Schedule A to applications in Form 1 under Ontario Criminal Rule 2.1
Written: By the applicant, Rene Helmerichs
Last updated: 4 Feb 2015
Copied to: www.renehelmerichs3.blogspot.ca
.DOC link to Schedule A (this doc):
.PDF link to A Course In Miracles:
For service to all affected parties, and
Her Majesty The Queen In Right Of Ontario as represented at:
room 502, Barrie Courthouse
75 Mulcaster Street
Barrie, ON, Canada L4M 3P2
FAX: 705-739-6551
THE APPLICANT INTENDS THIS DOCUMENT TO REMAIN A LIVING DOCUMENT: EXPANDABLE WITH FUTURE APPLICATIONS BY ADJOINING SECTIONS AND PARAGRAPHS
Table Of Contents
Schedule A to applications in Form 1 under Ontario Provincial Criminal Rule 2.1
Table Of Contents
Applications
I. Paragraphs for Application I, ON Criminal Rule 2.1 Form 1 (Sch.A.1 to Sch.A.26)
II. Paragraphs for Application II, ON Criminal Rule 2.1 Form 1 (Sch.A.27 to Sch.A.42)
III. Paragraphs for Application III, ON Criminal Rule 2.1 Form 1 (Sch.A.43 to Sch.A.51)
IV. Paragraphs for App. IV, ON Criminal Rule 2.1 Form 1 (Sch.A.52 to Sch.A.75)
V. Paragraphs for Application IV, ON Criminal Rule 2.1 Form 1 (Sch.A.76 to Sch.A.)
Table Of Contents End Of Document
Applications
I. To set a new national standard to audio recording all publicly funded mental assessments.
App. I for 13 Feb 2015 or as soon thereafter at Barrie served 30 Jan 2015
.PDF link for Barrie:
I. Paragraphs for Application I, ON Criminal Rule 2.1 Form 1 (Sch.A.1 to Sch.A.26)
II. To change the venue to The Supreme Court for Canada to hear cases against Rene Helmerichs
App. II for 13 Feb 2015 or as soon thereafter at Barrie also 17 Feb 2015 at Orillia served 30 Jan 2015
.PDF link for Barrie:
.PDF link for Orillia:
II. Paragraphs for Application II, ON Criminal Rule 2.1 Form 1 (Sch.A.27 to Sch.A.42)
III. To have a jury trial for summary conviction proceedings
App. II for 13 Feb 2015 or as soon thereafter at Barrie served 2 Feb 2015
.PDF link for Barrie:
III. Paragraphs for Application III, ON Criminal Rule 2.1 Form 1 (Sch.A.43 to Sch.A.51)
IV. To provide necessaries of life including housing subsidy while not convicted
App. IV for 17 Feb 2015 or as soon thereafter at Orillia served 4 Feb 2015
.PDF link for Orillia:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/yuu46medy9ctmky/App_IV_Orillia.pdf?dl=0
IV. Paragraphs for App. IV, ON Criminal Rule 2.1 Form 1 (Sch.A.52 to Sch.A.75)
I. Paragraphs for Application I, ON Criminal Rule 2.1 Form 1 (Sch.A.1 to Sch.A.26)
[FORM Paragraph.5.]
Sch.A.1. "This is application for an order requiring spoken statements of Rene Helmerichs given for purposes of mental assessment to be audio recorded and a digital copy provided Mr. Helmerichs if the assessment, or reporting thereof, can reasonably affect a detention or further detention of Rene Helmerichs."
[FORM Paragraph.6.]
Sch.A.2. I require this order because the current charge for which I am being mentally assessed stems directly from false statements psychiatrists Liaqat Ali and Anjana Chawla made, defined as false in Criminal Code section 361(2) owing to their intentionally provoking reporting of me without the context that I orally provided. Mr. Ali and Ms. Chawla had furthered exaggerated testimony of Barrie police officers to misconstrue statements of me for want to attribute signs of a psychosis to me that could not have been attributed were my oral statements audio recorded, my orally provided context applied, and I properly permitted the Criminal Code section 16(3) right to challenge their allegedly expert testimony. As they have taught me to provoke, so it is that I have provided a plethora in likeness reply, sanctioned under Criminal Code section 315 and Constitution section 2(b).
[FORM Paragraph .7.]
Sch.A.3. Testimony cannot be honestly challenged without a first-hand recording, evidencing need also for court recordings to remain available in their original audio format in addition to their transcripts.
Sch.A.4. Specific details of criminal code offences Mr. Ali and Ms. Chawla did commit in false pretense of honest health care is included in a 28-page document included in the crown disclosure for the Orillia matter of file C-14-3928. The context of the document was not acknowledged in the Ontario Criminal Court process of taking statements out of context to allege criminal offenses where otherwise none could exist.
Sch.A.5. At 13:33 on 26 Jan 2015, psychiatrist William Komer approached Rene Helmerichs sitting peacefully in the open common area at The Waypoint Centre For Mental Health Care demanding Mr. Helmerichs to speak for the purposes of a court-ordered criminal responsibility mental assessment. Mr. Helmerichs politely advised the medical practitioner of his right to silence under Constitution section 7 unless their session is audio-recorded, advising the practitioner both of willingness to speak and requesting the session to be audio-recorded. The assessor, Mr. Komer, chose instead to end the conversation and, from actions to follow, decline to honestly assess Mr. Helmerichs.
Sch.A.6. On 28 Jan 2015, Mr. Komer insisted upon revisiting Mr. Helmerichs while Mr. Helmerichs was locked into a room containing two side-by-side doors, one normal wooden door and a second ominous-appearing thick-metal sliding door requiring three keys to open. As Mr. Helmerichs is not a concern to staff, having graduated already to off-ward weight room privileges, Mr. Helmerichs never expected a psychiatrist begin the pretense of a therapeutic, beneficial, satisfying dialog with imposition of the sliding door. At just after 9 a.m., Mr. Komer approached with attending nurse Carole, insisted she open the threatening door to slide the door just enough for sound but not complete slight to enter, then purported to examine his denigrated mental patient, clearly presumed to be most seriously afflicted or of some sort of mentally illness for need to speak though the fear-evoking orifice, before staring Mr. Helmerichs down and demanding: "are you ready to talk to me?"
Sch.A.7. Mr. Helmerichs contained the vile of Mr. Komer, the assessor of 28 Jan 2015, with written statement copied to the Waypoint record:
Mr. Komer, (you lack insight into your illness. This explains your fuck-you condition.) Thank you for your arrogance today. Arrogance is precisely to presume me ill such that when I politely advise you to AUDIO RECORD our sessions, you insist on hearing that I do not want to talk to you. I DO want to talk. Can YOU HEAR ME? RECORD IT. Rene Helmerichs.
Sch.A.8. The reverse side of the 28 Jan 2015 page to the Waypoint record for Mr. Komer read:
If you continue to demonstrate to me that you are unwilling to hear me, may I please receive answer of your Highness; what exactly is the point of me wasting my time talking to you? Shall we continue instead to throw words AT each other in false pretense of believing us to desire an actual real, honest, therapeutic session? Is that not against the very foundation of your medical license?
Sch.A.9. Mr. Helmerichs is currently, and has been diligently since visiting not one but three police stations in person on 7 Oct 2012, attempting to redress intentionally false statements contravening Criminal Code sections 362 and 366 of psychiatrist Liaqat Ali in September of 2012 which psychiatrist Anjana Chawla did vexatiously further in October 2012 to see Mr. Helmerichs stripped of his right to refuse medication before Ms. Chawla then ordered Mr. Helmerichs to be injected on presumption of guilt for a criminal offense against Natalie Yewchyn. Mr. Helmerichs argued the point of not having been given a criminal trial to Ms. Chawla who conceded his honest victory to commit the Criminal Code offense of section 120 in November 2012 to bribe Mr. Helmerichs with removal from all treatment orders, including the forced injections, in exchange that he not further publicize the criminal actions of Ms. Chawla.
Sch.A.10. Contrary to Ontario Provincial Police Orillia Peter Street detachment supervisor oral comments having concluded the voluntary hour-long video statement of 6 Nov 2014, namely that nothing can be done to arrest Mr. Ali or Ms. Chawla owing to a lack of documentation, documentation is directly available from the reports and Ontario Review Board hearings of the psychiatrists themselves who have yet refused to send the information for the current criminal responsibility assessment.
Sch.A.11. There is very much a common spirit of our law permitting Mr. Helmerichs to continue to publicize Barrie courthouse misadministration of justice to the Ontario public: the need to record psychiatric assessments should be obvious, as well as the need for the 6 Nov 2014 video statement to be reviewed for verification that Mr. Helmerichs is very much attempting everything possible to abide our laws.
Sch.A.12. The June 2014 criminal trial for C-13-205-SR had originated the cover-up of psychiatric dishonesty currently underway in the courthouse at Barrie. Mr. Helmerichs had relied upon psychiatric evidence to establish his defense of protected torture statements, Criminal Code section 269.1(4), that Superior Court judge Mr. Mulligan, with support of crown attorney Ms. Kathryn Hull, ruled on 2 May 2014 was not to be permitted (contrary to R. v. Seaboyer (1991) and the foundation of our presumption of innocence).
Sch.A.13. Memory cannot be absolutely relied upon (argued for absolve of the death of Darcy Allen Sheppard whom The Attorney General himself ran down with a covert in 2009) and only an audio recording can guarantee that recorded written statements are both accurately recorded and recorded in the context the speaker intends. There is simply nothing to rely upon without an audio recording to which to refer for instances of legal dispute.
Sch.A.14. An audio recording is necessary to ensure honesty of all parties partaking in the assessment. Specifically, the challenge to expert testimony, whether that testimony is given in writing, orally, or implied under presumption of medical license standard, is permitted with caselaw supplied in the annotations to Criminal Code section 16 and referenced specifically in Sch.A.21.
Sch.A.15. It should suffice that the purpose of a fair hearing depends on context, page 1822 of Martin's 2014 (4th paragraph from the top ending just above the subsection Self-incrimination) and context requires for any legal process to retain the ability to verify, first-hand, statements disputed if only to remind dishonest lawyers that the law is ever-evolving because context itself is of the living spirit for law, not fully knowable except with willingness to respect any objective position as inherently incomplete.
Sch.A.16. If a speaker is not able to verify that spoken statements of self are portrayed out of context from that intended in a mental assessment, the party intentionally seeking to circumvent the normal due process for fairness, including the Constitutional right to a minimum of a due diligence defense, is evidenced to desire to intentionally hide statements from public scrutiny. The desire to be not transparent directly affects the liberty of an individual and is in direct opposition to the spirit of the law of both The Upper Canada Law Society Rules For Professional Conduct and the doctrine of Mens Rea as given in the annotations to section 7 of our Constitution, rendered supremely unlawful under the supreme law for Canada consistency requirement of Constitution subsection 52(1).
Sch.A.17. Kevin Sisk, representative for Her Majesty In Right Of Ontario to the record of 3 May 2013 for C-13-1184 at Barrie, did state psychiatrist Mr. Jeffrey Van Impe would not respect the 17 April 2013 judicial endorsement otherwise intending for the mental assessment to be recorded. The attending judge of 3 May 2013, Mr. Main, had muttered to Mr. Sisk on that day the effect of "so that's how we can get around [the endorsement]", notably professing for himself his own psychosis of believing himself expert only in a law cutting corners for bias, prejudice, and not fairness. A mere endorsement will not therefore suffice and an order for audio recording of mental assessments becomes absolutely necessary.
Sch.A.18. No assessment criteria have been provided in advance of the current court-ordered assessment, despite numerous requests, causing serious concern of whether standard criteria even exist. From the annotations of Constitution section 7 in the Canada Law Book judicial edition Martin's Criminal Code 2014:
The concept of a limitation on law enforcement discretion is based on the principle that a law must not be so devoid of precision in its content that a conviction will [not] automatically flow from the decision to prosecute. Legal rules reach the point of certainty only in particular cases where the law is determined by a competent authority.
Sch.A.19. The rate of speech is typically faster than the rate of hand-writing statements, revealing unnatural process to claim to be able to record all that a client has spoken but for the desire to intentionally take spoken statements out of context, a noted violation of law. The desire for medical practitioners to not audio record statements is directly the desire for unconformity to a standard of regulation and directly evidences unrecognized superiority complexes within the very mental assessors the court presumes to be experts in delusions of grandeur: the very medical authorities entrusted to define the Criminal Code section 2 defined mental disorder with respect to mind are with their delusions of grandeur revealed to have no actual knowledge whatsoever, duly evidenced in their utter lack of providing the assessment criteria of that they profess to assess, or a definition of mind satisfying how one same idea smaller than a mustard seed can be instilled in two unique individuals to affect the same moral desire for honesty before, while, or after conducting the ordered assessments.
Sch.A.20. The action of refusing to speak onto a recording directly evidences an unwillingness to speak honestly, because honesty is consistency and consistency of assessment application is only reassured with an audio record to verify consistency: individuals purporting to administer mental assessments yet unwilling to have those assessments recorded are directly evidencing an unwillingness to honesty listen with traditional active-listening therapeutic dialog, warranting additional orders for criminal investigations into past psychiatric practices of medical practitioners claiming to have assessed Rene Helmerichs while intentionally spiting having those sessions recorded, specifically, all related conduct of psychiatrists Mr. Liaqat Ali, Ms. Anjana Chawla, Mr. Gunter Wolfgang Lorberg, Mr. Jeffrey Van Impe, Ms. Karen De Freitas, Mr. Wesley Sutton, Mr. Robert Dickey, and Mr. William Komer if he reports anything more than "is this application legally sound?"
Sch.A.21. The annotations to Criminal Code section 16 of the judicial edition of Martin's Criminal Code 2014, thank you Mum for delivering one to me at Waypoint on 30 Jan 2015 for lack of the court to provide the book with caselaw requested and denied also at the 22-25 July 2013 hearings for C-13-1184 (become C-13-205-SR on 8 Nov 2013), reveal specifically the right of a defendant to challenge medical expertise, which is not possible without also supplying the defendant a recording of statements allegedly taken out of context:
While the concept of appreciating the nature and quality of an act requires an understanding of the consequences of the act, this refers to the physical consequences of the act: R. v. Abby, (1982) 2 S.C.R. 24, 68 C.C.C. (2d) 394 (9:0)…. In R. v. Wolfson, (1965) 3 C.C.C. 304, 46 C.R. 8 (Alta. S.C. App. Div.), it was held that evidence of an irresistible impulse is not, by itself, enough to support a finding of insanity under this section…..Thus, while medical experts are entitled to take into consideration all possible information in forming their opinions, "this in no way removes from the party tendering such evidence the obligation of establishing, through properly admissible evidence, the factual basis on which such opinions are based." R. v. Abby, supra.
Sch.A.22. The Waypoint Centre For Mental Health Care articles of incorporation providing the legal clout for the motto of the intent of every employed medial authority within the hospital to work toward "advancing understanding" and "improving lives." As every client in the tax-payer funded club med is currently under charge of a medical authority, Criminal Code section 215(1)(c)(iii) provides The Centre must also provide necessaries of life. Necessaries of life, in context of mental assessments, include directly the ability to challenge the purportedly expert authority of medical practitioners. Medical practitioners not understanding the frailty of their precarious employment with context of defamatory statements given about guesthouse inmates to cause or further a detention, detention defined in the annotations to Constitution section 9 for sections 10 and 11, 11 including quasi-criminal psychiatric allegations as criminal charges for the criminal court system.
Sch.A.23. The annotations to section 7, the right to life and liberty, provide the right to silence to apply to every individual including anyone allegedly mentally ill satisfying The Operating Mind, a real-time test. If a recording is requested, the club med client retains a right to silence until such time as means for the audio recording is established and the distribution to the client ensured without encumbrance nor imposed levies:
An aspect of the common law confession rule requires that the accused have an operating mind. The operating mind test includes a limited mental component which requires that the accused has sufficient cognitive capacity to understand what he is saying and what is said. This includes the ability to understand [understanding itself not defined] a caution that the evidence can be used against the accused. The same standard applies with respect to the right of silence as guaranteed by this section in determining whether a mentally ill accused has the mental capacity to make an active choice: R. v. Whittle, (1994) 2 S.C.R. 914, 92 C.C.C. (3d) 11, 32 C.R. (4th) 1.
Sch.A.24. Subsection 52(1) of the Constitution provides this argument to be superior to any Mental Health Act (R.S.O. 1990) clause otherwise used with desire to circumvent the fair administration of justice requiring mental assessment to be absolutely audio or, audio and video, recorded:
The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect.
