Xabre gets screwed in Court! But JackieG will fix everything

[notorial dissent]

Unless Xabre is lying more than I think he is, he isn't smart enough to have not gone stupider and gotten deeper in trouble. I would suspect that he didn't attempt anything reasonable with the court, and most likely escalated things with his employer and got himself fired for his pains. I am actually surprised that he hasn't sued his employer as that seems to be a sovrun standby, and we don't know that he hasn't. I would expect he has also done something else even more stupid and landed himself in jail to top it off. This kind of stupid only expands to fill all the possible gaps.

[bmxninja357]

Jackie Grant Harper
Address for service,
P.O. Box 2915
Melfort, Sask.
S0E 1A0

August 5, 2015

Public Prosecutions
Box 6500
MELFORT, SASK.
S0E 1A0

Dear Sir,
Re: R.v. Jack Harper
Trial August 25, 2015 Melfort Provincial Court 1:30 p.m.

Please find attached disclosure with a list of witness's the defence will call.
Also please be advised there appears to be a discrepancy in affidavits from SGI as to whether or not SGI actually maintains any information on the defendant.
Another privacy issue is; 'where does SGI and the RCMP get the authorization from to use the defendants Saskatchewan Government ID, as a drivers license?'
As this appears to be an issue that may well involve fraudulent use of the defendants documents among other things you may wish to reconsider presenting your evidence to the court.
You may also wish to consider the fact that your informant has been 'noted for default' in Harper v. Bennet et al QBG 32/2015 and may be considered an, "adverse witness".
I trust you will consider the inherent problems you will face should this matter proceed on the grounds you have disclosed thus far as I will not be in a position to admit any of your evidence at trial.

Regards,





Jackie Grant Harper


-------


Ninj

[bmxninja357]

This just in:

The crown prosecutor refused to accept service.
So...I went down the street to Queens Bench paid the sheriff $35 and get the prick served.
JackieG [Freeman on the Land]

Winning!
Ninj

[Burnaby49]

This is turning into pure comedy.

[bmxninja357]

But Burnaby what do you find funny aboot such compelling postings as:

[quote]Whether by foot, donkey or auto it does not matter when the common law right to travel unimpeded on a public highway is concerned.
What matters is the crown has never, ever, EVER shown they have the right too restrict or impede anyone.
JackieG [Freeman on the Land][\quote]

He is so right it need not be backed by anything but his word. And history of failures, lies and victim blaming.

Shirley you jest...

Ninj

[Burnaby49]

Shirley you jest...

Don't think I've forgotten Santos Claus. Thin ice Ninja, thin ice . . . . .

[LordEd]

Shirley you jest...

Ninj

[Burnaby49]

OK LordEd, you're on my shit-list now too. There was no need to rub it in with that picture. I knew exactly what he was referring to; I saw it in the theatre thirty-five years ago back in the day when half-the audience wasn't bablling on their phones.

I'm in a crappy mood. I have to slog through yet another unbelievably stupid Minister Michelle video;

viewtopic.php?f=48&t=10670

I'll post it tonight if I can finish it before the bottle of wine finishes me.

[LordEd]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aZdp46Jen_w

Well before my time for theatre view, but it's my type of movie.

In any case back to facts. We're all counting on you.

[bmxninja357]

the latest from xabre,

As you may be aware in my " Forced to pay Garnishee" on the site here, I was Star Chambered by the Alberta court system. Even though I said at the very beginning of my Court case "I Claim common Law jurisdiction, I am convening a court of "COMMON LAW" and DO NOT CONSENT to these proceedings and I waive all benefit. well Judge Hess completely ignored and ruled in favor of the Local Banksters. I know why he did this ,he wanted to make short work of me ....Which he did, using the rule that the "Legal Fiction" was NOT in the court therefore ruling in favor of the plaintiff.
However I have now sent two letters to the assistant Chief Justice HR Young one regular post (which was never replied to) and a copy this time registered which I might add was received AND signed for on the 26th of August, so I know they now have my Complaint that I was Star Chambered by Judge Hess.
My whole point being is that I DID NOT CONSENT ,and I will have my turn in court. Now if I have to I will go to the Bar in Alberta and have him ( The Judge) Reprimanded or disbarred if possible. Which brings me to my next issue....I believe I am being ignored because maybe I was right all along, so that said I am willing to wait another couple of weeks and no more ,as I will make my move not only against this Corrupt Judiciary system and Judge Hess, but I will counter sue the bank, and this time make sure my case is heard.

X

at least one part is agreeable,

I will go to the Bar in Alberta

that often solves my problems.

peace,
ninj

[LordEd]

Until it turns into a drinking problem...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pl4plPGRG8o

he wanted to make short work of me ....Which he did

That says it all. Next victim please.

