Rules and regulations in practice demonstrating Canadian do not have the right to self-represent in court.

1.      Rules and regulations in practice demonstrating Canadian do not have the right to self-represent in court.

TO: Carla Frutuoso, Law Society Of Upper Canada 1-800-268-7568

CC: Candice McTavish, College Of Physicians And Surgeons for Ontario 1-800-268-7096

BCC: Counsels Uma Kancharla and Gregory Leslie, please help me quash the order of 5 Aug 2015 and prepare Constitution section 24(1), 52(1), 7, 9, 12, and 15 applications.
Email ref.: https://www.dropbox.com/s/judw5tg33ctt696/20150829_Letter_to_LSUC-2015-169169.pdf

2.      Dear Ms. Frutuoso,

3.      Thank you for The Law Society Of Upper Canada letter dated 29 July 2015 for file LSUC-2015-169169 informing the public “We can only act on complaints that provide information suggesting a lawyer has done something contrary to our Rules Of Professional Conduct [The Rules].” This reply dated 28 Aug 2015 explicitly outlines actions of members of the society contrary to section 3.2-9 of The Rules.

4.      Society members Kathryn Elizabeth Hull, Vincent Zenobio, and C.R. Harris presume Rene Helmerichs with mental disability. On 5 Aug 2015, they denied Mr. Helmerichs the reasonable courtesy of speaking in court. Mr. Helmerichs appeared, but was not let, self-represent.

5.      Section 3.2-9 of The Rules states:

3.2-9 When a client’s ability to make decisions is impaired because of minority, mental disability, or for some other reason, the lawyer shall, as far as reasonably possible, maintain a normal lawyer and client relationship.

6.      On 5 Aug 2015, psychiatrist Mr. William Komer testified to judge Mr. Harris that Mr. Helmerichs is unfit to stand trial. However, Mr. Komer also provided earlier written statement to the court dated 3 Feb 2015, a letter Mr. Harris directly referenced on 5 Aug 2015, explaining assessment of Mr. Helmerichs is not possible while Mr. Helmerichs:

1)     desires his statements audio-recorded to ensure they are not taken out of context;

2)     desires to publicate on the Internet to ensure honesty; and,

3)     considers psychiatrist glorified witch-doctors without shared concept for transparent honesty.

7.      On 5 Aug 2015, Mr. Zenobio, Ms. Hull, and Mr. Harris intentionally disregarded the normal relationship otherwise permitting the defendant to cross-examine a psychiatric witness. Mr. Helmerichs posted responses to fitness questions on the Internet to settle future debates of his fitness already in 2013. Luckily, Mr. Helmerichs is able to evidence Mr. Harris to have intentionally prevented Mr. Helmerichs from demonstrating fitness. On 5 Aug 2015, Mr. Helmerichs was not let to take the stand to demonstrate fitness to Mr. Harris in addition to being denied the ability to reveal false statements of Mr. Komer. Ms. Hull supported the false witness testimony with her own perjury.

8.      (To the public:) Perjury itself is the Criminal Code offense of section 132 and means “do not lie”. As a verb, it is the act of lying, knowingly making false testimony, in front of someone legally able to administer an oath. Because Canada Evidence Act section 13 permits anyone to administer an oath in a pinch, “to commit perjury” really just means “to lie”.

9.      Under oath on 5 Aug 2015, Mr. Komer committed perjury to say Mr. Helmerichs misperceived pleading guilty on 24 Feb 2015 to a July 2014 breach of probation. Instead, Mr. Komer claimed Mr. Helmerichs does not know how to plead in court. Ms. Hull supported the lie with her own assertion. She had done this knowingly because she had been the one who accepted the plea (for C-14-3928-OJC at earlier) on 24 Feb 2015. As late as 17 July 2015, Ms. Hull had let Mr. Helmerichs self-represent. Mr. Helmerichs has self-represented at over 100 court appearances since attempting to redress psychiatric malice in 2012 (ref GOV. ACC. NOW at www.talk2dream.info).

10. Actions contrary to section 3.2-9 of Ms. Hull are not isolated to 5 Aug 2015. Already in 2013, and still ongoing, Mr. Helmerichs noted her to lie about transcripts the court had ordered for Mr. Helmerichs on 21 Oct 2013 re-ordered 6 Dec 2013. Thereafter on 1 April 2014, she denied Mr. Helmerichs a complete crown disclosure for then file C-13-205-SCJ. Ms. Hull also committed perjury in her book of authorities dated 20 May 2014 to state that Mr. Helmerichs had declined bail when in truth Ms. Hull evaded addressing Criminal Code section 672.17.

11. The need now is to prevent further injections forcibly administered to Mr. Helmerichs on grounds that he needs to be made fit with them. If fitness is a matter of courtroom knowledge and ability to communicate, do the contents of this not succinctly suggest both?

12. Mr. Zenobio was the amicus lawyer on 5 Aug 2015. The amicus is not counsel of record for the defense. Had Mr. Helmerichs been fore-warned that he would not be permitted to cross-examine Mr. Komer, Ms. Uma Kancharla was prepared to act as counsel already on 17 July 2015. Mr. Helmerichs had also been in contact with the office of a second counsel.

13. As principal licensing body governing the accepted practice for Canadian lawyers –including all crown attorneys, legal aid or defense counsel, and courtroom justices –to commit knowingly false statements onto public records, the included multiple acts contrary to section 3.2-9 of The Rules directly negates the 29 July 2015 additional LSUC statement “The issue of whether or not your criminal matter was properly handled or not is a legal issue for the determination of the courts, not The Law Society.” Each acts either for social responsibility or presupposed malice, the latter against the all-encompassing spirit and the former reminds that actions are statements in Criminal Code subsection 319(7).

14. Sincerely,

Rene Helmerichs

For www.talk2dream.net