Sch.A.25. The 22 and 25 July 2013 hearing transcripts explicitly evidence the practice of permitting medical practitioners to retain exclusive judicial authority superior to that of Province Of Ontario judges, and Superior Court judges for Ontario given actions of judges for C-13-205-SR to have denied Mr. Helmerichs an interim order for release (Criminal Code section 515; aka bail) for not having permitted Mr. Helmerichs to address first the 2 July 2014 ended year-long issue of physician applications. Physician applications were in contravention of caselaw supplied in the annotations to Constitution section 2(c) that interim release cannot be reasonably refused on speculative concern for danger: R. v. Collins (1982), 31 C.R. (3d) 283 (Ont. Co. Ct.). That Mr. Helmerichs was often denied even a copy of the applications psychiatrists Mr. Gunter Lorberg and Mr. Robert Dickey insisted upon submitting with declarations of having mentally assessed Mr. Helmerichs when no such assessment took place, noted specifically on the record of 3 Feb 2014 for C-13-205-SR, need for absolute reassurance for transparency of psychiatric tyranny is mandatory for the misled public tax-payer.
Sch.A.26. On 25 July 2013 Judge Mr. Crawford claimed to reserve expertise in the area of mind exclusively to the medical assessor; witch is therein ultimately awarded responsibility for deciding whether one is even to be presumed the normal constitutional right of Criminal Responsibility and trial, therewith testifying the mental assessment to be the new courtroom: shall we abolish courtroom recordings altogether or affirm this application to merit a new national standard for mental assessments?
II. Paragraphs for Application II, ON Criminal Rule 2.1 Form 1 (Sch.A.27 to Sch.A.42)
[FORM Paragraph.5.]
Sch.A.27. This is an application for an order for a change of venue to The Supreme Court for Canada on University Avenue in Toronto.
[FORM Paragraph.6.]
Sch.A.28. The provincial Ontario Court For Justice and Superior Court For Justice are not a court of competent jurisdiction to hear the defendant challenge to expert testimony of mental assessments and mental disorder designations of Rene Helmerichs.
[FORM Paragraph .7.]
Sch.A.29. On 29 Dec. 2014, crown witness Orillia probation officer Ms. Tamara Williamson stated to the record for the trial of Orillia case file C-14-3928 that she did not fulfill her legal duty otherwise required of her position. Mr. Helmerichs had submitted a 3-page letter to her requesting a variation to the 27 June 2014 probation order on 9 July 2014. The order required Mr. Helmerichs to not blog the name Natalie Yewchyn following conviction of the offence of Criminal Harassment for the period 31 May 2012 to 2 March 2013, a reasonable request despite the unreasonable conviction. The 29 Dec 2014 trial concerned the 28-page submission made for privately swearing charges against psychiatrists Liaqat Ali and Anjana Chawla to a Justice of The Peace at Barrie on 8 July 2014, charges for which Mr. Helmerichs had instigated, therewith requested, the June 2014 trial of Barrie case file C-13-203-SR having originated the need to redress the matter with bedevilling statements to Natalie Yewchyn otherwise (with context) sanctioned under Criminal Code sections 315, 269.1(4), and the spirit of the law respecting court honesty.
Sch.A.30. Mr. Helmerichs submitted the 28-page information for privately swearing, received in court of Barrie but not officiated as charges on 8 July 2014, to Ms. Williamson with the 3-page variation request. The information contained a cited section of the 4 Sept 2012 Barrie police report of detective Brian Read noting Mr. Helmerichs to have been arrested for allegations of criminal harassment to Natalie Yewchyn on 3 Sept 2012 and incarcerated into Royal Victoria Hospital, RVH, in Barrie. Despite argument of Mr. Helmerichs that no defined criminal harassment to Natalie Yewchyn occurred prior to March 2013, at RVH psychiatrists Liaqat Ali and Anjana Chawla discriminated against Mr. Helmerichs on the basis of creative not harmful writing to strip Mr. Helmerichs of his right to refuse medication before then denying him the right to a power of attorney and forcibly injecting him on presumption of criminal offense guilt. As the period for the Superior Court conviction directly overlaps that having been already penalized with criminal code section 269.1(b) defined torture, a Double Jeopardy did at least in part occur notwithstanding the period not overlapped is exempt under section 269.1(4), 315, Constitution section 52(1), and Its trans-parent spirit.
Sch.A.31. Mr. Helmerichs has sought to redress the wrong of being not only detained but forcibly injected on allegations of a criminal offense without the dignity of even a pretend criminal trial, such as occurred in June of 2014, in 2012 since at least attending three police stations on 7 Oct 2012. On 1 and 2 March 2013, under presumption the Constitution section 15 equal protection under the law existed in Canada, and Criminal Code sections 315 and 269.1(4), Mr. Helmerichs emailed Natalie Yewchyn actually not threating but bizarre messages to bring the matter of intentionally false psychiatric statements to the awareness of the public via the criminal court system. Unfortunately, crown attorney Ms. Kathryn Hull determined Mr. Helmerichs to need to be denied not only the right to a fair trial, fair defined in the annotations to Constitution section 7 to depend entirely upon context, but also the right to have access to full disclosure before, during, and still not after the trial to this date. Coincidentally, Ms. Hull prosecuted the 29 Dec. 2014 Orillia trial as well.
Sch.A.32. On 2 May 2014 for file C-13-205-SR, trial judge Mr. Mulligan ruled that psychiatric evidence was not to be permitted for defense submission because, the judge claimed, it was not relevant to the defense. This directly evidences The Superior Court Of Justice for Ontario to be incompetent for intentionally and unlawfully presuming Mr. Helmerichs guilty, and guilty to such extent that Mr. Helmerichs was not to be permitted even to submit the 4 Sept 2012 police report directly referenced in crown witness testimony of Lori McIlravey. Mr. Mulligan actually displayed the audacity to assure Mr. Helmerichs and the jury that the jury would receive a copy of that report before then dismissing the jury to argue with Mr. Helmerichs into the following day about why the jury was not to have it and then simply denying Mr. Helmerichs the right to submit it as evidence without also dropping all charges against Mr. Helmerichs. The jury as tax-payer was still left footing the courtroom bill.
Sch.A.33. Crown attorney Ms. Hull is equally liable for the misadministration of justice yet ongoing for need of this change of venue to The Supreme Court for Canada. Ms. Hull did at the hearings of 17, 22 and 25 July 2013, and 2 Aug 2013 claim Mr. Helmerichs to be mentally ill and condemned Mr. Helmerichs to what would become a 60-day criminal responsibility assessment at Ontario Shores, ordered until 1 Oct 2013 whereupon the attending representative for Her Majesty conceded an error had occurred as psychiatrist Karen De Freitas conveniently took a vacation and no report was submitted. Psychiatrists are to note, irrespective of their assumed supremacy to judiciaries, they are fully permitted to not write a report, especially if they feel an order to write a report is superfluous. For the ensuing Superior Court June 2014 trial, Ms. Hull claimed Mr. Helmerichs did not suffer from a mental illness at the time of the offence, evidencing at the very least disordered thought processes, mental disorder with psychoses for law, in Ms. Hull.
Sch.A.34. Context is directly supplied in the ideas represented with words in the 28-pages that Ms. Williamson elected not to read for context but to use to charge Mr. Helmerichs for yet another criminal offense lest he be permitted to restore his good name. At the trial for the allegations of criminal wrong in the out-of-context information, Ms. Williamson stated Mr. Helmerichs to be suffering a mental illness at the time of the 30 June to 10 July 2014 offence period (the court clerk had read this to the record at the start of the trial on 29 Dec 2014 for Orillia file C-14-3928), quiet in contrary to the 2 July 2014 early release from The Waypoint Centre For Mental Health Care. Psychiatrist Mr. Gunter Wolfgang Lorberg had caused Mr. Helmerichs to be repeatedly denied the ability to apply for bail during his pre-sentence custody of the June 2014 trial for keeping Mr. Helmerichs under perpetual psychiatric Form 1, directly signing written declaration to having mentally assessed Rene Helmerichs for each form, without ever actually having assessed Mr. Helmerichs (criminally the offences of code sections 362 and 366).
Sch.A.35. That the Superior Court judge of 2 May 2014 insisted psychiatric evidence to not apply is directly negated with the dozen applications by physicians in Form 1 over the year ending 2 July 2014 keeping Mr. Helmerichs without ability to apply for bail, also unconstitutional with caselaw of Constitution section 2(c) specifically stating that bail cannot be denied on speculative concern for danger, lest of all if no real danger ever existed.
Sch.A.36. The 29 Dec. 2014 order for a criminal responsibility assessment is intended to generate a psychiatric report. The outcome of the report does not matter. The mere fact of there being a report permits Mr. Helmerichs to argue the merits of the individual purporting expertise in mind in addition to the complacency of provincial judiciaries purporting psychiatrists to be more knowledgeable with respect to criminal responsibility than the fundamental principle of social law demanding that every person retain innate responsibility for actions of self. It is precisely that which Mr. Helmerichs desires to challenge, and challenge for purposes of overturning unconstitutional sections of a national circus act, The Mental Health Act, R.S.O. 1990.
Sch.A.37. On 14 Jan. 2015, Mr. Helmerichs had the fortune of encountering the same Orillia trial judge of 29 Dec. 2014, Mr. Beatty, in Barrie for related charges not grouped with the breach of probation charge. Fact that the charges have not been grouped witnesses to the Barrie crown attorneys playing pretend in their usual games denying the accused freedom only to compel a guilty plea for quick end to frivolous charges. On 14 Jan. 2015, on grounds of presumption of mental illness, directly in contravention of Criminal Code section 16, Mr. Beatty denied Mr. Helmerichs the right to submit a change of venue application. The action did very much render the provincial court of Ontario prejudice against Mr. Helmerichs and therewith of no competent jurisdiction. For additional support, the court is referred to caselaw with respect also to bad faith in section 11(b) of The Constitution.
Sch.A.38. Argument can be made that the provincial court is not yet incompetent. For this, Mr. Helmerichs evidences the same judge, Mr. Beatty, to have extended the criminal responsibility order from 29 Dec. 2014 on 27 Jan 2015 to 17 Feb. 2015. The order cannot be extended past 60 days under Criminal Code section 672.15 owing to the imperative 'shall' and reference to The Interpretation Act of Canada. On 19 Jan. 2015, for the related charges at Barrie, a subsequent judge committed Mr. Helmerichs to additional criminal responsibility assessments for each of the 5 charges in the Barrie jurisdiction sworn 8 Dec 2014. This follows the unlawful presumption of mental illness having prevented hearing of this application on 14 Jan. 2015. The Argument for provincial court incompetence is settled with revelation that the 29 Dec. 2014 trial must continue on a date whereat Mr. Helmerichs may still be under order for a criminal responsibility assessment, easily attained with further judicial mockery necessitating extension to the assessment orders of 19 Jan 2015 for hearing statement "I will have sex with Natalie Yewchyn" and sudden amnesia thereafter. After the maximum 60 days of the 29 Dec. 2014 criminal responsibility order, to play the game of technicalities with the crown attorneys desiring precisely that in their games for pretend, Mr. Beatty shall not be able to find Mr. Helmerichs guilty because Mr. Beatty has established for himself the doctrine of presuming an individual mentally ill until formal illness report is supplied.
Sch.A.39. Mr. Beatty cannot lawfully condemn Mr. Helmerichs to any detention after the 60-day mark from 29 Dec. 2014 order for arrogance of the actions of Mr. Beatty on 14 Jan 2015 that had prevented Mr. Helmerichs the lawful right to a constructive courting session for the purpose of the date as determined 12 Jan. 2015. On 12 Jan. 2015 the very same Justice Of The Peace Ms. Forfar (sp?), having previously committed Mr. Helmerichs to a detention order on 19 Dec. 2014, set the 14 Jan. 2015 date that Mr. Helmerichs could appear before a level 2 judge to pass the crown attorney the application argument arrived with Mr. Helmerichs to court on 12 Jan. 2015. On 14 Jan. 2015, Mr. Beatty had directly denied Mr. Helmerichs the right to serve notice of the change of venue application, not argue the application itself but merely to pass 10 pages to the clerk to photocopy for the attending crown attorney.
Sch.A.40. Because our Constitution subsection 52(1) same-applied professes the law, equated in practice to be judges of courts for law, to be supreme only to the extent that it is consistent, evidence of the farce for law displayed at The City Of Barrie since at least the 1st of September 2012 does render the whole courthouse at Barrie, including the Orillia jurisdiction under direction of same trial judges and same crown attorneys along with it, completely and totally incompetent for this case to obligate hearing in THE SUPREME COURT FOR CANADA in Toronto.
Sch.A.41. Additional facts are included in the accompanying application requesting mental assessments to be audio-recorded, owing to their new legitimacy of criminal responsibility court. The appendium application with additional arguments specifically requests an order requiring spoken statements of Rene Helmerichs given for purposes of mental assessment to be audio recorded and a digital copy provided Mr. Helmerichs if the assessment, or reporting thereof, can reasonably affect a detention or further detention of Rene Helmerichs.
Sch.A.42. Summary in a paragraph: the Superior Court, on 2 May 2014, ruled psychiatric evidence not to be relevant to the defense of then case file C-13-205 despite a dozen applications by physicians, in particular Mr. Gunter Lorberg, between the period 6 Dec. 2013 to 30 June 2014, the date of sentencing following conviction arising directly as a result of the inability of the defendant, Mr. Helmerichs, to raise the issue of inadmissibility of March 2013 criminally harassing email to one Natalie Yewchyn to have been under lawful sanction of Criminal Code section 269.1(4) protected statements. Section 269.1(4) was directly enacted with threat of reprisal, assault, and perjury psychiatrists Liaqat Ali and Anjana Chawla did unlawfully commit on and before 26 Oct 2012, for which Mr. Helmerichs had needed a greater amount of public awareness for Criminal Code section 315 publicating in good faith for redress of wrong, given Her Majesty The Queen In Right Of Ontario as represented in Her Ministry For Community Safety And Correctional Services, MCSCS, at the Barrie 29 Spalding Drive, Orillia Peter Street, and Orillia Memorial Avenue detachments refused to acknowledge complaints of psychiatric Criminal Code infractions on 7 Oct. 2012. All related documentation necessary for the arrest of Liaqat Ali, Anjana Chawla, and Natalie Yewchyn is available online through numerous links to submitted court documents from Twitter profile @talk2dream, auto-reply email to talk2dream.me@gmail.com , and the blogs www.luciferchristforworldpeace.blogspot.tw and www.renehelmerichs3.blogspot.ca , whereat a copy of all related applications shall also be made available for public free pdf download.
III. Paragraphs for Application III, ON Criminal Rule 2.1 Form 1 (Sch.A.43 to Sch.A.51)
[FORM Paragraph.5.]
Sch.A.43. This is an application for an order granting Rene Helmerichs the right to a jury trial for charges currently proceeded under summary conviction.
[FORM Paragraph.6.]
Sch.A.44. The argument of the Barrie courthouse judges and crown attorneys that proceeding under a summary conviction does not beget The Constitution section 11(f) "benefit of trial by jury where the maximum punishment for the offence is imprisonment for five years or a more severe punishment" for information of 6 and 7 Dec. 2014 is no force of effect under Constitution subsection 52(1) with context of facts supplied.
[FORM Paragraph .7.]
Sch.A.45. With respect to proceedings commenced under summary conviction in Canada, Criminal Code section 786(2) provides "No proceedings shall be instituted more than six months after the time when the subject-matter of the proceedings arose, unless the prosecutor and the defendant so agree." For the matter of breach of probation on 8 July 2014, 8 Jan 2015, noted in the email sent 6 Dec 2014 TO Natalie Yewchyn AND all 24 crown attorneys of the Barrie circus courthouse, marked the six month dooms date. No further judicial proceeding is lawful under legislated imperative SHALL necessitating the crown alter the proceeding to an indictment, if possible, except the crown is also not permitted to do that since the defendant does NOT agree.
Sch.A.46. Following revelation that case file C-14-3928 does not longer merit any proceeding EXCEPT to arrest psychiatrists Anjana Chawla and Liaqat, owing to duly sworn information having arrived in court before a judge for PUBLIC review, since the administration of justice at Barrie and Orillia is revealed to be in contravention of everything honourable intended of justice, the disgrace that is the dishonourable court shall surely continue to contest for furtherance of this application.
Sch.A.47. With respect to proceedings commenced under summary conviction, Criminal Code s. 789(1)(b) requires "each offence or matter of complaint, as the case may be, shall be set out in a separate count." and noting the crown of 15 Dec 2014 (was it?) having given the crown position of 4 months requested jail time to the record at Barrie for case file C-14-6966, specifically stating there to be 6 charges for 4 separate informations and that the 4 months were for all SIX charges, my son would be able to figure that TWO charges constitute a direct contravention to section 11(h) of The Constitution as Double Jeopardy offences. Of the six charges, knocking off also the ludicrous C-14-3928, the one arrived when Trooper Tamara Williamson took the law into her own hands to charge Mr. Helmerichs for posting a public document to the internet, we are reasonable down to just three charges left with legal tax-payer funded courtroom advertising time.
