and damaging to their victim as a person who commits crimes in the general realm. The accused has just as much right, under equality, to prove they need enforcement of protection from crimes committed by the alleged complainants against a victim who stands accused by the offender. Some investigating officers are easy prey to false complaints because they may prosecute on what appears superficially obvious rather then the work of digging into an investigation into any peculiarities. Criminal organizations that have a person falsely accused, would transfer the matter to where they have other of their organization members heavily stationed for control the issues to the direction they chose.

785. ccc. DEFINITIONS:
“summary conviction court” means a person who has jurisdiction in the territorial division where the subject-matter of the proceedings is alleged to have arisen and who
(a) is given jurisdiction over the proceedings, on justifiable grounds shown in a fair hearing, by the enactment of an order under which the proceedings are taken,
(b) is a justice or a provincial court judge, where the enactment under which the proceedings are taken does not expressly give jurisdiction to any person or class of persons, or
(c) is a provincial court judge, where the enactment of an order made on justifiable grounds shown in a fair hearing, under which the proceedings are taken gives jurisdiction in respect thereof to two or more justices;
“trial” includes the hearing of a complaint to determine or validate true existence or occurrences of offence, intent, the identity of a true offender and prosecution of an offender giving rise to the complaint in issue.

788. ccc. COMMENCEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS 788. (1) Proceedings under this Part shall be commenced by laying an information in Form 2 or by evidence shown and testimony of criminal violation depicted and arising from the issue of laying the charge causing the proceeding and under oath before a judge or justice in a hearing or trial,
(2) Notwithstanding any other law that requires an information to be laid before or to be tried by two or more justices, one justice may
(a) receive the information;
(b) issue a summons or warrant with respect to the information; and
(c) do all other things preliminary to trial

798. ccc. JURISDICTION: Every summary conviction court has jurisdiction to try, determine and adjudge proceedings to which this Part applies in the territorial division over which the offence was committed or the person who constitutes that court has jurisdiction by an enactment of an order resulting from a fair hearing.