Rene Helmerichs as Self-represented individual for Application I

1.      Re: Rene Helmerichs as Self-represented individual for Application I.

By: Rene Helmerichs

Dated: 4 March 2015  Attached: Sch.A.F1 figure for visual understanding.

Submitted: To courthouse file C-14-6966 (Barrie), C-14-3928 (Orillia), etal.

Note: The herein referenced application is to have mental assessments recorded and includes paragraphs Sch.A.1-26 of Schedule A To Applications posted at www.renehelmerichs3.blogspot.ca

2.      To: The Honourable Mr. J.J. Douglas and Subsequent Justices

3.      None can argue legal inconsistencies bear the mark of frustration. But for context to require legal consistency, one of any two in dispute must be with greater degree of honesty.

4.      I apologize for my displayed frustration in court of 2 March 2015, for what it’s worth, it was also my birthday.

5.      Let us agree that the judge carries ownership over the inter-play of accuser and accused in courts seeking not the restoration of balance but the absolve of legal disparities between the two.

6.      Only when two act as one is the state of harmony realized.

7.      For the court to rely upon the accuser to inform of actions for the accused, while the accused is present, willing, and able to speak for self, is unfortunately frustrating.

8.      Caselaw of R. v. Swain (1991) in the second last paragraph to the annotations of Constitution s.7 in Martin’s 2014 (if memory serves) does specifically state a defendant retains control of the defence such that I am permitted to arrange a hearing for a legitimate application required for judges of our courts to not have their authority usurped. Reference to paragraph 10 and the attached figure Sch.A.F1.

9.      My counsel, Ms. Uma Kancharla, and I are both English as a Subsequent Language, ESL, learners. As I’ve previously been a college legal Communication Skills teacher, I can hardly use my ESL background as excuse. Nonetheless, on 28 Feb 2015, Saturday, Ms. Kancharla did visit me at CNCC and miscommunication did occur. Again, my apologies for any mishap.

10. Authority of the court was, is, directly usurped with insistence of Psychiatrist Mr. William Komer on 4 Feb 2015 to have discharged me from the judicial orders of 27 Jan 2015 and 19 Jan 2015 that otherwise required someone, if not him, at Waypoint to mentally assess me before discharge from Waypoint. Is it remain an accepted standard for psychiatrists to spite the law?

11. Ms. Kancharla is not my counsel of record. That 19 Jan 2015 was the second time since her and my agreement of 20 Dec 2013 that she spoke onto the record. She did so because, as had happened so often throughout the 16 months of pre-sentence custody time of C-13-205, the crown attorneys refused to acknowledge my legitimate complaints of their perjury.

12. Perjury is directly evidenced in the 18 June 2014 testimony of Natalie Yewchyn for C-13-205 as well as the repeated applications of Mr. Lorberg, a contracted psychiatrist for CNCC, who claimed to have repeatedly assessed me in 2013 and 2014.

13. For 3 Feb 2014, Psychiatrist Mr. Robert Dickey joined the fold to state having assessed me, and found me to be of harm to others, following a one minute polite exchange otherwise witnessing to my desire for the session to be recorded or not to occur at all. The guards were present only to take me to him and promptly return me to my cell when I refused to speak off the record. On 3 Feb 2014 in court for C-13-205, the judge refused to acknowledge the written application of Mr. Dickey to be fully in contravention of Criminal Code s.366 and actively denying me then the ability to apply for an interim order for release called bail. By 20 May 2014, crown attorney Ms. Kathryn Hull in writing falsely stated me to not want bail.

14. Mr. Lorberg has repeatedly stated that I suffer a severe psychosis which shall only cause my condition, “brain disease” as he calls it, to deteriorate without treatment. His colleague from Waypoint on 2 July 2013, Mr. Jeffrey Van Impe, gave written statement for that treatment to include “use of an injectible to ensure compliance.” Mr. Van Impe refused the judicial endorsement of 17 April 2013 accompanying my conditional consent.

15. None except Collin’s Pocket Dictionary has provided me a definition for psychosis. Collin’s states a psychosis to be “a loss of contact with reality”. This is fully in accord with the definition of The Operating Mind Test in the annotations to s.7 of The Constitution, page 1825 of Martin’s 2014 midway up.

16. Given my desire for both mental wellness and not brain disease, Ms. Kancharla and I have taken it upon ourselves to simply confirm or dispute any logical inconsistences psychiatry presents.

17. While a crown attorney is left to refute the spatially condensed application to have mental assessments recorded, one may find the application reads less like a jumble and more like a solid legal argument with each rereading, forgiving obvious but unintentional typographic errors and the run-on sentence fragment of paragraph Sch.A.22.