Sch.A.48. Considering the illegitimacy of C-14-3928, the charges begotten for the 18 Nov 2014 and 2 Dec 2014 Orillia courthouse defendant no shows are equally illegitimate since, technically to play the Barrie crown attorney game, no guilt for breach of probation lawfully occurred, notwithstanding Mr. Helmerichs had actually called into T. Will-I-Am-Son on 18 Nov 2014 to leave recorded voice mail at her Orillia Probation extension (Pslams) 23:4, copied to the last 10 minutes of document slides in the 2 Dec 2014 YouTube posted video defense statement to all charges: I'm mentally ill today and won't be going into court; I'll be selling DaMa, marijuana, to support myself following Ontario Works allegations of uttering threats sufficed with 6 Nov 2014 Orillia Peter Street Ontario Provincial Police video statement having left me with Desolation.
Sch.A.49. Of the six charges, there is really only one offence meriting a quasi-criminal charge, since the legal definition of Criminal Code section 264 requires the perceived fear of our Heroin Natalie Yewchyn to be reasonable "in all the circumstances" and reasonable in all the circumstance is impossible since Mr. Helmerichs is the exception to every circumstance for having been willing to incur absolute liability, namely, accepting of the spirit of the law itself as himself. Who knew such a thing was possible? The actual content, with attachments, of the 6 and 7 Dec. 2014 emails to Natalie, when actually read for CONTEXT, does state precisely that intent.
Sch.A.50. Criminal Code s. 789(2) provides "No information in respect of an offence for which, by reason of previous convictions, a greater punishment may be imposed shall contain any reference to previous convictions." but the crown attorney of the 19 Dec 2014 bail proceedings, continued 23 Dec 2014, for C-14-6966 (and related) at Barrie did read to the courthouse record a police report for the sworn information stating Mr. Helmerichs to have harassed Natalie Yewchyn since 2010. This does require proceedings to be commenced under indictment as the damage to judicial bias is already affected given the ensuing 23 Dec. 2014 order for detention awarded Mr. Helmerichs. This argument hardly matters given the others, but is still nice to add for superfluous support.
Sch.A.51. The annotations to Criminal Code section 786 state "There exists no limitation provision of general application in respect of proceedings on indictment. An accused will have the benefit of s. 11(b) of the Charter in terms of being tried within a reasonable time and s. 7 protection against undue delays in the prosecutional process warranting a stay of proceedings or abuse of process. Summary conviction proceedings are commenced by laying an information in Form 2 pursuant to s. 788(1)." and The Constitution subsection 52(1) states "The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect." Taking into account the spirit of the law and that every charge not specifically designated for summary conviction is a form of a proceeding on indictment, the quasi-criminal offence falling under the definition of "charged with an offence" in the annotations to section 11 of The Constitution does precisely merit a jury trial EXPECIALLY since the added risk for undefined hospital detention for noted psychiatric desire to force injections does very much merit inclusion into the Constitution section 11(f) "benefit of trial by jury where the maximum punishment for the offence is imprisonment for five years or a more severe punishment" as a more severe punishment, otherwise defined in Criminal Code section 269.1 as TORTURE for the inherently severe mental suffering.
IV. Paragraphs for App. IV, ON Criminal Rule 2.1 Form 1 (Sch.A.52 to Sch.A.75)
[FORM Paragraph.5.]
Sch.A.52. This is an application for an order that Ontario Works provide Rene Helmerichs: (1) the housing, spousal benefit, and minimum subsidy while detained awaiting trial for criminal allegations; (2) back pay for item (1) to 20 Oct. 2014, the date of last arrival of his wife in common-law in Canada; and (3) the necessary airfare and costs incurred to have his wife, Fan-Xiu Hsiao, return to Canada to continue care for her mentally disabled husband, a total of $11,133.33 with this judicial order.
[FORM Paragraph.6.]
Sch.A.53. Constitution subsections 52(1), 24(1), and 15(1) provision for equality under the law obligate necessaries of life, including housing and social support for the mentally disabled, to be afforded for discrimination against Rene Helmerichs, necessaries duly guaranteed under Constitution section 7 right to life and Criminal Code paragraphs 215(1)(b) and (c) adducing the spirit of the law referenced in Rule 6 of The Rules For Professional Conduct for Upper Canada Law Society members under our supreme Constitutional law.
[FORM Paragraph .7.]
Sch.A.54. Constitution subsection 52(1) states "The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect." This directly places any local policy directives for social benefit under lawfully enacted legislature forever under real-time under authority of The Constitution of Canada, our written supreme law for any judiciary in any court of law in Canada. Any judge for law is therein granted authority to render "of no force or effect" any local policy directive revealed to be, in practice, inconsistent with the guaranteed rights of The Constitution under methodical legal argument, provided.
Sch.A.55. The Canadian Charter Of Rights And Freedoms, the Charter, is part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, The Constitution of Canada. Section 24(1) of The Constitution provides:
Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.
Sch.A.56. The applicant apologizes for needing to remind lawyers practicing as judges in courts for law of Canada, licensed under Upper Canada Law Society license, that Criminal Code section 141 directly comes into play for necessaries of life denied to "compound or conceal" the indictable offence of Criminal Code section 215(3)(a). Criminal Code section 215(3)(a) states "Every one who commits an offence under subsection (2) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years;" wherefore subsection (2) states:
Every one commits an offence who, being under a legal duty within the meaning of subsection (1), fails without lawful excuse, the proof of which lies upon him, to perform that duty if (b) with respect to a duty imposed by paragraph (1)(c), the failure to perform the duty endangers the life of the person to whom the duty is owed or causes or is likely to cause the health of that person to be injured permanently.
Sch.A.57. Criminal Code paragraphs 215(1)(b) and (c) state:
Every one is under a legal duty (b) to provide necessaries of life to their spouse or common-law partner; and (c) to provide necessaries of life to a person under his charge if that person (i) is unable, by reason of detention, age, illness, mental disorder or other cause, to withdraw himself from that charge, and (ii) is unable to provide himself with necessaries of life.
Sch.A.58. Fan-Xiu Hsiao and Rene Helmerichs have cohabited in a conjugal relationship for a period of at least two years while Mr. Helmerichs served as English teacher in Taiwan begun in 2004, and as often as local practice directives of length of her stay in Canada and finances for travel did permit thereafter, notwithstanding the desire of Ms. Chawla in 2012. Psychiatrist Ms. Anjana Chawla had ordered all nursing staff to deny Mr. Helmerichs the normally presumed therapy of supportive visitations while incarcerated into Royal Victoria Hospital, RVH, on presumption of criminal guilt without a criminal trial. Fan-Xiu and Rene have been actively and sincerely attempting to have a child since at least 2011 and have been best friends since 2004. A common-law partner is defined in Criminal Code section 2:
"common-law partner", in relation to an individual, means a person who is cohabitating with the individual in a conjugal relationship, having so cohabited for a period of at least one year;
Sch.A.59. Criminal Code section 141 is directly referenced in Rule 6 of The Rules For Professional Conduct to ensure judiciaries do not lose focus on the fundamental tenet of our legal system, namely, that the innocent not be convicted. However, Criminal Code subsection 141(2) incomprehensibly provides lawyers an excuse permitting them to willfully commit indictable offences in courts under the Constitution with "agreement for compensation or restitution or personal services that is (b) made as part of a program, approved by the Attorney General, to divert persons charged with indictable offences from criminal proceedings" UNLESS The Constitution is to be strictly adhered with the Attorney General, "the Crown", realized to be not a person qualifying for consideration within the context of Constitution section 15.
Sch.A.60. Case law supporting the illegitimacy of the Criminal Code subsection 141(2) clause to render ever court judge not honouring the spirit of the law expressed in this application guilty of an indictable offence under at least Criminal Code subsection 141(1) for section 132 perjury and the original section 362 misleading oath is provided in the annotations to Constitution section 15 in the judicial edition of Canada Law Book Martin's Criminal Code 2014:
The word "individual" in this section does not include corporations: R. v. Paul Magder Furs Ltd. (1989), 49 C.C.C. (3d) 267, 69 O.R. (2d) 172 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused 51 C.C.C. (3d) vii, 70 O.R. (2d) x. The Crown cannot be equated with an individual for the purposes of s. 15(1) analysis: Rudolf Wolff & Co. v. Canada, (1990) 1 S.C.R. 695, 69 D.L.R. (4th) 392.
Sch.A.61. Because lawyers receive valuable consideration, pay, for their time at forming reply to this necessary application, any reply not inclusive of an Ontario Criminal Court Form 3 consent, or equivalent consent, for granting of the order, Criminal Code section 141 directly places that lawyer license into jeopardy irrespective of legislation or judicial orders for its protection because every such order is produced of an individual operating under Upper Canada Law Society license with agreement for the Attorney General that is in the preceding revealed to be "of no force or effect" in the context of legitimate reply to a legitimate case of discrimination qualifying this application under Constitution section 15 law.
Sch.A.62. The annotations to Constitution section 15, equality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law, in our judicial edition Canada Law Book, Martin's Criminal Code 2014 state:
It is not every distinction or differentiation in treatment at law which will violate the equality guarantee. In order to govern effectively legislatures must treat different individuals and groups in different ways. To achieve true equality it will frequently be necessary to make distinctions. This section spells out four basic rights which apply to all persons, whether citizens or not: the right to equality before the law, the right to equality under the law, the right to equal protection of the law and the right to equal benefit of the law. Its purpose is to ensure equality in the formulation and application of the law and the right to equal benefit of the law. All these four rights are granted with direction that they be without discrimination. Discrimination exists where a distinction, whether intentional or not but based on grounds relating to personal characteristics of the individual group, has the effect of imposing burdens, obligations or disadvantages not imposed upon others, or withholding or limiting access to opportunities, benefits and advantages available to other members of society.
Sch.A.63. From the annotations to Constitution section 15:
In Law v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), (1999) 1 S.C.R. 497, 170 D.L.R. (4th) 1, Iacobucci J., speaking for the court, set out certain guidelines for analysis under this section. Among other things, he held that a court called upon to determine discrimination under subsec.(1) should make the following three broad inquiries:
(1) Does the impugned law draw a distinction between the claimant and others on the basis of one or more personal characteristics, or fail to take into account the claimant's already disadvantaged position resulting in substantively differential treatment on the basis of one or more personal characteristics?
(2) Is the claimant subject to differential treatment based on one or more enumerated and analogous grounds?
(3) Does the differential treatment discriminate by imposing a burden upon or withholding a benefit from the claimant in a manner that reflects the stereotypical application of presumed group or personal characteristics, or that otherwise has the effect of perpetuating or promoting the view that the individual is less capable or worthy of recognition or value as a human being or as a member of Canadian society, equally deserving of concern, respect, and consideration?
The existence of a conflict between the purpose or effect of an impugned law and the purpose of subsec.(1) is essential to found a discrimination claim. The purpose of subsec.(1) is to prevent the violation of essential human dignity and freedom through imposition of disadvantage, stereotyping, or political or social prejudice, and to promote a society in which all individuals enjoy equal recognition at law, equally capable and equally deserving of concern, respect and consideration. Since the guarantee under this section is a comparative concept, the court must establish one or more relevant comparators.
Sch.A.64. The most relevant comparator for purposes of the guidelines for analysis under Constitution section 15 is directly the life of Mr. Helmerichs reflected as essential human dignity, specifically, stereotyping as mentally disabled on grounds of presumed mental illness without affording Mr. Helmerichs the Criminal Code section 16(3) right to contest medical authority opinions that have resulted in defame to his good name. A brief history is required to establish context for the current ongoing discrimination requiring this, among other applications, to, unfortunately, restore the honest administration of justice in the province of Ontario, Canada:
i. In June of 2012 Natalie Yewchyn emailed Mr. Helmerichs to request no further communication with him. Mr. Helmerichs considered her email to be a violation of her request to not communicate with him and replied, simply, "no communication goes against God", without thinking of the silliness of the argument. Their argument over God had been ongoing before anyone cares, was entirely not romantic unless erotomanic desires of Natalie Yewchyn are to be considered, had spanned over a dozen different locations including coffee shops, movie theatres, the living room of Natalie on several occasions, a mutual Spa date at her suggestion, several religious-type locations, and the car of the Mum of Mr. Helmerichs which Natalie insisted on using when asking Rene for lifts to and from her residence. On 31 Aug 2012, Rene warned Natalie not to contact him again, which she subsequently has because, as Rene holds, no communication goes against God, no matter the God one chooses to honour, because God is that establishing any and every ability to communicate, including the whole of the miscommunication commonly scientifically scrutinized as the problem of linear time endlessly repeating itself.
ii. On 3 Sept 2012 Mr. Helmerichs was incarcerated into Royal Victoria Hospital, RVH, on allegations of suffering a mental illness and somehow having no insight into allegedly causing Natalie to fear for her safety, all the times she contacted Rene, a reputable Georgian College teacher, for whatever she wanted. Several emails have been submitted to reveal Natalie Yewchyn as the one with a canyon for a memory gap than the sliver of misremembered exact dates with Mr. Helmerichs. Memory can, simply, not be relied upon. At RVH, Mr. Helmerichs was first placed under charge of psychiatrist Mr. Liaqat Ali.
iii. Difficult as it may be to accept, psychiatrist Liaqat Ali intentionally contravene Criminal Code section 362 to invent concept for psychosis under which to justify contravention of the otherwise right of Mr. Helmerichs to habeas corpus provided in Constitution paragraph 10(c).
iv. Mr. Ali falsely evidenced his own unrecognized superiority complex to Mr. Helmerichs to insist upon producing false written reports, contravening Criminal Code section 366, stating Mr. Helmerichs to have at some point professed to be an exclusive God while Mr. Helmerichs has only professed to be exclusively advocating the principals of A Course In Miracles, The Text of which states:
The ego literally lives on borrowed time, and its days are numbered. Do not fear the Last Judgment, but welcome it and do not wait, for the ego's time is "borrowed" from your eternity. This is the Second Coming that was made for you as the First was created. The Second Coming is merely the return of sense. Can this possibly be fearful?
v. From the Workbook in A Course In Miracles, officially available from www.acim.org, is given:
Christ's Second Coming, which is sure as God, is merely the correction of mistakes, and the return of sanity. It is a part of the condition that restores the never lost, and re-establishes what is forever and forever true. It is the invitation to God's Word to take illusion's place; the willingness to let forgiveness rest upon all things without exception and without reserve. It is the all-inclusive nature of Christ's Second Coming that permits it to embrace the world and hold you safe within its gentle advent, which encompasses all living things with you. There is no end to the release the Second Coming brings, as God's creation must be limitless. Forgiveness lights the Second Coming's way, because it shines on everything as one. And thus is oneness recognized at last.
vi. Psychiatrist Ms. Anjana Chawla had replaced Mr. Ali following September 2012 oath Mr. Helmerichs made to Mr. Ali that Mr. Helmerichs would see Mr. Ali lose his medical license.
vii. The writings of Mr. Helmerichs have suggested that he is the second coming, in a creative play of a lifetime to reveal to the world the extent of its mistaking The Word Of God for anything definable. On 26 Oct. 2012, Fan-Xiu having secretly slipped Mr. Helmerichs his cellphone in a single visit Ms. Chawla permitted with joy that Fan-Xiu was leaving the country, Mr. Helmerichs audio-recorded a sample of the discriminatory and wholey not therapeutic psychiatric session. The recording and partial transcript of the 26 Oct. 2012 session is available free for public download from www.renehelmerichs3.blogspot.ca and includes several instances of direct threat of reprisal to Rene.
viii. Crimes committed at RVH are referenced directly in the privately sworn information copied to the Crown disclosure for C-14-3928 at Orillia, sworn in Barrie, as well as the 126-page first affidavit sworn 25 March 2013 at Barrie for Family Court file FC-13-416 but which seems to have mysteriously disappeared from the courthouse record, and all throughout all other writings of Mr. Helmerichs. The reader is encouraged to review the content of the information sworn 8 July 2014 that probation officer Tamara Williamson claimed to merit the criminal charge of failure to comply to a probation undertaking to Mr. Helmerichs on 11 July 2014 to re-incarcerate him, again, on grounds of her own discrimination to him.
ix. Mr. Helmerichs has attempted every manner possible at his disposal, that he was able identify without knowing exactly what to ask of the authorities who refused to respect our Constitution, to facilitate their own lawful hearing for redress of the matter of being charged with a criminal offence, so defined in the annotations to Constitution section 11 as quasi-criminal, and convicted to receive the forced injections of Ms. Chawla without so much as a thought for the trial guaranteed in Constitution paragraph 11(f): "Any person charged with an offence has the right (f) ... to the benefit of trial by jury where the maximum punishment for the offence is imprisonment for five years or a more severe punishment"; the maximum psychiatric detention is an indefinite period owing to its foundation merely upon the opinion and desire of the charge psychiatrist and, in the case of Mr. Helmerichs, included severe physical and mental suffering for forced injections still desired in written 2 July 2013 testimony of psychiatrist Jeffry Van Impe insisting upon lithium (a toxic heavy metal) and "use of an injectable to ensure compliance".
