Item Num 6: KA 3: APPLICATION 15 APRIL 2015 (3)

Item Num 6:

KA 3: APPLICATION 15 APRIL 2015 (3)

Her Majesty The Queen In Right Of Ontario (Respondent)

- and -

Mr. Rene Helmerichs (Applicant)

Court File Nos.: C-14-3928 (Orillia); C-14-6966 (Barrie)

I.                     Concise Statement:

1.      Following agreement to receive written responses to oral questions, a 3 Feb 2015 letter from Mr. William Komer insinuates such agreement to not have existed.

II.                   TAKE NOTICE:

2.      This is an application for an order under Rule 2.1 of The Ontario Criminal Court Of Justice to investigate the attached 3 Feb 2015 letters of Mr. William Komer with respect to infringement of Criminal Code sections 361 and 215, and 672.2(2), and for perjury.

III.                  GROUNDS FOR THE ORDER

3.      With respect to infringement of s.361 C.C.C.:

4.      Mr. Komer states Mr. Helmerichs “refused to speak with me unless it is audio recorded and stated that he would be posting anything documented on the Internet.” Yet at no time did Mr. Helmerichs say that he would be posting everything AND evidences the refusal not to be a refused to communicate nor to restrict Mr. Komer from ability to complete the assessment(s).

5.      The Criminal Code in section 361 is very specific that a false statement can only be known as criminally false if it is made knowingly misleading the administration of justice. Page one of the eleven page attached Psychosocial Assessment (forensic) dated 5 Feb 2015 states ability of the assessment to be conducted exclusively in writing, an obligatory service to include non native speakers of English unable to have oral translation service at time of assessments, and 2 Feb 2015 submission of “a 37 page document” (cited on page 11 of 11) corroborates the specific agreement made with the attending psychiatrist to communicate exclusively in writing (until such time as policy for storage of audio recordings is implemented) already BEFORE 30 Jan 2015.

6.      Mr. Helmerichs first met Mr. Komer on 26 Jan 2015 in person. The 3 Feb 2015 letters of Mr. Komer for assessments ordered 29 Dec 2014 and 19 Jan 2015 have been interpreted on the record for at least two of 13, 17, 24, 25, or 28 Feb and 2 or 4 March 2015 by the attending crown attorneys for all dates. The crown attorneys have accepted statement of Mr. Komer to be synonymous to “Mr. Helmerichs refused to cooperate during the assessment which could therefore not be completed” instead of the accurate interpretation that “Mr. Helmerichs desires to ensure his own ability to verify to the court that medical professionals are hastily making often unsubstantiated or outright fraudulent assertions in pursuit of finding individuals with mental disorders where otherwise none could exist if the focus was exclusively with aim to ever better the innate ability to communicate, while duly desiring to remain objective in their pursuit.”

7.      As a specific example of statement intentionally misconstrued, Mr. Helmerichs offers that of Mr. Komer for investigation. However, not all statements are intentionally misrepresented, such as that on page 6 of the eleven-page Psychosocial Assessment (forensic), “Mr. Helmerichs had planned to work toward his commercial [pilot’s] license but abandoned his plan after some time. Mr. Helmerichs then worked toward getting his truck driving license.”, UNLESS that same intentionally fraudulent assertion originally of psychiatrist Mr. Liaqat Ali in September of 2012 is yet still retained with interpretation NOT including: “Mr. Helmerichs drove truck to pay for his commercial pilot’s license before also completing Flight Instructor certification and working for a short time AS a commercially licensed pilot.”

8.      Regardless of the circumstance, Mr. Komer knew Mr. Helmerichs desires to communicate for the purpose of an accurate assessment and was not at liberty to circumvent Criminal Code section 672.2(2) otherwise requiring that, at the very least, The Psychosocial Assessment be filed with the court in lieu of the decision of Mr. Komer to discharge Mr. Helmerichs from the ordered institution (Waypoint) prematurely. Without seeking a replacement assessor to continue on 4 Feb 2015, the date of premature discharge, Mr. Komer did also contravene Criminal Code section 215(1)(c)(ii) to deny Mr. Helmerichs the medical report.

IV.               With respect to infringement of s.215 C.C.C.:

9.      Mr. Komer states in the 3 Feb 2015 letters, a copy of which is attached, “Mr. Helmerichs has been derogatory to me. Under the circumstances, I am unable at this time or in the future to do an assessment of him.”

10. The Diagnostic And Statistics Manual V (2013), on page 99 as Criterion B for Schizophrenia, aka Shizophrenia: “... level of functioning in one or more major areas, such as work, interpersonal relations, or self-care, is markedly below to level achieved prior to the onset.”

11. That Mr. Komer witnesses occurrence of interpersonal relations markedly below the level necessary to a commercial vehicle operator (the stereotype gruff trucker excluded from dedicated Air Canada long hauls), Mr. Komer witnesses for himself clear evidence of inappropriate behaviour earmarking a (if unspecified) mental disability, a “disease of the mind” to quote section 2 of The Criminal Code for mental disorder.

12. Several psychiatrists, recounted in the pages of The Psychosocial Assessment (forensic), seven including Robert Dickey whose presence is only indirectly referred, corroborate the 5 April 2015 sentiment of psychiatrist Mr. Lorberg who states the “insight [of Mr. Helmerichs] into the nature and quality of his mental disorder, its impact on his functioning, and the need for treatment is grossly impaired.” The Criminal Code in section 215 is very specific when it states that Mr. Komer, who was “under a legal duty (c) to provide necessaries of life to a person under his charge if that person (i) is unable, by reason of ... mental disorder or other cause, to withdraw himself from that charge, and (ii) is unable to provide himself with necessaries of life.”

13. Lest there be frivolous argument, “necessaries of life” must include, to quote Mr. Lorberg, “insight into the nature and quality of his mental disorder” which obligates Mr. Komer to have, at the very least, met Mr. Helmerichs with means to audio record spoken statements of Mr. Helmerichs if (1) insisting upon verbal communication to both deny written communication and use the vexatious action as excuse to absolve himself of the charge of Mr. Helmerichs, or (2) foster a therapeutic relationship founded upon mutual TRUST as Mr. Helmerichs has been seeking among psychiatrists since encountering the pair that intentionally misconstrued Royal Victoria Hospital for his forced injecting (reference to the affirmed testimony within the crown disclosure for Orillia matter C-14-3928).

14. A spoken statement must be audio-recorded to be captured verbatim, with voice inflection and other linguistic communications, while a written statement suffices the same communication if with need for slightly more patience. There was no need for Mr. Komer to insinuate that I, as Mr. Helmerichs, desired not to communicate when clearly I does.

15. Treatment is complimenting, NOT only criticizing.

16. For “the need for treatment” referenced in the 5 April 2015 letter from psychiatrist Mr. Gunter Lorberg, provide contrary to Criminal Code section 215, psychiatrists Drs. Polster in their text Gestalt Therapy Integrated (1973; ISBN 0-394-71006-1) on page 5 [the original text is italicized] state: experience is not merely a prepatory event [“danged in front of a person who buys speculative shares in a glowing future”; page 2], but a valid moment per se, needing no external referent [“use of the gimmick”, p. 3] to confirm its inherent relevance to the patient’s life.

17. The Polsters speak to Gestalt Therapy, adding on page 3: “Theory and knowledge remain suspect, not because of inherent worthlessness, but because of their historic isolation from ACTION [emphasis added].”