18. Ms. Kancharla has confirmed the 3 Feb 2015 letter of Mr. Komer to contain four opinions of a medical authority that caselaw of para. Sch.A.21, from the annotations to Criminal Code s.16, now obligates Waypoint to establish as fact before my application can be legitimately refuted! The four legal inconsistencies unwittingly usurping the authority of courts, YOUR authority, Your Honour, specifically witnessed in the 3 Feb 2015 written statement and 4 Feb 2015 actioned discharge (equally a statement according to Criminal Code s.319(7) for hatred) are:

(1)   to audio record an assessment affecting detention is unlawful;

(2)   to publicate in good faith for redress of wrong (CC315) is unlawful;

(3)   to declare a psychiatrist to be mentally ill is derogatory, unlawful; and

(4)   that no other individual could mentally assess Mr. Helmerichs but that Mr. Helmerichs is to be presumed criminally NOT responsible in statement of Justice Mr. Beatty on 14 Jan 2015 and action of accepting a plea of guilty on 24 Feb 2015 without hearing the application now before the court.

19. Your Honour, until such time as the presumption of mental guilt is restored from psychiatry to the presumption of innocence said to be prevailing law in Canada, Ms. Kancharla is absolutely necessary to verify the frustrations that I elucidate are not part of an otherwise undefined psychosis. Ms. Kancharla is not required to act as counsel of record because the judge and any crown attorney in any court for law ought to witness my plight for law against legitimate crime. That the crown attorneys have only sought to cover for the Mormon Community Of Christ treasurer, Natalie Yewchyn, and minister, Mattew Swain, themselves upset at my legitimate criminal complaints, does reveal this matter to be very much larger than anyone, including me, could ever have imagined.

20. Please release Ms. Kancharla from my counsel if I am not permitted to use her services strictly as subordinate to my intent that I forever remain Self-represented while mentally able.

21. In Kindness, Your Honour, Rene Helmerichs Signed 3 March 2015 at Penetanguishene Ontario

22. Errors in Law in need of review:

(1)   The plea of guilty accepted for C-14-3928 in Orillia on 24 Feb 2015 was compelled due to court misadministration on 14 Jan 2015 denying Mr. Helmerichs the right to serve notice of an application as was the intent for the day set on 12 Jan 2015 at Barrie.

(2)   The plea of guilty accepted for C-14-3928 on 24 Feb 2015 contravenes Criminal Code s.786(2). s.786(2) provides no proceeding shall take place more than 6 months following the occurrence of 8 July 2014. s.786(2) specifically states “instituted” but implies the term to mean “commenced or continued” with understanding context of annotated statements that infer a summary conviction proceeding NOT to merit applications for unreasonable delay to stay proceedings. It is an unreasonable recorded, before then to receive notice from the assessor that no assessment could be made because there was not the accompanying order to have the assessment recorded.

(3)   It is the Criminal Code s.141 indictable offence for a judge to hear evidence of perjury and not order an investigation into the allegations or charge the accuser with either uttering false statements under Criminal Code s.362, false testimony s.136, perjury s.132, or any related mischief charge. The court is requested to order transcripts of the testimony of Natalie Yewchyn given for C-13-205 on about 18 June 2014 at Barrie, and to compare that testimony with email exhibits submitted to the court on 19 and 20 June 2014.

(4)   It is a contravention of Constitution s.10 to offer an accused “time served” for an offence for which that accused is also ordered detained, or not detained but without means for bail, and not be willing to offer the accused at least bail until the outstanding legal dispute is finally resolved in court.

(5)   It is High Treason for the crown attorneys and judges having caused Mr. Helmerichs to sit for 16 months pre-sentence in jail, after stating to Mr. Helmerichs on 17 April 2013 that only 45 days suffice, merely to cover up or deny Mr. Helmerichs the right to present torture evidence at his trial AND THEN to find him guilty again AND AGAIN for want to continue to keep Criminal Code s.141 offences of those judges and crown attorneys hidden from PUBLIC awareness.

(6)   It is shere nonsense to require a counsel to be removed as counsel to set a hearing date for an application submitted of a Self-represented defendant AFTER the judge on 2 March 2015 states to the defendant that the application applies to all charges and should only receive one hearing for all combined.

23. Figure Sch.A.F1 The Court is greater than a psychiatrist NOT the other way around:

[Her Majesty The Queen In Right Of Ontario] including subordinates

l          Her Ministry Of Community Safety And Correctional Services, MCSCS

l          Her Ministry Of Community and Social Services, MCSS

l          Her Ministry Of The Attorney General, MAG

l          Her Ministry Of Health And Long-Term Care, MHLTC

l          More ministries.

(Honourable * VERSUS * Court Law)

[Rene Helmerichs] including subordinates

l          Legal counsel

(1)   BOTH Her Majesty AND Rene Helmerichs must use the same one agreed upon written text for common understanding, in this case the judicial edition of Canada Law Book Martin’s Criminal Code 2014.

(2)   Psychiatrists are equal to attorneys for the crown and neither is greater than the court serving as intermediary for dispute between Her Majesty and Rene Helmerichs. There seems rather to be a colossal amount of confusion in Canada courts for law wherein psychiatrists are presumed to be the keepers of exclusive knowledge of the one mind establishing all ability for common communication.