x. Mr. Helmerichs has suffered great loss of health including loss of employment, loss of livelihood, loss of custody of his son, loss of residence, spinal pain, and muscle deterioration for psychiatric and judicial detention of criminal proceedings imposed upon Mr. Helmerichs from The Ministry Of Health And Long-term Care, MHLTC, The Ministry Of Community Safety And Correctional Services, MCSCS, and The Ministry Of The Attorney General, MAG, all for Her Majesty The Queen In Right Of Ontario, "the Attorney General" under false pretense of mental retardation. Jail staff did in 2014 still provide Mr. Helmerichs secret note passed with his meal that he is "sofa king we tard id" ('so very much retarded). Mental retardation is established in the annotations to Criminal Code section 16 as a mental disability: "'Mental Disorder' includes mental retardation: R. v. R. (M.S.) (1996), 112 C.C.C. (3d) 406 (Ont. Ct. (Gen. Div.))."
xi. In 2012, Ms. Chawla insisted on having the body of Mr. Helmerichs repeatedly forcibly injected with noxious substances for her claim that he was psychotic and needed the magical potion as anti-psychotic medicine. The potion only caused Mr. Helmerichs increasing spinal pain. Hearing of the pain in open-door sessions following 30 Oct 2012 discharge from RVH detention, audio-recorded for sheer incredibility of the events as unbelievable, Ms. Chawla insisted to increase the medication dosage even on the final day of her planned injecting in late November 2012, otherwise defined in Criminal Code section 269.1 as torture.
xii. Mr. Helmerichs was denied the right of Constitution section 11(d) both for the presumption of guilt imparted him and 11(f) for denial of a criminal trial before the forced injections of 2012. Statement of the criminal charge for harassment is included in the 4 Sept 2012 report of Barrie police detective Brian Read, available for download in the list of links provided in the auto-reply email with email to talk2dream.me@gmail.com
xiii. Mr. Helmerichs was presumed guilty of having criminally harassed Natalie Yewchyn without receiving a criminal trial, a crime that Mr. Helmerichs insists to this day did not occur, according to the definition of the charge in Criminal Code section 264(b) for the repeated communication, repeated to mean at least two, and related misrepresented allegations in the 4 Sept 2012 Barrie police report having justified the detention for Mr. Ali in labeling Mr. Helmerichs as also being a bomb threat.
xiv. In November of 2012, Ms. Chawla did commit the offences of Criminal Code section 120(a)(i), 120(a)(ii), and 120(a)(iii) to bribe Mr. Helmerichs with release from the forced injections if only he would cease publicating criminal offenses of Ms. Chawla. Mr. Helmerichs was compelled to agree to the bribe for want to be rid of the substance abuse causing him the spinal pain.
xv. In March of 2013, Mr. Helmerichs attempted to redress the matter of not having been provided the basic human dignity to formally challenge the false premise of an isolated thinking brain with, at the very least, common consideration for one spirit of law. One spirit of law is biblically referred to as The Holy Spirit, or wholey echo, for The Word Of God.
xvi. God is legally introduced into Canada law in the preamble to the Constitution with statement "Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:" but remains Itself undefined, as does the word mind in the Criminal Code section 2 definition of mental disorder as "a disease of mind." None can disagree that God, the Word of God, is not that inspiring the minds of all individuals with revelation that each and every mind, including minds governing every apparently lifeless object, is inherently greater than its body to be able to seamlessly coexist with constancy of perfect unity establishing Time for All Eternity.
xvii. The Word of God in the Constitution does therewith revealing the brain of a human being to be not the part originating thinking nor alterable with forced injections unless the mind of the person is first made to believe in the efficacy of witchcraft, the Criminal Code section 365 offence of pretending to practice witchcraft.
xviii. To redress the psychiatric fraud at RVH, Mr. Helmerichs ultimately served a consecutive sentence of 16 months in solitary confinement at the Central North Correctional Centre in Penetanguishene under false psychiatric observation of Mr. Gunter Lorberg while awaiting trial for the charge instigated in March 2013. Mr. Helmerichs did intentionally, but politely and still with intent for harm to none, repeatedly communicate to Natalie Yewchyn to redress the matter of psychiatric fraud in formal pulic court. Mr. Helmerichs has given statement that he has nothing of his former life left to lose and shall continue to commit the same offence until such time that his 8 July 2014 statements in the Crown disclosure for C-13-3928 are accept with context of this application and the ideas expressed with understanding of word-processed pictographs in proper grammatical form within the 28-pages of the 8 July 2014 sworn document.
xix. Mr. Lorberg repeatedly ensured Mr. Helmerichs that Mr. Helmerichs is psychotic and not to be afforded the Constitution section 11(e) right to reasonable bail because of the "severe mental illness", illness owing to, of course, "no insight" as its justification.
xx. The utter lack of psychiatrists to administer an unbiased assessment over the duration of psychiatric involvement for this greater case begun in 2012 and yet ongoing is evidenced in their completely lack of willingness to have their unsubstantiated opinions audio-recorded or publicized, address in I. Paragraphs for Application I, ON Criminal Rule 2.1 Form 1 (Sch.A.1 to Sch.A.26) .
xxi. Discrimination against Rene Helmerichs is evidenced in the psychiatric applications under Mental Health Act section 15 repeatedly affixed his warrant card while in custody for a criminal offence. Such applications are directly a contravention of the right to receive fair or reasonable consideration for a Criminal Code section 515 interim order for release, i.e. bail, since those applications are based on merely speculative concern for danger given the role of the justice presiding the bail proceedings is to determine the merits of need of custody with information supplied of the Crown attorney not to be over-ruled with biased psychiatric opinion. This is directed echoed in the guarantee of Constitution section 11(e) with supporting case law from the annotations to Constitution section 2(c) in Martin's 2014: "the rights of an accused cannot be restricted on a speculative concern of danger: R. v. Collins (1982), 31 C.R. (3d) 283 (Ont. Co. Ct.)."
xxii. On 2 May 2014, Superior Court judge Mr. Mulligan ruled Mr. Helmerichs was not to be afforded the right to submit relevant psychiatric evidence as defense or Mr. Helmerichs would have been able to publically reveal Criminal Code section 269.1 torture to have occurred at RVH in 2012 for defense of the March 2013 statements under Criminal Code subsection 269.1(4) protected statements.
xxiii. Discrimination in contravention of section 34 of The Human Rights Code for Ontario is ongoing in Ontario under tyranny of unrecognized delusions of grandeur with psychiatrists claiming expertise in mind while duly claiming pills to be able to affect thinking because thinking does not originate from a human body and to affect thinking with a pill requires first unconstructive projection, the imposing of the very schizophrenic state then desired to be healed without understanding its cause.
xxiv. On 27 June 2014, trial judge Mr. Mulligan sentenced Mr. Helmerichs to time served plus one day without desiring to acknowledge that Mr. Lorberg did demand, and repeatedly for the year ended 2 July 2014, that Mr. Helmerichs serve more than one more day under applications by physicians in Form 1 under section 15 of The Mental Health Act, R.S.O. 1990.
xxv. On 8 July 2014, Mr. Helmerichs attempted to privately swear charges against Mr. Ali and Ms. Chawla and was politely advised that MAG retained carriage over the charges, would invariably dismiss the charges, and cause MAG to advocate the iron-clad documentation available for charges to Mr. Ali and Ms. Chawla to be inadmissible because the charges would have been themselves already ruefully dismissed, in direct contravention of the tenet of Constitution section 15 "to promote a society in which all individuals enjoy equal recognition at law, equally capable and equally deserving of concern, respect and consideration."
xxvi. On 11 July 2014, Ms. Williamson of the Orillia probation office decided to take the law into her own hands and use mental illness as her excuse to consider statements of Mr. Helmerichs as frivolous, completely without merit. Mr. Helmerichs was arrested that day and again placed in solitary confinement under tyrannous authority of Mr. Lorberg at C.N.C.C.
xxvii. On 18 July 2014, Mr. Helmerichs was suddenly granted bail on his own recognizance, following the 11 July 2014 claim for a breach of probation terms at having posted a court-accepted document to the internet. The probation terms are themselves a contravention of our Constitution as the Superior Court trial judge did intention spite our Constitution section 7. From the annotations to Constitution section 7:
A law, which prevents the trier of fact from getting at the truth by excluding relevant evidence in the absence of a clear ground of policy or law justifying the exclusion, runs afoul of our fundamental conceptions of justice and what constitutes a fair trial. The fundamental tenet of our system, that the innocent not be convicted, implies that, before a judge may exclude evidence which is relevant to a defense, the potential prejudice to the trial process must substantially outweigh the value of the evidence: R. v. Seaboyer, (1991) 2 S.C.R. 577, 66 C.C.C. (3d) 321, 7 C.R. (4th) 117 (7:2).
xxviii. Following bail release, Mr. Helmerichs did his best not to blog the name Natalie Yewchyn according to the 27 June 2014 criminal request of Mr. Mulligan adduced with 18 July 2014 crown request: "Do not blog." Mr. Helmerichs finds great delight in the 30 Jan. 2015 Toronto Star front-page statement "Call it trial by Facebook."
xxix. In August and September of 2014, civil proceedings were begun for the 2012 malicious prosecution having contravened almost every section of The Canadian Charter Of Rights And Freedoms, principally in CV-14-0963 at Barrie.
xxx. Being condemned with release in 2012 without work to receive social assistance, in 2014 through the Orillia office for Ontario Works, Mr. Helmerichs was obligated to provide a copy of all civil proceeding cover pages to Ontario Works.
xxxi. Mr. Helmerichs has lost his driver's license and, unofficially but for direct statement of Patricia Whittington in 2012, the right to teach at the college or university level in Ontario on account of an alleged mental disability despite, a week before the 16 month incarceration, having completed a school bus driver's license under strict observation of a Sinton Transportation official licensed under the Ministry Of Transportation throughout the month-long one-to-one course.
Sch.A.65. Discrimination began in 2012 when two psychiatrists, Mr. Liaqat Ali and Ms. Anjana Chawla, attributed mental retardation to Mr. Helmerichs. In oral testimony Ms. Chawla provided for the Ontario Review Board hearing of 22 Oct. 2012 at RVH, Mr. Helmerichs was discriminated for to refuse social assistance. Ms. Chawla did, on grounds of criminal harassment, seek not to respect the Constitution section 11(d) right to a trial but to force injections into the corpus of Mr. Helmerichs. On 26 Oct. 2012, Ms. Chawla threatened Mr. Helmerichs further discriminated against Mr. Helmerichs with audio recorded threat of reprisal, before bribing Mr. Helmerichs to remove him from the forced injections.
Sch.A.66. On 4 Nov 2014, despite assurance of Lisa Hern (705-722-3132 ext. 1050) that Mr. Helmerichs was not to meet with Ms. Jayce O'lver but another social service worker, Ms. O'lver insisted on continuing in her belief that she was best suited to save Mr. Helmerichs from himself.
Sch.A.67. Ms. O'lver presumed Mr. Helmerichs to be suffering a severe mental illness for grounds not stated to Mr. Helmerichs except in her formal attempt on 6 Nov. 2014 to press the charge of Criminal Code section 264.1 uttering threats to Mr. Helmerichs for, as Constable Daniel Lesperance informed, was the abstract use of the three-letter word God deemed inappropriate in context of a country founded upon principles that recognize, at the very least, a perfectly loving all-inclusive not unknown aspect of Self to be guiding all toward escape from the insanity of a circular system. Insanity is to profess witchcraft health in place of healing mental hellth.
Sch.A.68. Mr. Helmerichs attended the Ontario Provincial Police, OPP, Orillia Peter Street detachment on 6 Nov 2014 for resolve of the misunderstanding. Following the hour-long video statement Constable Daniel Lesperance administered, Mr. Helmerichs was informed an alternate representative from Ontario Works would contact Mr. Helmerichs to arrange continuance of benefit receipt.
Sch.A.69. Mr. Helmerichs requests of the court to review the hour long 6 Nov 2014 OPP video statement to understand, precisely, the apathy displayed of MCSCS, and therein Her Majesty, for permitting OPP officers of law to give statement alleging, directly, that we for Ontario do NOT "promote a society in which all individuals enjoy equal recognition at law, equally capable and equally deserving of concern, respect and consideration" because the supervising officer testified to insufficient documentation when all necessary documentation is available directly from the hospital records of our government.
Sch.A.70. The 6 Nov 2014 OPP video statement is, for this application, requested to be provided Mr. Helmerichs with assistance of Barrie crown attorney Ms. Kathryn Hull who can personal testify to much of the content of this application for having conducted both the Superior Court C-13-205 June 2014 trial at Barrie, and the C-13-3928 breach of probation Orillia matter. Thus far, Ms. Hull has not exactly been forthcoming in honesty of law for her expressed desire to insist upon taking the 8 July 2014 28-page sworn statements of Mr. Helmerichs out of context. From the annotations to Canada Law Book Constitution section 7 in Martin's 2014:
The constitutional norm for a fair hearing is procedural fairness. Notice and participation may or may not be required to meet his norm--what is fair depends entirely on the context: R. v. Rodgers, (2006) 1 S.C.R. 554, 207 C.C.C. (3d) 225 sub nom. R. v. Jackpine.
Sch.A.71. Social respect begins with the matter of personal unwillingness to actively participate in upholding the law, to DO something for the money one accepts as remuneration for time in public service roles such as any for MAG, MCSCS, and MHLTC. All statements made herein this application can easily be verified but not from within a mental ward detention such as is currently the predicament of the applicant. Leave of the court is requested for a subsequent order to provide Mr. Helmerichs the 6 Nov. 2014 OPP video statement if Ms. Hull is yet unwilling to follow the law.
Sch.A.72. As no Ontario Works official returned to contact Mr. Helmerichs following the 6 Nov 2014 video statement, and the OPP indicated Mr. Helmerichs to await contact from Ontario Works, further deprivation of the necessaries of life of Mr. Helmerichs, specifically the money to provide the basic necessities of shelter and meager food for himself and his non-resident wife, need not be assumed but acknowledged as a very real living condition.
Sch.A.73. On 8 Jan 2015, Fan-Xiu Hsiao left the country for fear of reprisal from the state because Mr. Helmerichs could not cover the rent on the single-room apartment they share. Mr. Helmerichs is currently detained under Barrie courthouse judicial order of 23 Dec. 2014 for C-14-6966 and other charges enacted, again, intentionally at the hand of Mr. Helmerichs because he simply did not have money to pay for food and did not find it very appropriate to intentionally steal food to press the point.
Sch.A.74. Given mental retardation with no insight into his alleged mental illness in the events recounted in this application evidenced, Mr. Helmerichs is clearly suffering from a severe mental disability if only to be apparently speaking to no one at all. The utter lack of legal respect afforded the former teacher of Communication Skills thus necessitates subsequent applications under basic Human Rights clauses to have his wife, Fan-Xiu Hsiao, become a permanent resident and Citizen of Canada that she may continue to care for her socially dysfunctional spouse.
Sch.A.75. Leave is requested of this court to granted this order for necessaries of life on grounds of extreme discrimination and to endorse the order with provincial nomination that Fan-Xiu Hsiao receive status as honorary citizen given her Faith in One loving kindness to Mr. Helmerichs who began his 2012 Talk To Dream marketing campaign with specific aim for partnership among all churches to unite the world for a world peace-with-harm-to-none living scenario abolishing all wars for terror. Foremost teachers of A Course In Miracles, Professors Gary Renard and Cindy Lora-Renard, co-authors of Disappearance Of The Universe, on direct behalf of The Foundation For Inner Peace, publisher of A Course In Miracles officially available in numerous languages from www.acim.org are best to confirm the absolute conformity of the copyright claim to A Course In Miracles that Rene Helmerichs has publically made in distribution of the 1200-page text freely to the world via pdf document linked at the top of this file in its version downloadable from www.renehelmerichs.blogspot.ca and, in the near future, from www.talk2dream.org .
V. Paragraphs for Application IV, ON Criminal Rule 2.1 Form 1 (Sch.A.76 to Sch.A.)
[FORM Paragraph.5.]
Sch.A.76. This is an application for an order granting the defendant the right to be presumed criminally responsible irrespective of medical authority declarations for not criminal responsibility.
[FORM Paragraph.6.]
Sch.A.77.
[FORM Paragraph .7.]
Sch.A.78.