[notorial dissent]

... I DID NOT CONSENT .... .... I am being ignored ....

And he thinks it is just because he didn't do the incantation right. That seems to pretty well sum up his whole plaintive whinge. I'd ask if he was really that stupid and clueless, but it would only be a rhetorical question at best. It's a pity they don't have a :stupid: emoticon over there since he needs one so badly.

Just goes to show you should never ask the question of just how stupid can one person get, because they'll always come back with an answer.

[Burnaby49]

Xabre's feeling neglected;

It is now Sept 11 and I have heard nothing from the Assistant Chief Justice of the Alberta court system. I can only presume they know that I am correct in that I was Star chambered, and I am being ignored. I will now deal with the BAR and see what procedure to take. allthough it seems to me I may be asking the fox to guard the chicken coop.

Is he hinting that he's going to get a lawyer? A man with his vast legal knowledge has to fraternize with the dreaded BAR?

He could make the alternative presumption that after the Alberta Chief Justice, or one of his minions, had a good laugh over Xabre's idiocy, it was tossed in the garbage.

http://worldfreemansociety.ca/forum/70- ... e?start=20

[Burnaby49]

Xabre is getting serious.

Xabre

LOL.... Yes , I am now going to contact the BAR and the governing body of the Law Society and inquire as to how I go about bringing charges against Judge Hess for " Abuse of Process" I will let all now what Bull Shit the they feed me. I believe it will be a long drawn out process, and most likely take we months ,as these Judges and Magistrates Are so Arrogant and I would not be surprised if they dragged it out or continued to ignore me. that is why I've started this thread, as It will serve as a record of the gong show that is the Canadian Judicial system
X

Xabre, you want to bring charges against a judge? You go to the police and they bring charges if they believe your bullshit story. Since the chances of that are absolutely nil whining about how mean the judge was to you is totally pointless. Then again so was everything else you've told us that you've done in trying to stop your garnishee. It's wise of you to be aware at the beginning of the process that you have to be patient. I think your estimate of "months" is a touch out. I'd start thinking millenniums.

http://worldfreemansociety.ca/forum/70- ... e?start=20

[Dick Dastardly]

Is it overly sadistic to delight in the spectacle of reality hitting these guys like a freight train? Ah well I don't care if it is

[notorial dissent]

Is it overly sadistic to delight in the spectacle of reality hitting these guys like a freight train? Ah well I don't care if it is

You had nothing to do with it, they are providing the entertainment publicly and free of charge, so it would be rude to ignore it and not appreciate it for the low comedy that it is, after all, they put so much time and effort in to royally and totally screwing up their lives, it just wouldn't be right to ignore it.

[Burnaby49]

More news from the battlefront!

Forced to pay Garnishee
3 days 1 hour ago #139627

I have been referred to the Judicial Association of Canada based in Ottawa, as I understand it this is the judges club of Canada I called 3 days ago and left a message to have someone call, as yet no one has gotten back to me. I will call again on Monday the 28th of September to see if I can make some head way.

Unfortunately he won't get anywhere with the Judicial Association of Canada because the only place that organization exists is in his own head. I assume he means the Canadian Judicial Counsel.

https://www.cjc-ccm.gc.ca/

This is what Wikipedia says about the Canadian Judicial Council

The Canadian Judicial Council was granted power under the Judges Act to investigate complaints made by members of the public or the Attorney General about the conduct (not the decisions) of federally appointed judges. After its review and investigation of a complaint, the Council can make recommendations, including to Parliament through the Minister of Justice that a judge be removed from office.

By directing complaints to the Canadian Judicial Council, Canada's Parliament acknowledges that the public must have a way to voice its concerns about judges. At the same time, the system must allow judges to respond to allegations of misconduct in a fair way. The entire process must be efficient, fair, and objective. In all cases, judicial independence - the foundation of Canadian justice - is central to the process.

Canada is one of the very few countries where a complaint can be made against the Chief Justice in the same way as any other judge. The Chief Justice is not involved in the review of complaints.

Although I don't think much of Xabre's chances;

While the majority of complaints are dealt with quickly and with resolve, there are some instances where a judge's conduct is considered to be of sufficient concern that further inquiry is warranted.

Since 1971, there has been a total of 8 inquiries into the conduct of a particular judge: Cose (2008), Boilard (2003), Flynn (2003), Flahiff (1999), and Hart, Jones and MacDonald (1990).

Unfortunately for Xabre the council reviews the conduct of judges, not their decisions. Xabre lost because his action in court was totally without merit and was, legally, essentially disruptive gibberish. I think he assumes that the council is a way of appealing his loss through the back door. He dreams that the council will override his judge and render the correct decision, the one that says Xabre is entirely right rather than the one that says Xabre is an idiot. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.