1. Post Title:
Application For Mistrial In Court Case C13-205-SR
By: Rene Helmerichs
Written: 27 June 2014
Blogs:
Submitted: To The Superior Court Of Justice for Canada at Barrie, C13-205-SR, following a jury verdict and before the sentencing hearing, 27 June 2014 and 30 June 2014.
2. The Grounds for the Application For Mistrial are "an error in law" more specifically a mixing of law and fact resulting in misapprehension of the permitted evidence in a way not correctable by mere additional statement to the jury had the issue been addressed at any point before a verdict was entered by the jury.
3. There are several errors to address. The first and most recent is the ruling that a Charter section 7 violation of prejudice did not occur. The accused Mr. Helmerichs was denied both the full case to meet, in having been denied the evidence of 22 Oct. 2012 referenced by Matthew Swain, the evidence of 3 Sept. 2012 referenced by Officer Lori McIlravey, and permission to submit the blog posts A Confidential Conversation, Mind Demonstrated For Science, and others for his defense, AND denied the right of full answer in being denied to submit relevant evidence prior to its submission as evidence. It is not up to the Crown or Judge to decide the merits of defense evidence prior to its submission as evidence. The very action of a Judge permitting the Crown to repeatedly vet defense evidence negates the purpose of a trial as an impartial hearing. For further specific evidence to this first error in law the reader is referred to the 7 July 2014 blog posts titled "Incompetence Of The Superior Court Of Canada" followed by "Psychiatric Fraud Exposed By Rene Helmerichs" at www.renehelmerichs3.blogspot.com .
4. The second error is with respect to the legislature of Criminal Code section 264(b) and its interpretation as applied to this case. The Code specifically states:
"No person shall... knowing that a person is harassed... engage in conduct... that causes the other person reasonably, in all the circumstances, to fear for their safety...."
5. The judge, in his 26 June 2014 Charge To The Jury, did provide written statement:
"Was Natalie Yewchyn's fear reasonable in all the circumstances?"
on page 41, and elaborate the phrase with explanation:
"This question requires you to consider whether Natalie Yewchyn's fear for her own safety because of Rene Helmerichs' conduct was reasonable in all the circumstances"
and biased the opinion of jurors in the yet further elaboration and ensuing re-phrasing of the key ingredient question as:
"Would a reasonable person in the same circumstances as Natalie Yewchyn fear for her own safety as a result of what Rene Helmerichs did?"
before insisting the illegal re-phrasing from the inaccurate misapprehension of the opening question copied in the decision tree guideline that jurors must employ in their decision making on page 44 of the document Charge To The Jury must cause the jury to render the final verdict "Guilty of Criminal Harassment" if the answer to incorrect, and thus unlawful, question is "Yes."
6. Mr. Helmerichs did specifically attempt to bring this misapprehension of legislature and resulting misapprehension of the evidence, in also the larger context of all 12 errors in law specifically recounted in the appendium to the first draft of these 12 paragraphs submitted on 27 June 2014, to light on 25 June 2014 in the review of The Charge To The Jury BEFORE the jury was to receive the document. The 4-page trial submission is titled "Lettered Exhibit P" and was completely brushed aside by the prejudice trial judge in want to simply see Mr. Helmerichs further detained in a psychiatric ward for insisting the psychiatric application of Mr. Lorberg to be outside of the scope of a Superior Court to overturn contrary to section 24(1) of The Charter.
7. The error in law with respect to the section 264(b) legislature is threefold. First, His Dishonour has twisted the wording of the legislature to imply something within it that is not actually present. This leads to the second error which is to have pre-emptively biased the jury with needless, and indeed unlawful, prejudice toward the accused. The third aspect of the second error is in the absolute removal of the requirement "in ALL the circumstances" which has been the singular crux of this case and the lawful authority having permitted the Criminal Code section 269.1 hospital torture redress. It is agreed that the idea of torture occurring in an Ontario hospital is far-fetched, but it did, according to its own definition, occur. The three aspects of the second error are addressed as follows.
8. The twisting of the wording, thought possibly unintentional, has occurred. The legislature specifically uses the word "reasonably". Reasonably is an adverb and applies only to the action of causing fear. It does not itself apply to the fear since fear is a noun and simply not reasonable, according to the team of research psychologists having written A Course In Miracles. The charge requires emphasis to remain on the behavioural actions imparted to The Complainant and not the perception of that action. In a proper trial, the focus must then remain on the accused and the action(s) instigating fear, which were heard on 17 June 2014 in the witness testimony of the Mormon treasurer, were solely imparted through the action of sending email. Ms. Yewchyn has confirmed, for the indictment period of the charge, that there were no in-person encounters and in all encounters previous to the period, 31 May 2012 to 2 March 2013, that the accused was always civil. This is not differently than the ongoing written statements phrased understandably inappropriately to antagonize members of The Canadian and Ontario Governments since the arrest of 3 Sept. 2012, and moreso after the second arrest, while in person the accused has demonstrated consistent normal behaviour landing him a position of server at the jail and leaving The Waypoint Psychiatric Facility no grounds to further detain Mr. Helmerichs on 2 July 2014. Normal means civil and polite.
9. The ever-slight distinction of the word-twist earmarks the confusion within the understanding of the presiding judge Mr. Mulligan and crown attorney Ms. Hall that makes the world of difference and lends to the vehemous actions of The Court and The Crown during the trial to have prevented the section 7 Charter application with the prejudice compoundingly added to the jury by repeatedly brushing defense statements and attempts at evidence submissions aside. For the judge to first misinform the jury of the actual element to consider before adding speculative question and focus on unproven and unprovable fact, specifically with elaborated personal opinion given ALSO in writing that "A reasonable person is a person ...", on page 41 of Charge To The Jury, and then to describe only a person and no longer the action, confirms the error in law undisputedly.
10. The third aspect of the second error in law with respect to the section 264(b) charge is found repeatedly in denied defense statements wherein the accused is only claiming perfect love, specifically, right of God--birthright equally to all, to unite ALL churches and bring forth an era of Worldwide Global Peace. The Superior Court Of Justice has permitted itself to be the mockery of law and laughing stock for the entire planet on simple account of not having given serious consideration to the statements of The Defendant Mr. Helmerichs leading us now to the point of a WORLDWIDE PUBLIC APPEAL to redress THE CRIMES against ALL CANADIANS by THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CANADA at Barrie WASTING PUBLIC FUNDS, repeatedly, TO CONVICT INDIVIDUALS ON THE MERRITS OF PRESUMED GUILT WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING THE LAW IS EVER FOR ALL EQUALITY AND MANDATES EQUAL PROTECTION SUCH THAT NOT ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW.
11. Ten additional specific errors in law were submitted on 30 June 2014, none of which were honestly or fairly heard by the demonstratedly injust, biased, wantonly prejudiced, legally incompetent and possibly criminally insane, presiding judge Mr. Mulligan who was in no legal position to judge the merits of this Application For Mistrial before sentencing Mr. Helmerichs to the psychiatric ward assessment demanded by Mr. Gunter Lorberg via his fraudualent form copied, word for word, to the 7 July 2014 blog post "Psychiatric Fraud Exposed By Rene Helmerichs" at www.renehelmerichs3.blogspot.com . Please continue at that post.
No comments:
Post a Comment