Table Of Contents End Of Document
Schedule A to applications in Form 1 under Ontario Provincial Criminal Rule 2.1
Table Of Contents
Applications
I. Paragraphs for Application I, ON Criminal Rule 2.1 Form 1 (Sch.A.1 to Sch.A.26)
II. Paragraphs for Application II, ON Criminal Rule 2.1 Form 1 (Sch.A.27 to Sch.A.42)
III. Paragraphs for Application III, ON Criminal Rule 2.1 Form 1 (Sch.A.43 to Sch.A.51)
IV. Paragraphs for App. IV, ON Criminal Rule 2.1 Form 1 (Sch.A.52 to Sch.A.75)
V. Paragraphs for Application IV, ON Criminal Rule 2.1 Form 1 (Sch.A. to Sch.A.)
Table Of Contents End Of Document
Written: By the applicant, Rene Helmerichs
Last updated: 4 Feb 2015
Copied to: www.renehelmerichs3.blogspot.ca
.DOC link to Schedule A (this doc):
.PDF link to A Course In Miracles:
For service to all affected parties, and
Her Majesty The Queen In Right Of Ontario as represented at:
room 502, Barrie Courthouse
75 Mulcaster Street
Barrie, ON, Canada L4M 3P2
FAX: 705-739-6551
THE APPLICANT INTENDS THIS DOCUMENT TO REMAIN A LIVING DOCUMENT: EXPANDABLE WITH FUTURE APPLICATIONS BY ADJOINING SECTIONS AND PARAGRAPHS
Table Of Contents
Schedule A to applications in Form 1 under Ontario Provincial Criminal Rule 2.1
Table Of Contents
Applications
I. Paragraphs for Application I, ON Criminal Rule 2.1 Form 1 (Sch.A.1 to Sch.A.26)
II. Paragraphs for Application II, ON Criminal Rule 2.1 Form 1 (Sch.A.27 to Sch.A.42)
III. Paragraphs for Application III, ON Criminal Rule 2.1 Form 1 (Sch.A.43 to Sch.A.51)
IV. Paragraphs for App. IV, ON Criminal Rule 2.1 Form 1 (Sch.A.52 to Sch.A.75)
V. Paragraphs for Application IV, ON Criminal Rule 2.1 Form 1 (Sch.A.76 to Sch.A.)
Table Of Contents End Of Document
Applications
I. To set a new national standard to audio recording all publicly funded mental assessments.
App. I for 13 Feb 2015 or as soon thereafter at Barrie served 30 Jan 2015
.PDF link for Barrie:
I. Paragraphs for Application I, ON Criminal Rule 2.1 Form 1 (Sch.A.1 to Sch.A.26)
II. To change the venue to The Supreme Court for Canada to hear cases against Rene Helmerichs
App. II for 13 Feb 2015 or as soon thereafter at Barrie also 17 Feb 2015 at Orillia served 30 Jan 2015
.PDF link for Barrie:
.PDF link for Orillia:
II. Paragraphs for Application II, ON Criminal Rule 2.1 Form 1 (Sch.A.27 to Sch.A.42)
III. To have a jury trial for summary conviction proceedings
App. II for 13 Feb 2015 or as soon thereafter at Barrie served 2 Feb 2015
.PDF link for Barrie:
III. Paragraphs for Application III, ON Criminal Rule 2.1 Form 1 (Sch.A.43 to Sch.A.51)
IV. To provide necessaries of life including housing subsidy while not convicted
App. IV for 17 Feb 2015 or as soon thereafter at Orillia served 4 Feb 2015
.PDF link for Orillia:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/yuu46medy9ctmky/App_IV_Orillia.pdf?dl=0
IV. Paragraphs for App. IV, ON Criminal Rule 2.1 Form 1 (Sch.A.52 to Sch.A.75)
I. Paragraphs for Application I, ON Criminal Rule 2.1 Form 1 (Sch.A.1 to Sch.A.26)
[FORM Paragraph.5.]
Sch.A.1. "This is application for an order requiring spoken statements of Rene Helmerichs given for purposes of mental assessment to be audio recorded and a digital copy provided Mr. Helmerichs if the assessment, or reporting thereof, can reasonably affect a detention or further detention of Rene Helmerichs."
[FORM Paragraph.6.]
Sch.A.2. I require this order because the current charge for which I am being mentally assessed stems directly from false statements psychiatrists Liaqat Ali and Anjana Chawla made, defined as false in Criminal Code section 361(2) owing to their intentionally provoking reporting of me without the context that I orally provided. Mr. Ali and Ms. Chawla had furthered exaggerated testimony of Barrie police officers to misconstrue statements of me for want to attribute signs of a psychosis to me that could not have been attributed were my oral statements audio recorded, my orally provided context applied, and I properly permitted the Criminal Code section 16(3) right to challenge their allegedly expert testimony. As they have taught me to provoke, so it is that I have provided a plethora in likeness reply, sanctioned under Criminal Code section 315 and Constitution section 2(b).
[FORM Paragraph .7.]
Sch.A.3. Testimony cannot be honestly challenged without a first-hand recording, evidencing need also for court recordings to remain available in their original audio format in addition to their transcripts.
Sch.A.4. Specific details of criminal code offences Mr. Ali and Ms. Chawla did commit in false pretense of honest health care is included in a 28-page document included in the crown disclosure for the Orillia matter of file C-14-3928. The context of the document was not acknowledged in the Ontario Criminal Court process of taking statements out of context to allege criminal offenses where otherwise none could exist.
Sch.A.5. At 13:33 on 26 Jan 2015, psychiatrist William Komer approached Rene Helmerichs sitting peacefully in the open common area at The Waypoint Centre For Mental Health Care demanding Mr. Helmerichs to speak for the purposes of a court-ordered criminal responsibility mental assessment. Mr. Helmerichs politely advised the medical practitioner of his right to silence under Constitution section 7 unless their session is audio-recorded, advising the practitioner both of willingness to speak and requesting the session to be audio-recorded. The assessor, Mr. Komer, chose instead to end the conversation and, from actions to follow, decline to honestly assess Mr. Helmerichs.
Sch.A.6. On 28 Jan 2015, Mr. Komer insisted upon revisiting Mr. Helmerichs while Mr. Helmerichs was locked into a room containing two side-by-side doors, one normal wooden door and a second ominous-appearing thick-metal sliding door requiring three keys to open. As Mr. Helmerichs is not a concern to staff, having graduated already to off-ward weight room privileges, Mr. Helmerichs never expected a psychiatrist begin the pretense of a therapeutic, beneficial, satisfying dialog with imposition of the sliding door. At just after 9 a.m., Mr. Komer approached with attending nurse Carole, insisted she open the threatening door to slide the door just enough for sound but not complete slight to enter, then purported to examine his denigrated mental patient, clearly presumed to be most seriously afflicted or of some sort of mentally illness for need to speak though the fear-evoking orifice, before staring Mr. Helmerichs down and demanding: "are you ready to talk to me?"
Sch.A.7. Mr. Helmerichs contained the vile of Mr. Komer, the assessor of 28 Jan 2015, with written statement copied to the Waypoint record:
Mr. Komer, (you lack insight into your illness. This explains your fuck-you condition.) Thank you for your arrogance today. Arrogance is precisely to presume me ill such that when I politely advise you to AUDIO RECORD our sessions, you insist on hearing that I do not want to talk to you. I DO want to talk. Can YOU HEAR ME? RECORD IT. Rene Helmerichs.
Sch.A.8. The reverse side of the 28 Jan 2015 page to the Waypoint record for Mr. Komer read:
If you continue to demonstrate to me that you are unwilling to hear me, may I please receive answer of your Highness; what exactly is the point of me wasting my time talking to you? Shall we continue instead to throw words AT each other in false pretense of believing us to desire an actual real, honest, therapeutic session? Is that not against the very foundation of your medical license?
Sch.A.9. Mr. Helmerichs is currently, and has been diligently since visiting not one but three police stations in person on 7 Oct 2012, attempting to redress intentionally false statements contravening Criminal Code sections 362 and 366 of psychiatrist Liaqat Ali in September of 2012 which psychiatrist Anjana Chawla did vexatiously further in October 2012 to see Mr. Helmerichs stripped of his right to refuse medication before Ms. Chawla then ordered Mr. Helmerichs to be injected on presumption of guilt for a criminal offense against Natalie Yewchyn. Mr. Helmerichs argued the point of not having been given a criminal trial to Ms. Chawla who conceded his honest victory to commit the Criminal Code offense of section 120 in November 2012 to bribe Mr. Helmerichs with removal from all treatment orders, including the forced injections, in exchange that he not further publicize the criminal actions of Ms. Chawla.
Sch.A.10. Contrary to Ontario Provincial Police Orillia Peter Street detachment supervisor oral comments having concluded the voluntary hour-long video statement of 6 Nov 2014, namely that nothing can be done to arrest Mr. Ali or Ms. Chawla owing to a lack of documentation, documentation is directly available from the reports and Ontario Review Board hearings of the psychiatrists themselves who have yet refused to send the information for the current criminal responsibility assessment.
Sch.A.11. There is very much a common spirit of our law permitting Mr. Helmerichs to continue to publicize Barrie courthouse misadministration of justice to the Ontario public: the need to record psychiatric assessments should be obvious, as well as the need for the 6 Nov 2014 video statement to be reviewed for verification that Mr. Helmerichs is very much attempting everything possible to abide our laws.
Sch.A.12. The June 2014 criminal trial for C-13-205-SR had originated the cover-up of psychiatric dishonesty currently underway in the courthouse at Barrie. Mr. Helmerichs had relied upon psychiatric evidence to establish his defense of protected torture statements, Criminal Code section 269.1(4), that Superior Court judge Mr. Mulligan, with support of crown attorney Ms. Kathryn Hull, ruled on 2 May 2014 was not to be permitted (contrary to R. v. Seaboyer (1991) and the foundation of our presumption of innocence).
Sch.A.13. Memory cannot be absolutely relied upon (argued for absolve of the death of Darcy Allen Sheppard whom The Attorney General himself ran down with a covert in 2009) and only an audio recording can guarantee that recorded written statements are both accurately recorded and recorded in the context the speaker intends. There is simply nothing to rely upon without an audio recording to which to refer for instances of legal dispute.
Sch.A.14. An audio recording is necessary to ensure honesty of all parties partaking in the assessment. Specifically, the challenge to expert testimony, whether that testimony is given in writing, orally, or implied under presumption of medical license standard, is permitted with caselaw supplied in the annotations to Criminal Code section 16 and referenced specifically in Sch.A.21.
Sch.A.15. It should suffice that the purpose of a fair hearing depends on context, page 1822 of Martin's 2014 (4th paragraph from the top ending just above the subsection Self-incrimination) and context requires for any legal process to retain the ability to verify, first-hand, statements disputed if only to remind dishonest lawyers that the law is ever-evolving because context itself is of the living spirit for law, not fully knowable except with willingness to respect any objective position as inherently incomplete.
Sch.A.16. If a speaker is not able to verify that spoken statements of self are portrayed out of context from that intended in a mental assessment, the party intentionally seeking to circumvent the normal due process for fairness, including the Constitutional right to a minimum of a due diligence defense, is evidenced to desire to intentionally hide statements from public scrutiny. The desire to be not transparent directly affects the liberty of an individual and is in direct opposition to the spirit of the law of both The Upper Canada Law Society Rules For Professional Conduct and the doctrine of Mens Rea as given in the annotations to section 7 of our Constitution, rendered supremely unlawful under the supreme law for Canada consistency requirement of Constitution subsection 52(1).
Sch.A.17. Kevin Sisk, representative for Her Majesty In Right Of Ontario to the record of 3 May 2013 for C-13-1184 at Barrie, did state psychiatrist Mr. Jeffrey Van Impe would not respect the 17 April 2013 judicial endorsement otherwise intending for the mental assessment to be recorded. The attending judge of 3 May 2013, Mr. Main, had muttered to Mr. Sisk on that day the effect of "so that's how we can get around [the endorsement]", notably professing for himself his own psychosis of believing himself expert only in a law cutting corners for bias, prejudice, and not fairness. A mere endorsement will not therefore suffice and an order for audio recording of mental assessments becomes absolutely necessary.
Sch.A.18. No assessment criteria have been provided in advance of the current court-ordered assessment, despite numerous requests, causing serious concern of whether standard criteria even exist. From the annotations of Constitution section 7 in the Canada Law Book judicial edition Martin's Criminal Code 2014:
The concept of a limitation on law enforcement discretion is based on the principle that a law must not be so devoid of precision in its content that a conviction will [not] automatically flow from the decision to prosecute. Legal rules reach the point of certainty only in particular cases where the law is determined by a competent authority.
Sch.A.19. The rate of speech is typically faster than the rate of hand-writing statements, revealing unnatural process to claim to be able to record all that a client has spoken but for the desire to intentionally take spoken statements out of context, a noted violation of law. The desire for medical practitioners to not audio record statements is directly the desire for unconformity to a standard of regulation and directly evidences unrecognized superiority complexes within the very mental assessors the court presumes to be experts in delusions of grandeur: the very medical authorities entrusted to define the Criminal Code section 2 defined mental disorder with respect to mind are with their delusions of grandeur revealed to have no actual knowledge whatsoever, duly evidenced in their utter lack of providing the assessment criteria of that they profess to assess, or a definition of mind satisfying how one same idea smaller than a mustard seed can be instilled in two unique individuals to affect the same moral desire for honesty before, while, or after conducting the ordered assessments.
Sch.A.20. The action of refusing to speak onto a recording directly evidences an unwillingness to speak honestly, because honesty is consistency and consistency of assessment application is only reassured with an audio record to verify consistency: individuals purporting to administer mental assessments yet unwilling to have those assessments recorded are directly evidencing an unwillingness to honesty listen with traditional active-listening therapeutic dialog, warranting additional orders for criminal investigations into past psychiatric practices of medical practitioners claiming to have assessed Rene Helmerichs while intentionally spiting having those sessions recorded, specifically, all related conduct of psychiatrists Mr. Liaqat Ali, Ms. Anjana Chawla, Mr. Gunter Wolfgang Lorberg, Mr. Jeffrey Van Impe, Ms. Karen De Freitas, Mr. Wesley Sutton, Mr. Robert Dickey, and Mr. William Komer if he reports anything more than "is this application legally sound?"
Sch.A.21. The annotations to Criminal Code section 16 of the judicial edition of Martin's Criminal Code 2014, thank you Mum for delivering one to me at Waypoint on 30 Jan 2015 for lack of the court to provide the book with caselaw requested and denied also at the 22-25 July 2013 hearings for C-13-1184 (become C-13-205-SR on 8 Nov 2013), reveal specifically the right of a defendant to challenge medical expertise, which is not possible without also supplying the defendant a recording of statements allegedly taken out of context:
While the concept of appreciating the nature and quality of an act requires an understanding of the consequences of the act, this refers to the physical consequences of the act: R. v. Abby, (1982) 2 S.C.R. 24, 68 C.C.C. (2d) 394 (9:0)…. In R. v. Wolfson, (1965) 3 C.C.C. 304, 46 C.R. 8 (Alta. S.C. App. Div.), it was held that evidence of an irresistible impulse is not, by itself, enough to support a finding of insanity under this section…..Thus, while medical experts are entitled to take into consideration all possible information in forming their opinions, "this in no way removes from the party tendering such evidence the obligation of establishing, through properly admissible evidence, the factual basis on which such opinions are based." R. v. Abby, supra.
Sch.A.22. The Waypoint Centre For Mental Health Care articles of incorporation providing the legal clout for the motto of the intent of every employed medial authority within the hospital to work toward "advancing understanding" and "improving lives." As every client in the tax-payer funded club med is currently under charge of a medical authority, Criminal Code section 215(1)(c)(iii) provides The Centre must also provide necessaries of life. Necessaries of life, in context of mental assessments, include directly the ability to challenge the purportedly expert authority of medical practitioners. Medical practitioners not understanding the frailty of their precarious employment with context of defamatory statements given about guesthouse inmates to cause or further a detention, detention defined in the annotations to Constitution section 9 for sections 10 and 11, 11 including quasi-criminal psychiatric allegations as criminal charges for the criminal court system.
Sch.A.23. The annotations to section 7, the right to life and liberty, provide the right to silence to apply to every individual including anyone allegedly mentally ill satisfying The Operating Mind, a real-time test. If a recording is requested, the club med client retains a right to silence until such time as means for the audio recording is established and the distribution to the client ensured without encumbrance nor imposed levies:
An aspect of the common law confession rule requires that the accused have an operating mind. The operating mind test includes a limited mental component which requires that the accused has sufficient cognitive capacity to understand what he is saying and what is said. This includes the ability to understand [understanding itself not defined] a caution that the evidence can be used against the accused. The same standard applies with respect to the right of silence as guaranteed by this section in determining whether a mentally ill accused has the mental capacity to make an active choice: R. v. Whittle, (1994) 2 S.C.R. 914, 92 C.C.C. (3d) 11, 32 C.R. (4th) 1.
Sch.A.24. Subsection 52(1) of the Constitution provides this argument to be superior to any Mental Health Act (R.S.O. 1990) clause otherwise used with desire to circumvent the fair administration of justice requiring mental assessment to be absolutely audio or, audio and video, recorded:
The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect.
Sch.A.25. The 22 and 25 July 2013 hearing transcripts explicitly evidence the practice of permitting medical practitioners to retain exclusive judicial authority superior to that of Province Of Ontario judges, and Superior Court judges for Ontario given actions of judges for C-13-205-SR to have denied Mr. Helmerichs an interim order for release (Criminal Code section 515; aka bail) for not having permitted Mr. Helmerichs to address first the 2 July 2014 ended year-long issue of physician applications. Physician applications were in contravention of caselaw supplied in the annotations to Constitution section 2(c) that interim release cannot be reasonably refused on speculative concern for danger: R. v. Collins (1982), 31 C.R. (3d) 283 (Ont. Co. Ct.). That Mr. Helmerichs was often denied even a copy of the applications psychiatrists Mr. Gunter Lorberg and Mr. Robert Dickey insisted upon submitting with declarations of having mentally assessed Mr. Helmerichs when no such assessment took place, noted specifically on the record of 3 Feb 2014 for C-13-205-SR, need for absolute reassurance for transparency of psychiatric tyranny is mandatory for the misled public tax-payer.
Sch.A.26. On 25 July 2013 Judge Mr. Crawford claimed to reserve expertise in the area of mind exclusively to the medical assessor; witch is therein ultimately awarded responsibility for deciding whether one is even to be presumed the normal constitutional right of Criminal Responsibility and trial, therewith testifying the mental assessment to be the new courtroom: shall we abolish courtroom recordings altogether or affirm this application to merit a new national standard for mental assessments?
II. Paragraphs for Application II, ON Criminal Rule 2.1 Form 1 (Sch.A.27 to Sch.A.42)
[FORM Paragraph.5.]
Sch.A.27. This is an application for an order for a change of venue to The Supreme Court for Canada on University Avenue in Toronto.
[FORM Paragraph.6.]
Sch.A.28. The provincial Ontario Court For Justice and Superior Court For Justice are not a court of competent jurisdiction to hear the defendant challenge to expert testimony of mental assessments and mental disorder designations of Rene Helmerichs.
[FORM Paragraph .7.]
Sch.A.29. On 29 Dec. 2014, crown witness Orillia probation officer Ms. Tamara Williamson stated to the record for the trial of Orillia case file C-14-3928 that she did not fulfill her legal duty otherwise required of her position. Mr. Helmerichs had submitted a 3-page letter to her requesting a variation to the 27 June 2014 probation order on 9 July 2014. The order required Mr. Helmerichs to not blog the name Natalie Yewchyn following conviction of the offence of Criminal Harassment for the period 31 May 2012 to 2 March 2013, a reasonable request despite the unreasonable conviction. The 29 Dec 2014 trial concerned the 28-page submission made for privately swearing charges against psychiatrists Liaqat Ali and Anjana Chawla to a Justice of The Peace at Barrie on 8 July 2014, charges for which Mr. Helmerichs had instigated, therewith requested, the June 2014 trial of Barrie case file C-13-203-SR having originated the need to redress the matter with bedevilling statements to Natalie Yewchyn otherwise (with context) sanctioned under Criminal Code sections 315, 269.1(4), and the spirit of the law respecting court honesty.
Sch.A.30. Mr. Helmerichs submitted the 28-page information for privately swearing, received in court of Barrie but not officiated as charges on 8 July 2014, to Ms. Williamson with the 3-page variation request. The information contained a cited section of the 4 Sept 2012 Barrie police report of detective Brian Read noting Mr. Helmerichs to have been arrested for allegations of criminal harassment to Natalie Yewchyn on 3 Sept 2012 and incarcerated into Royal Victoria Hospital, RVH, in Barrie. Despite argument of Mr. Helmerichs that no defined criminal harassment to Natalie Yewchyn occurred prior to March 2013, at RVH psychiatrists Liaqat Ali and Anjana Chawla discriminated against Mr. Helmerichs on the basis of creative not harmful writing to strip Mr. Helmerichs of his right to refuse medication before then denying him the right to a power of attorney and forcibly injecting him on presumption of criminal offense guilt. As the period for the Superior Court conviction directly overlaps that having been already penalized with criminal code section 269.1(b) defined torture, a Double Jeopardy did at least in part occur notwithstanding the period not overlapped is exempt under section 269.1(4), 315, Constitution section 52(1), and Its trans-parent spirit.
Sch.A.31. Mr. Helmerichs has sought to redress the wrong of being not only detained but forcibly injected on allegations of a criminal offense without the dignity of even a pretend criminal trial, such as occurred in June of 2014, in 2012 since at least attending three police stations on 7 Oct 2012. On 1 and 2 March 2013, under presumption the Constitution section 15 equal protection under the law existed in Canada, and Criminal Code sections 315 and 269.1(4), Mr. Helmerichs emailed Natalie Yewchyn actually not threating but bizarre messages to bring the matter of intentionally false psychiatric statements to the awareness of the public via the criminal court system. Unfortunately, crown attorney Ms. Kathryn Hull determined Mr. Helmerichs to need to be denied not only the right to a fair trial, fair defined in the annotations to Constitution section 7 to depend entirely upon context, but also the right to have access to full disclosure before, during, and still not after the trial to this date. Coincidentally, Ms. Hull prosecuted the 29 Dec. 2014 Orillia trial as well.
Sch.A.32. On 2 May 2014 for file C-13-205-SR, trial judge Mr. Mulligan ruled that psychiatric evidence was not to be permitted for defense submission because, the judge claimed, it was not relevant to the defense. This directly evidences The Superior Court Of Justice for Ontario to be incompetent for intentionally and unlawfully presuming Mr. Helmerichs guilty, and guilty to such extent that Mr. Helmerichs was not to be permitted even to submit the 4 Sept 2012 police report directly referenced in crown witness testimony of Lori McIlravey. Mr. Mulligan actually displayed the audacity to assure Mr. Helmerichs and the jury that the jury would receive a copy of that report before then dismissing the jury to argue with Mr. Helmerichs into the following day about why the jury was not to have it and then simply denying Mr. Helmerichs the right to submit it as evidence without also dropping all charges against Mr. Helmerichs. The jury as tax-payer was still left footing the courtroom bill.
Sch.A.33. Crown attorney Ms. Hull is equally liable for the misadministration of justice yet ongoing for need of this change of venue to The Supreme Court for Canada. Ms. Hull did at the hearings of 17, 22 and 25 July 2013, and 2 Aug 2013 claim Mr. Helmerichs to be mentally ill and condemned Mr. Helmerichs to what would become a 60-day criminal responsibility assessment at Ontario Shores, ordered until 1 Oct 2013 whereupon the attending representative for Her Majesty conceded an error had occurred as psychiatrist Karen De Freitas conveniently took a vacation and no report was submitted. Psychiatrists are to note, irrespective of their assumed supremacy to judiciaries, they are fully permitted to not write a report, especially if they feel an order to write a report is superfluous. For the ensuing Superior Court June 2014 trial, Ms. Hull claimed Mr. Helmerichs did not suffer from a mental illness at the time of the offence, evidencing at the very least disordered thought processes, mental disorder with psychoses for law, in Ms. Hull.
Sch.A.34. Context is directly supplied in the ideas represented with words in the 28-pages that Ms. Williamson elected not to read for context but to use to charge Mr. Helmerichs for yet another criminal offense lest he be permitted to restore his good name. At the trial for the allegations of criminal wrong in the out-of-context information, Ms. Williamson stated Mr. Helmerichs to be suffering a mental illness at the time of the 30 June to 10 July 2014 offence period (the court clerk had read this to the record at the start of the trial on 29 Dec 2014 for Orillia file C-14-3928), quiet in contrary to the 2 July 2014 early release from The Waypoint Centre For Mental Health Care. Psychiatrist Mr. Gunter Wolfgang Lorberg had caused Mr. Helmerichs to be repeatedly denied the ability to apply for bail during his pre-sentence custody of the June 2014 trial for keeping Mr. Helmerichs under perpetual psychiatric Form 1, directly signing written declaration to having mentally assessed Rene Helmerichs for each form, without ever actually having assessed Mr. Helmerichs (criminally the offences of code sections 362 and 366).
Sch.A.35. That the Superior Court judge of 2 May 2014 insisted psychiatric evidence to not apply is directly negated with the dozen applications by physicians in Form 1 over the year ending 2 July 2014 keeping Mr. Helmerichs without ability to apply for bail, also unconstitutional with caselaw of Constitution section 2(c) specifically stating that bail cannot be denied on speculative concern for danger, lest of all if no real danger ever existed.
Sch.A.36. The 29 Dec. 2014 order for a criminal responsibility assessment is intended to generate a psychiatric report. The outcome of the report does not matter. The mere fact of there being a report permits Mr. Helmerichs to argue the merits of the individual purporting expertise in mind in addition to the complacency of provincial judiciaries purporting psychiatrists to be more knowledgeable with respect to criminal responsibility than the fundamental principle of social law demanding that every person retain innate responsibility for actions of self. It is precisely that which Mr. Helmerichs desires to challenge, and challenge for purposes of overturning unconstitutional sections of a national circus act, The Mental Health Act, R.S.O. 1990.
Sch.A.37. On 14 Jan. 2015, Mr. Helmerichs had the fortune of encountering the same Orillia trial judge of 29 Dec. 2014, Mr. Beatty, in Barrie for related charges not grouped with the breach of probation charge. Fact that the charges have not been grouped witnesses to the Barrie crown attorneys playing pretend in their usual games denying the accused freedom only to compel a guilty plea for quick end to frivolous charges. On 14 Jan. 2015, on grounds of presumption of mental illness, directly in contravention of Criminal Code section 16, Mr. Beatty denied Mr. Helmerichs the right to submit a change of venue application. The action did very much render the provincial court of Ontario prejudice against Mr. Helmerichs and therewith of no competent jurisdiction. For additional support, the court is referred to caselaw with respect also to bad faith in section 11(b) of The Constitution.
Sch.A.38. Argument can be made that the provincial court is not yet incompetent. For this, Mr. Helmerichs evidences the same judge, Mr. Beatty, to have extended the criminal responsibility order from 29 Dec. 2014 on 27 Jan 2015 to 17 Feb. 2015. The order cannot be extended past 60 days under Criminal Code section 672.15 owing to the imperative 'shall' and reference to The Interpretation Act of Canada. On 19 Jan. 2015, for the related charges at Barrie, a subsequent judge committed Mr. Helmerichs to additional criminal responsibility assessments for each of the 5 charges in the Barrie jurisdiction sworn 8 Dec 2014. This follows the unlawful presumption of mental illness having prevented hearing of this application on 14 Jan. 2015. The Argument for provincial court incompetence is settled with revelation that the 29 Dec. 2014 trial must continue on a date whereat Mr. Helmerichs may still be under order for a criminal responsibility assessment, easily attained with further judicial mockery necessitating extension to the assessment orders of 19 Jan 2015 for hearing statement "I will have sex with Natalie Yewchyn" and sudden amnesia thereafter. After the maximum 60 days of the 29 Dec. 2014 criminal responsibility order, to play the game of technicalities with the crown attorneys desiring precisely that in their games for pretend, Mr. Beatty shall not be able to find Mr. Helmerichs guilty because Mr. Beatty has established for himself the doctrine of presuming an individual mentally ill until formal illness report is supplied.
Sch.A.39. Mr. Beatty cannot lawfully condemn Mr. Helmerichs to any detention after the 60-day mark from 29 Dec. 2014 order for arrogance of the actions of Mr. Beatty on 14 Jan 2015 that had prevented Mr. Helmerichs the lawful right to a constructive courting session for the purpose of the date as determined 12 Jan. 2015. On 12 Jan. 2015 the very same Justice Of The Peace Ms. Forfar (sp?), having previously committed Mr. Helmerichs to a detention order on 19 Dec. 2014, set the 14 Jan. 2015 date that Mr. Helmerichs could appear before a level 2 judge to pass the crown attorney the application argument arrived with Mr. Helmerichs to court on 12 Jan. 2015. On 14 Jan. 2015, Mr. Beatty had directly denied Mr. Helmerichs the right to serve notice of the change of venue application, not argue the application itself but merely to pass 10 pages to the clerk to photocopy for the attending crown attorney.
Sch.A.40. Because our Constitution subsection 52(1) same-applied professes the law, equated in practice to be judges of courts for law, to be supreme only to the extent that it is consistent, evidence of the farce for law displayed at The City Of Barrie since at least the 1st of September 2012 does render the whole courthouse at Barrie, including the Orillia jurisdiction under direction of same trial judges and same crown attorneys along with it, completely and totally incompetent for this case to obligate hearing in THE SUPREME COURT FOR CANADA in Toronto.
Sch.A.41. Additional facts are included in the accompanying application requesting mental assessments to be audio-recorded, owing to their new legitimacy of criminal responsibility court. The appendium application with additional arguments specifically requests an order requiring spoken statements of Rene Helmerichs given for purposes of mental assessment to be audio recorded and a digital copy provided Mr. Helmerichs if the assessment, or reporting thereof, can reasonably affect a detention or further detention of Rene Helmerichs.
Sch.A.42. Summary in a paragraph: the Superior Court, on 2 May 2014, ruled psychiatric evidence not to be relevant to the defense of then case file C-13-205 despite a dozen applications by physicians, in particular Mr. Gunter Lorberg, between the period 6 Dec. 2013 to 30 June 2014, the date of sentencing following conviction arising directly as a result of the inability of the defendant, Mr. Helmerichs, to raise the issue of inadmissibility of March 2013 criminally harassing email to one Natalie Yewchyn to have been under lawful sanction of Criminal Code section 269.1(4) protected statements. Section 269.1(4) was directly enacted with threat of reprisal, assault, and perjury psychiatrists Liaqat Ali and Anjana Chawla did unlawfully commit on and before 26 Oct 2012, for which Mr. Helmerichs had needed a greater amount of public awareness for Criminal Code section 315 publicating in good faith for redress of wrong, given Her Majesty The Queen In Right Of Ontario as represented in Her Ministry For Community Safety And Correctional Services, MCSCS, at the Barrie 29 Spalding Drive, Orillia Peter Street, and Orillia Memorial Avenue detachments refused to acknowledge complaints of psychiatric Criminal Code infractions on 7 Oct. 2012. All related documentation necessary for the arrest of Liaqat Ali, Anjana Chawla, and Natalie Yewchyn is available online through numerous links to submitted court documents from Twitter profile @talk2dream, auto-reply email to talk2dream.me@gmail.com , and the blogs www.luciferchristforworldpeace.blogspot.tw and www.renehelmerichs3.blogspot.ca , whereat a copy of all related applications shall also be made available for public free pdf download.
III. Paragraphs for Application III, ON Criminal Rule 2.1 Form 1 (Sch.A.43 to Sch.A.51)
[FORM Paragraph.5.]
Sch.A.43. This is an application for an order granting Rene Helmerichs the right to a jury trial for charges currently proceeded under summary conviction.
[FORM Paragraph.6.]
Sch.A.44. The argument of the Barrie courthouse judges and crown attorneys that proceeding under a summary conviction does not beget The Constitution section 11(f) "benefit of trial by jury where the maximum punishment for the offence is imprisonment for five years or a more severe punishment" for information of 6 and 7 Dec. 2014 is no force of effect under Constitution subsection 52(1) with context of facts supplied.
[FORM Paragraph .7.]
Sch.A.45. With respect to proceedings commenced under summary conviction in Canada, Criminal Code section 786(2) provides "No proceedings shall be instituted more than six months after the time when the subject-matter of the proceedings arose, unless the prosecutor and the defendant so agree." For the matter of breach of probation on 8 July 2014, 8 Jan 2015, noted in the email sent 6 Dec 2014 TO Natalie Yewchyn AND all 24 crown attorneys of the Barrie circus courthouse, marked the six month dooms date. No further judicial proceeding is lawful under legislated imperative SHALL necessitating the crown alter the proceeding to an indictment, if possible, except the crown is also not permitted to do that since the defendant does NOT agree.
Sch.A.46. Following revelation that case file C-14-3928 does not longer merit any proceeding EXCEPT to arrest psychiatrists Anjana Chawla and Liaqat, owing to duly sworn information having arrived in court before a judge for PUBLIC review, since the administration of justice at Barrie and Orillia is revealed to be in contravention of everything honourable intended of justice, the disgrace that is the dishonourable court shall surely continue to contest for furtherance of this application.
Sch.A.47. With respect to proceedings commenced under summary conviction, Criminal Code s. 789(1)(b) requires "each offence or matter of complaint, as the case may be, shall be set out in a separate count." and noting the crown of 15 Dec 2014 (was it?) having given the crown position of 4 months requested jail time to the record at Barrie for case file C-14-6966, specifically stating there to be 6 charges for 4 separate informations and that the 4 months were for all SIX charges, my son would be able to figure that TWO charges constitute a direct contravention to section 11(h) of The Constitution as Double Jeopardy offences. Of the six charges, knocking off also the ludicrous C-14-3928, the one arrived when Trooper Tamara Williamson took the law into her own hands to charge Mr. Helmerichs for posting a public document to the internet, we are reasonable down to just three charges left with legal tax-payer funded courtroom advertising time.
Sch.A.48. Considering the illegitimacy of C-14-3928, the charges begotten for the 18 Nov 2014 and 2 Dec 2014 Orillia courthouse defendant no shows are equally illegitimate since, technically to play the Barrie crown attorney game, no guilt for breach of probation lawfully occurred, notwithstanding Mr. Helmerichs had actually called into T. Will-I-Am-Son on 18 Nov 2014 to leave recorded voice mail at her Orillia Probation extension (Pslams) 23:4, copied to the last 10 minutes of document slides in the 2 Dec 2014 YouTube posted video defense statement to all charges: I'm mentally ill today and won't be going into court; I'll be selling DaMa, marijuana, to support myself following Ontario Works allegations of uttering threats sufficed with 6 Nov 2014 Orillia Peter Street Ontario Provincial Police video statement having left me with Desolation.
Sch.A.49. Of the six charges, there is really only one offence meriting a quasi-criminal charge, since the legal definition of Criminal Code section 264 requires the perceived fear of our Heroin Natalie Yewchyn to be reasonable "in all the circumstances" and reasonable in all the circumstance is impossible since Mr. Helmerichs is the exception to every circumstance for having been willing to incur absolute liability, namely, accepting of the spirit of the law itself as himself. Who knew such a thing was possible? The actual content, with attachments, of the 6 and 7 Dec. 2014 emails to Natalie, when actually read for CONTEXT, does state precisely that intent.
Sch.A.50. Criminal Code s. 789(2) provides "No information in respect of an offence for which, by reason of previous convictions, a greater punishment may be imposed shall contain any reference to previous convictions." but the crown attorney of the 19 Dec 2014 bail proceedings, continued 23 Dec 2014, for C-14-6966 (and related) at Barrie did read to the courthouse record a police report for the sworn information stating Mr. Helmerichs to have harassed Natalie Yewchyn since 2010. This does require proceedings to be commenced under indictment as the damage to judicial bias is already affected given the ensuing 23 Dec. 2014 order for detention awarded Mr. Helmerichs. This argument hardly matters given the others, but is still nice to add for superfluous support.
Sch.A.51. The annotations to Criminal Code section 786 state "There exists no limitation provision of general application in respect of proceedings on indictment. An accused will have the benefit of s. 11(b) of the Charter in terms of being tried within a reasonable time and s. 7 protection against undue delays in the prosecutional process warranting a stay of proceedings or abuse of process. Summary conviction proceedings are commenced by laying an information in Form 2 pursuant to s. 788(1)." and The Constitution subsection 52(1) states "The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect." Taking into account the spirit of the law and that every charge not specifically designated for summary conviction is a form of a proceeding on indictment, the quasi-criminal offence falling under the definition of "charged with an offence" in the annotations to section 11 of The Constitution does precisely merit a jury trial EXPECIALLY since the added risk for undefined hospital detention for noted psychiatric desire to force injections does very much merit inclusion into the Constitution section 11(f) "benefit of trial by jury where the maximum punishment for the offence is imprisonment for five years or a more severe punishment" as a more severe punishment, otherwise defined in Criminal Code section 269.1 as TORTURE for the inherently severe mental suffering.
IV. Paragraphs for App. IV, ON Criminal Rule 2.1 Form 1 (Sch.A.52 to Sch.A.75)
[FORM Paragraph.5.]
Sch.A.52. This is an application for an order that Ontario Works provide Rene Helmerichs: (1) the housing, spousal benefit, and minimum subsidy while detained awaiting trial for criminal allegations; (2) back pay for item (1) to 20 Oct. 2014, the date of last arrival of his wife in common-law in Canada; and (3) the necessary airfare and costs incurred to have his wife, Fan-Xiu Hsiao, return to Canada to continue care for her mentally disabled husband, a total of $11,133.33 with this judicial order.
[FORM Paragraph.6.]
Sch.A.53. Constitution subsections 52(1), 24(1), and 15(1) provision for equality under the law obligate necessaries of life, including housing and social support for the mentally disabled, to be afforded for discrimination against Rene Helmerichs, necessaries duly guaranteed under Constitution section 7 right to life and Criminal Code paragraphs 215(1)(b) and (c) adducing the spirit of the law referenced in Rule 6 of The Rules For Professional Conduct for Upper Canada Law Society members under our supreme Constitutional law.
[FORM Paragraph .7.]
Sch.A.54. Constitution subsection 52(1) states "The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect." This directly places any local policy directives for social benefit under lawfully enacted legislature forever under real-time under authority of The Constitution of Canada, our written supreme law for any judiciary in any court of law in Canada. Any judge for law is therein granted authority to render "of no force or effect" any local policy directive revealed to be, in practice, inconsistent with the guaranteed rights of The Constitution under methodical legal argument, provided.
Sch.A.55. The Canadian Charter Of Rights And Freedoms, the Charter, is part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, The Constitution of Canada. Section 24(1) of The Constitution provides:
Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.
Sch.A.56. The applicant apologizes for needing to remind lawyers practicing as judges in courts for law of Canada, licensed under Upper Canada Law Society license, that Criminal Code section 141 directly comes into play for necessaries of life denied to "compound or conceal" the indictable offence of Criminal Code section 215(3)(a). Criminal Code section 215(3)(a) states "Every one who commits an offence under subsection (2) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years;" wherefore subsection (2) states:
Every one commits an offence who, being under a legal duty within the meaning of subsection (1), fails without lawful excuse, the proof of which lies upon him, to perform that duty if (b) with respect to a duty imposed by paragraph (1)(c), the failure to perform the duty endangers the life of the person to whom the duty is owed or causes or is likely to cause the health of that person to be injured permanently.
Sch.A.57. Criminal Code paragraphs 215(1)(b) and (c) state:
Every one is under a legal duty (b) to provide necessaries of life to their spouse or common-law partner; and (c) to provide necessaries of life to a person under his charge if that person (i) is unable, by reason of detention, age, illness, mental disorder or other cause, to withdraw himself from that charge, and (ii) is unable to provide himself with necessaries of life.
Sch.A.58. Fan-Xiu Hsiao and Rene Helmerichs have cohabited in a conjugal relationship for a period of at least two years while Mr. Helmerichs served as English teacher in Taiwan begun in 2004, and as often as local practice directives of length of her stay in Canada and finances for travel did permit thereafter, notwithstanding the desire of Ms. Chawla in 2012. Psychiatrist Ms. Anjana Chawla had ordered all nursing staff to deny Mr. Helmerichs the normally presumed therapy of supportive visitations while incarcerated into Royal Victoria Hospital, RVH, on presumption of criminal guilt without a criminal trial. Fan-Xiu and Rene have been actively and sincerely attempting to have a child since at least 2011 and have been best friends since 2004. A common-law partner is defined in Criminal Code section 2:
"common-law partner", in relation to an individual, means a person who is cohabitating with the individual in a conjugal relationship, having so cohabited for a period of at least one year;
Sch.A.59. Criminal Code section 141 is directly referenced in Rule 6 of The Rules For Professional Conduct to ensure judiciaries do not lose focus on the fundamental tenet of our legal system, namely, that the innocent not be convicted. However, Criminal Code subsection 141(2) incomprehensibly provides lawyers an excuse permitting them to willfully commit indictable offences in courts under the Constitution with "agreement for compensation or restitution or personal services that is (b) made as part of a program, approved by the Attorney General, to divert persons charged with indictable offences from criminal proceedings" UNLESS The Constitution is to be strictly adhered with the Attorney General, "the Crown", realized to be not a person qualifying for consideration within the context of Constitution section 15.
Sch.A.60. Case law supporting the illegitimacy of the Criminal Code subsection 141(2) clause to render ever court judge not honouring the spirit of the law expressed in this application guilty of an indictable offence under at least Criminal Code subsection 141(1) for section 132 perjury and the original section 362 misleading oath is provided in the annotations to Constitution section 15 in the judicial edition of Canada Law Book Martin's Criminal Code 2014:
The word "individual" in this section does not include corporations: R. v. Paul Magder Furs Ltd. (1989), 49 C.C.C. (3d) 267, 69 O.R. (2d) 172 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused 51 C.C.C. (3d) vii, 70 O.R. (2d) x. The Crown cannot be equated with an individual for the purposes of s. 15(1) analysis: Rudolf Wolff & Co. v. Canada, (1990) 1 S.C.R. 695, 69 D.L.R. (4th) 392.
Sch.A.61. Because lawyers receive valuable consideration, pay, for their time at forming reply to this necessary application, any reply not inclusive of an Ontario Criminal Court Form 3 consent, or equivalent consent, for granting of the order, Criminal Code section 141 directly places that lawyer license into jeopardy irrespective of legislation or judicial orders for its protection because every such order is produced of an individual operating under Upper Canada Law Society license with agreement for the Attorney General that is in the preceding revealed to be "of no force or effect" in the context of legitimate reply to a legitimate case of discrimination qualifying this application under Constitution section 15 law.
Sch.A.62. The annotations to Constitution section 15, equality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law, in our judicial edition Canada Law Book, Martin's Criminal Code 2014 state:
It is not every distinction or differentiation in treatment at law which will violate the equality guarantee. In order to govern effectively legislatures must treat different individuals and groups in different ways. To achieve true equality it will frequently be necessary to make distinctions. This section spells out four basic rights which apply to all persons, whether citizens or not: the right to equality before the law, the right to equality under the law, the right to equal protection of the law and the right to equal benefit of the law. Its purpose is to ensure equality in the formulation and application of the law and the right to equal benefit of the law. All these four rights are granted with direction that they be without discrimination. Discrimination exists where a distinction, whether intentional or not but based on grounds relating to personal characteristics of the individual group, has the effect of imposing burdens, obligations or disadvantages not imposed upon others, or withholding or limiting access to opportunities, benefits and advantages available to other members of society.
Sch.A.63. From the annotations to Constitution section 15:
In Law v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), (1999) 1 S.C.R. 497, 170 D.L.R. (4th) 1, Iacobucci J., speaking for the court, set out certain guidelines for analysis under this section. Among other things, he held that a court called upon to determine discrimination under subsec.(1) should make the following three broad inquiries:
(1) Does the impugned law draw a distinction between the claimant and others on the basis of one or more personal characteristics, or fail to take into account the claimant's already disadvantaged position resulting in substantively differential treatment on the basis of one or more personal characteristics?
(2) Is the claimant subject to differential treatment based on one or more enumerated and analogous grounds?
(3) Does the differential treatment discriminate by imposing a burden upon or withholding a benefit from the claimant in a manner that reflects the stereotypical application of presumed group or personal characteristics, or that otherwise has the effect of perpetuating or promoting the view that the individual is less capable or worthy of recognition or value as a human being or as a member of Canadian society, equally deserving of concern, respect, and consideration?
The existence of a conflict between the purpose or effect of an impugned law and the purpose of subsec.(1) is essential to found a discrimination claim. The purpose of subsec.(1) is to prevent the violation of essential human dignity and freedom through imposition of disadvantage, stereotyping, or political or social prejudice, and to promote a society in which all individuals enjoy equal recognition at law, equally capable and equally deserving of concern, respect and consideration. Since the guarantee under this section is a comparative concept, the court must establish one or more relevant comparators.
Sch.A.64. The most relevant comparator for purposes of the guidelines for analysis under Constitution section 15 is directly the life of Mr. Helmerichs reflected as essential human dignity, specifically, stereotyping as mentally disabled on grounds of presumed mental illness without affording Mr. Helmerichs the Criminal Code section 16(3) right to contest medical authority opinions that have resulted in defame to his good name. A brief history is required to establish context for the current ongoing discrimination requiring this, among other applications, to, unfortunately, restore the honest administration of justice in the province of Ontario, Canada:
i. In June of 2012 Natalie Yewchyn emailed Mr. Helmerichs to request no further communication with him. Mr. Helmerichs considered her email to be a violation of her request to not communicate with him and replied, simply, "no communication goes against God", without thinking of the silliness of the argument. Their argument over God had been ongoing before anyone cares, was entirely not romantic unless erotomanic desires of Natalie Yewchyn are to be considered, had spanned over a dozen different locations including coffee shops, movie theatres, the living room of Natalie on several occasions, a mutual Spa date at her suggestion, several religious-type locations, and the car of the Mum of Mr. Helmerichs which Natalie insisted on using when asking Rene for lifts to and from her residence. On 31 Aug 2012, Rene warned Natalie not to contact him again, which she subsequently has because, as Rene holds, no communication goes against God, no matter the God one chooses to honour, because God is that establishing any and every ability to communicate, including the whole of the miscommunication commonly scientifically scrutinized as the problem of linear time endlessly repeating itself.
ii. On 3 Sept 2012 Mr. Helmerichs was incarcerated into Royal Victoria Hospital, RVH, on allegations of suffering a mental illness and somehow having no insight into allegedly causing Natalie to fear for her safety, all the times she contacted Rene, a reputable Georgian College teacher, for whatever she wanted. Several emails have been submitted to reveal Natalie Yewchyn as the one with a canyon for a memory gap than the sliver of misremembered exact dates with Mr. Helmerichs. Memory can, simply, not be relied upon. At RVH, Mr. Helmerichs was first placed under charge of psychiatrist Mr. Liaqat Ali.
iii. Difficult as it may be to accept, psychiatrist Liaqat Ali intentionally contravene Criminal Code section 362 to invent concept for psychosis under which to justify contravention of the otherwise right of Mr. Helmerichs to habeas corpus provided in Constitution paragraph 10(c).
iv. Mr. Ali falsely evidenced his own unrecognized superiority complex to Mr. Helmerichs to insist upon producing false written reports, contravening Criminal Code section 366, stating Mr. Helmerichs to have at some point professed to be an exclusive God while Mr. Helmerichs has only professed to be exclusively advocating the principals of A Course In Miracles, The Text of which states:
The ego literally lives on borrowed time, and its days are numbered. Do not fear the Last Judgment, but welcome it and do not wait, for the ego's time is "borrowed" from your eternity. This is the Second Coming that was made for you as the First was created. The Second Coming is merely the return of sense. Can this possibly be fearful?
v. From the Workbook in A Course In Miracles, officially available from www.acim.org, is given:
Christ's Second Coming, which is sure as God, is merely the correction of mistakes, and the return of sanity. It is a part of the condition that restores the never lost, and re-establishes what is forever and forever true. It is the invitation to God's Word to take illusion's place; the willingness to let forgiveness rest upon all things without exception and without reserve. It is the all-inclusive nature of Christ's Second Coming that permits it to embrace the world and hold you safe within its gentle advent, which encompasses all living things with you. There is no end to the release the Second Coming brings, as God's creation must be limitless. Forgiveness lights the Second Coming's way, because it shines on everything as one. And thus is oneness recognized at last.
vi. Psychiatrist Ms. Anjana Chawla had replaced Mr. Ali following September 2012 oath Mr. Helmerichs made to Mr. Ali that Mr. Helmerichs would see Mr. Ali lose his medical license.
vii. The writings of Mr. Helmerichs have suggested that he is the second coming, in a creative play of a lifetime to reveal to the world the extent of its mistaking The Word Of God for anything definable. On 26 Oct. 2012, Fan-Xiu having secretly slipped Mr. Helmerichs his cellphone in a single visit Ms. Chawla permitted with joy that Fan-Xiu was leaving the country, Mr. Helmerichs audio-recorded a sample of the discriminatory and wholey not therapeutic psychiatric session. The recording and partial transcript of the 26 Oct. 2012 session is available free for public download from www.renehelmerichs3.blogspot.ca and includes several instances of direct threat of reprisal to Rene.
viii. Crimes committed at RVH are referenced directly in the privately sworn information copied to the Crown disclosure for C-14-3928 at Orillia, sworn in Barrie, as well as the 126-page first affidavit sworn 25 March 2013 at Barrie for Family Court file FC-13-416 but which seems to have mysteriously disappeared from the courthouse record, and all throughout all other writings of Mr. Helmerichs. The reader is encouraged to review the content of the information sworn 8 July 2014 that probation officer Tamara Williamson claimed to merit the criminal charge of failure to comply to a probation undertaking to Mr. Helmerichs on 11 July 2014 to re-incarcerate him, again, on grounds of her own discrimination to him.
ix. Mr. Helmerichs has attempted every manner possible at his disposal, that he was able identify without knowing exactly what to ask of the authorities who refused to respect our Constitution, to facilitate their own lawful hearing for redress of the matter of being charged with a criminal offence, so defined in the annotations to Constitution section 11 as quasi-criminal, and convicted to receive the forced injections of Ms. Chawla without so much as a thought for the trial guaranteed in Constitution paragraph 11(f): "Any person charged with an offence has the right (f) ... to the benefit of trial by jury where the maximum punishment for the offence is imprisonment for five years or a more severe punishment"; the maximum psychiatric detention is an indefinite period owing to its foundation merely upon the opinion and desire of the charge psychiatrist and, in the case of Mr. Helmerichs, included severe physical and mental suffering for forced injections still desired in written 2 July 2013 testimony of psychiatrist Jeffry Van Impe insisting upon lithium (a toxic heavy metal) and "use of an injectable to ensure compliance".
x. Mr. Helmerichs has suffered great loss of health including loss of employment, loss of livelihood, loss of custody of his son, loss of residence, spinal pain, and muscle deterioration for psychiatric and judicial detention of criminal proceedings imposed upon Mr. Helmerichs from The Ministry Of Health And Long-term Care, MHLTC, The Ministry Of Community Safety And Correctional Services, MCSCS, and The Ministry Of The Attorney General, MAG, all for Her Majesty The Queen In Right Of Ontario, "the Attorney General" under false pretense of mental retardation. Jail staff did in 2014 still provide Mr. Helmerichs secret note passed with his meal that he is "sofa king we tard id" ('so very much retarded). Mental retardation is established in the annotations to Criminal Code section 16 as a mental disability: "'Mental Disorder' includes mental retardation: R. v. R. (M.S.) (1996), 112 C.C.C. (3d) 406 (Ont. Ct. (Gen. Div.))."
xi. In 2012, Ms. Chawla insisted on having the body of Mr. Helmerichs repeatedly forcibly injected with noxious substances for her claim that he was psychotic and needed the magical potion as anti-psychotic medicine. The potion only caused Mr. Helmerichs increasing spinal pain. Hearing of the pain in open-door sessions following 30 Oct 2012 discharge from RVH detention, audio-recorded for sheer incredibility of the events as unbelievable, Ms. Chawla insisted to increase the medication dosage even on the final day of her planned injecting in late November 2012, otherwise defined in Criminal Code section 269.1 as torture.
xii. Mr. Helmerichs was denied the right of Constitution section 11(d) both for the presumption of guilt imparted him and 11(f) for denial of a criminal trial before the forced injections of 2012. Statement of the criminal charge for harassment is included in the 4 Sept 2012 report of Barrie police detective Brian Read, available for download in the list of links provided in the auto-reply email with email to talk2dream.me@gmail.com
xiii. Mr. Helmerichs was presumed guilty of having criminally harassed Natalie Yewchyn without receiving a criminal trial, a crime that Mr. Helmerichs insists to this day did not occur, according to the definition of the charge in Criminal Code section 264(b) for the repeated communication, repeated to mean at least two, and related misrepresented allegations in the 4 Sept 2012 Barrie police report having justified the detention for Mr. Ali in labeling Mr. Helmerichs as also being a bomb threat.
xiv. In November of 2012, Ms. Chawla did commit the offences of Criminal Code section 120(a)(i), 120(a)(ii), and 120(a)(iii) to bribe Mr. Helmerichs with release from the forced injections if only he would cease publicating criminal offenses of Ms. Chawla. Mr. Helmerichs was compelled to agree to the bribe for want to be rid of the substance abuse causing him the spinal pain.
xv. In March of 2013, Mr. Helmerichs attempted to redress the matter of not having been provided the basic human dignity to formally challenge the false premise of an isolated thinking brain with, at the very least, common consideration for one spirit of law. One spirit of law is biblically referred to as The Holy Spirit, or wholey echo, for The Word Of God.
xvi. God is legally introduced into Canada law in the preamble to the Constitution with statement "Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:" but remains Itself undefined, as does the word mind in the Criminal Code section 2 definition of mental disorder as "a disease of mind." None can disagree that God, the Word of God, is not that inspiring the minds of all individuals with revelation that each and every mind, including minds governing every apparently lifeless object, is inherently greater than its body to be able to seamlessly coexist with constancy of perfect unity establishing Time for All Eternity.
xvii. The Word of God in the Constitution does therewith revealing the brain of a human being to be not the part originating thinking nor alterable with forced injections unless the mind of the person is first made to believe in the efficacy of witchcraft, the Criminal Code section 365 offence of pretending to practice witchcraft.
xviii. To redress the psychiatric fraud at RVH, Mr. Helmerichs ultimately served a consecutive sentence of 16 months in solitary confinement at the Central North Correctional Centre in Penetanguishene under false psychiatric observation of Mr. Gunter Lorberg while awaiting trial for the charge instigated in March 2013. Mr. Helmerichs did intentionally, but politely and still with intent for harm to none, repeatedly communicate to Natalie Yewchyn to redress the matter of psychiatric fraud in formal pulic court. Mr. Helmerichs has given statement that he has nothing of his former life left to lose and shall continue to commit the same offence until such time that his 8 July 2014 statements in the Crown disclosure for C-13-3928 are accept with context of this application and the ideas expressed with understanding of word-processed pictographs in proper grammatical form within the 28-pages of the 8 July 2014 sworn document.
xix. Mr. Lorberg repeatedly ensured Mr. Helmerichs that Mr. Helmerichs is psychotic and not to be afforded the Constitution section 11(e) right to reasonable bail because of the "severe mental illness", illness owing to, of course, "no insight" as its justification.
xx. The utter lack of psychiatrists to administer an unbiased assessment over the duration of psychiatric involvement for this greater case begun in 2012 and yet ongoing is evidenced in their completely lack of willingness to have their unsubstantiated opinions audio-recorded or publicized, address in I. Paragraphs for Application I, ON Criminal Rule 2.1 Form 1 (Sch.A.1 to Sch.A.26) .
xxi. Discrimination against Rene Helmerichs is evidenced in the psychiatric applications under Mental Health Act section 15 repeatedly affixed his warrant card while in custody for a criminal offence. Such applications are directly a contravention of the right to receive fair or reasonable consideration for a Criminal Code section 515 interim order for release, i.e. bail, since those applications are based on merely speculative concern for danger given the role of the justice presiding the bail proceedings is to determine the merits of need of custody with information supplied of the Crown attorney not to be over-ruled with biased psychiatric opinion. This is directed echoed in the guarantee of Constitution section 11(e) with supporting case law from the annotations to Constitution section 2(c) in Martin's 2014: "the rights of an accused cannot be restricted on a speculative concern of danger: R. v. Collins (1982), 31 C.R. (3d) 283 (Ont. Co. Ct.)."
xxii. On 2 May 2014, Superior Court judge Mr. Mulligan ruled Mr. Helmerichs was not to be afforded the right to submit relevant psychiatric evidence as defense or Mr. Helmerichs would have been able to publically reveal Criminal Code section 269.1 torture to have occurred at RVH in 2012 for defense of the March 2013 statements under Criminal Code subsection 269.1(4) protected statements.
xxiii. Discrimination in contravention of section 34 of The Human Rights Code for Ontario is ongoing in Ontario under tyranny of unrecognized delusions of grandeur with psychiatrists claiming expertise in mind while duly claiming pills to be able to affect thinking because thinking does not originate from a human body and to affect thinking with a pill requires first unconstructive projection, the imposing of the very schizophrenic state then desired to be healed without understanding its cause.
xxiv. On 27 June 2014, trial judge Mr. Mulligan sentenced Mr. Helmerichs to time served plus one day without desiring to acknowledge that Mr. Lorberg did demand, and repeatedly for the year ended 2 July 2014, that Mr. Helmerichs serve more than one more day under applications by physicians in Form 1 under section 15 of The Mental Health Act, R.S.O. 1990.
xxv. On 8 July 2014, Mr. Helmerichs attempted to privately swear charges against Mr. Ali and Ms. Chawla and was politely advised that MAG retained carriage over the charges, would invariably dismiss the charges, and cause MAG to advocate the iron-clad documentation available for charges to Mr. Ali and Ms. Chawla to be inadmissible because the charges would have been themselves already ruefully dismissed, in direct contravention of the tenet of Constitution section 15 "to promote a society in which all individuals enjoy equal recognition at law, equally capable and equally deserving of concern, respect and consideration."
xxvi. On 11 July 2014, Ms. Williamson of the Orillia probation office decided to take the law into her own hands and use mental illness as her excuse to consider statements of Mr. Helmerichs as frivolous, completely without merit. Mr. Helmerichs was arrested that day and again placed in solitary confinement under tyrannous authority of Mr. Lorberg at C.N.C.C.
xxvii. On 18 July 2014, Mr. Helmerichs was suddenly granted bail on his own recognizance, following the 11 July 2014 claim for a breach of probation terms at having posted a court-accepted document to the internet. The probation terms are themselves a contravention of our Constitution as the Superior Court trial judge did intention spite our Constitution section 7. From the annotations to Constitution section 7:
A law, which prevents the trier of fact from getting at the truth by excluding relevant evidence in the absence of a clear ground of policy or law justifying the exclusion, runs afoul of our fundamental conceptions of justice and what constitutes a fair trial. The fundamental tenet of our system, that the innocent not be convicted, implies that, before a judge may exclude evidence which is relevant to a defense, the potential prejudice to the trial process must substantially outweigh the value of the evidence: R. v. Seaboyer, (1991) 2 S.C.R. 577, 66 C.C.C. (3d) 321, 7 C.R. (4th) 117 (7:2).
xxviii. Following bail release, Mr. Helmerichs did his best not to blog the name Natalie Yewchyn according to the 27 June 2014 criminal request of Mr. Mulligan adduced with 18 July 2014 crown request: "Do not blog." Mr. Helmerichs finds great delight in the 30 Jan. 2015 Toronto Star front-page statement "Call it trial by Facebook."
xxix. In August and September of 2014, civil proceedings were begun for the 2012 malicious prosecution having contravened almost every section of The Canadian Charter Of Rights And Freedoms, principally in CV-14-0963 at Barrie.
xxx. Being condemned with release in 2012 without work to receive social assistance, in 2014 through the Orillia office for Ontario Works, Mr. Helmerichs was obligated to provide a copy of all civil proceeding cover pages to Ontario Works.
xxxi. Mr. Helmerichs has lost his driver's license and, unofficially but for direct statement of Patricia Whittington in 2012, the right to teach at the college or university level in Ontario on account of an alleged mental disability despite, a week before the 16 month incarceration, having completed a school bus driver's license under strict observation of a Sinton Transportation official licensed under the Ministry Of Transportation throughout the month-long one-to-one course.
Sch.A.65. Discrimination began in 2012 when two psychiatrists, Mr. Liaqat Ali and Ms. Anjana Chawla, attributed mental retardation to Mr. Helmerichs. In oral testimony Ms. Chawla provided for the Ontario Review Board hearing of 22 Oct. 2012 at RVH, Mr. Helmerichs was discriminated for to refuse social assistance. Ms. Chawla did, on grounds of criminal harassment, seek not to respect the Constitution section 11(d) right to a trial but to force injections into the corpus of Mr. Helmerichs. On 26 Oct. 2012, Ms. Chawla threatened Mr. Helmerichs further discriminated against Mr. Helmerichs with audio recorded threat of reprisal, before bribing Mr. Helmerichs to remove him from the forced injections.
Sch.A.66. On 4 Nov 2014, despite assurance of Lisa Hern (705-722-3132 ext. 1050) that Mr. Helmerichs was not to meet with Ms. Jayce O'lver but another social service worker, Ms. O'lver insisted on continuing in her belief that she was best suited to save Mr. Helmerichs from himself.
Sch.A.67. Ms. O'lver presumed Mr. Helmerichs to be suffering a severe mental illness for grounds not stated to Mr. Helmerichs except in her formal attempt on 6 Nov. 2014 to press the charge of Criminal Code section 264.1 uttering threats to Mr. Helmerichs for, as Constable Daniel Lesperance informed, was the abstract use of the three-letter word God deemed inappropriate in context of a country founded upon principles that recognize, at the very least, a perfectly loving all-inclusive not unknown aspect of Self to be guiding all toward escape from the insanity of a circular system. Insanity is to profess witchcraft health in place of healing mental hellth.
Sch.A.68. Mr. Helmerichs attended the Ontario Provincial Police, OPP, Orillia Peter Street detachment on 6 Nov 2014 for resolve of the misunderstanding. Following the hour-long video statement Constable Daniel Lesperance administered, Mr. Helmerichs was informed an alternate representative from Ontario Works would contact Mr. Helmerichs to arrange continuance of benefit receipt.
Sch.A.69. Mr. Helmerichs requests of the court to review the hour long 6 Nov 2014 OPP video statement to understand, precisely, the apathy displayed of MCSCS, and therein Her Majesty, for permitting OPP officers of law to give statement alleging, directly, that we for Ontario do NOT "promote a society in which all individuals enjoy equal recognition at law, equally capable and equally deserving of concern, respect and consideration" because the supervising officer testified to insufficient documentation when all necessary documentation is available directly from the hospital records of our government.
Sch.A.70. The 6 Nov 2014 OPP video statement is, for this application, requested to be provided Mr. Helmerichs with assistance of Barrie crown attorney Ms. Kathryn Hull who can personal testify to much of the content of this application for having conducted both the Superior Court C-13-205 June 2014 trial at Barrie, and the C-13-3928 breach of probation Orillia matter. Thus far, Ms. Hull has not exactly been forthcoming in honesty of law for her expressed desire to insist upon taking the 8 July 2014 28-page sworn statements of Mr. Helmerichs out of context. From the annotations to Canada Law Book Constitution section 7 in Martin's 2014:
The constitutional norm for a fair hearing is procedural fairness. Notice and participation may or may not be required to meet his norm--what is fair depends entirely on the context: R. v. Rodgers, (2006) 1 S.C.R. 554, 207 C.C.C. (3d) 225 sub nom. R. v. Jackpine.
Sch.A.71. Social respect begins with the matter of personal unwillingness to actively participate in upholding the law, to DO something for the money one accepts as remuneration for time in public service roles such as any for MAG, MCSCS, and MHLTC. All statements made herein this application can easily be verified but not from within a mental ward detention such as is currently the predicament of the applicant. Leave of the court is requested for a subsequent order to provide Mr. Helmerichs the 6 Nov. 2014 OPP video statement if Ms. Hull is yet unwilling to follow the law.
Sch.A.72. As no Ontario Works official returned to contact Mr. Helmerichs following the 6 Nov 2014 video statement, and the OPP indicated Mr. Helmerichs to await contact from Ontario Works, further deprivation of the necessaries of life of Mr. Helmerichs, specifically the money to provide the basic necessities of shelter and meager food for himself and his non-resident wife, need not be assumed but acknowledged as a very real living condition.
Sch.A.73. On 8 Jan 2015, Fan-Xiu Hsiao left the country for fear of reprisal from the state because Mr. Helmerichs could not cover the rent on the single-room apartment they share. Mr. Helmerichs is currently detained under Barrie courthouse judicial order of 23 Dec. 2014 for C-14-6966 and other charges enacted, again, intentionally at the hand of Mr. Helmerichs because he simply did not have money to pay for food and did not find it very appropriate to intentionally steal food to press the point.
Sch.A.74. Given mental retardation with no insight into his alleged mental illness in the events recounted in this application evidenced, Mr. Helmerichs is clearly suffering from a severe mental disability if only to be apparently speaking to no one at all. The utter lack of legal respect afforded the former teacher of Communication Skills thus necessitates subsequent applications under basic Human Rights clauses to have his wife, Fan-Xiu Hsiao, become a permanent resident and Citizen of Canada that she may continue to care for her socially dysfunctional spouse.
Sch.A.75. Leave is requested of this court to granted this order for necessaries of life on grounds of extreme discrimination and to endorse the order with provincial nomination that Fan-Xiu Hsiao receive status as honorary citizen given her Faith in One loving kindness to Mr. Helmerichs who began his 2012 Talk To Dream marketing campaign with specific aim for partnership among all churches to unite the world for a world peace-with-harm-to-none living scenario abolishing all wars for terror. Foremost teachers of A Course In Miracles, Professors Gary Renard and Cindy Lora-Renard, co-authors of Disappearance Of The Universe, on direct behalf of The Foundation For Inner Peace, publisher of A Course In Miracles officially available in numerous languages from www.acim.org are best to confirm the absolute conformity of the copyright claim to A Course In Miracles that Rene Helmerichs has publically made in distribution of the 1200-page text freely to the world via pdf document linked at the top of this file in its version downloadable from www.renehelmerichs.blogspot.ca and, in the near future, from www.talk2dream.org .
V. Paragraphs for Application IV, ON Criminal Rule 2.1 Form 1 (Sch.A.76 to Sch.A.)
[FORM Paragraph.5.]
Sch.A.76. This is an application for an order granting the defendant the right to be presumed criminally responsible irrespective of medical authority declarations for not criminal responsibility.
[FORM Paragraph.6.]
Sch.A.77.
[FORM Paragraph .7.]
Sch.A.78.
Table Of Contents End Of Document
Schedule A to applications in Form 1 under Ontario Provincial Criminal Rule 2.1
Table Of Contents
Applications
I. Paragraphs for Application I, ON Criminal Rule 2.1 Form 1 (Sch.A.1 to Sch.A.26)
II. Paragraphs for Application II, ON Criminal Rule 2.1 Form 1 (Sch.A.27 to Sch.A.42)
III. Paragraphs for Application III, ON Criminal Rule 2.1 Form 1 (Sch.A.43 to Sch.A.51)
IV. Paragraphs for App. IV, ON Criminal Rule 2.1 Form 1 (Sch.A.52 to Sch.A.75)
V. Paragraphs for Application IV, ON Criminal Rule 2.1 Form 1 (Sch.A. to Sch.A.)
Table Of Contents End Of Document
