february 26 2013 application of andre murray

7/29/2019 February 26 2013 Application of Andre Murray

1/18

FORM 1

NOTICE OF APPLICATION

Inf

09458205, 09479105, a

New Brunswick Provincial Court (Provincial Court Office of Fredericto

BETWEEN:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

and

ANDRE CHARLES MURRAY

NOTICE OF APPLICATION

(New Brunswick Rules of Provincial Court Practice)

TAKE NOTICE that an application will be brought at 2:00 p.m. on the 13th March, 2013, at Courtroom no_____________, 427 Queen Street, Fredericton, New

for an order:

Granting this application; subsequently granting the dismissal or quashing of all charges (as the case m

against the accused; alternatively granting an adjournment, so that Andre Murequested investigations may be completed and results, thereof, considered b

Accused so that full answer and defence to charges may be achieved as is gu

Common Law, Jurisprudence, Canadian Case Law and the Charter of RightsFreedoms;

also striking the Defendants biometric information from the criminal databawas taken under protest and duress and without proper lawful authority, inte

please note: full requested Orders are provided below in a section titled: THSOUGHT IS

THE GROUNDS FOR THIS APPLICATION ARE:


2/18

2

2. The Applicant points to certain manipulation by Neil Rodgers and Trina Rodtherefore, an abuse of the services of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE has occurr

deviant behaviour of Neil Rodgers and Trina Rodgers. However, the subject membe

FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE are adults, as such, therefore, must be considere

and or hostile to Andre Murray as the only other option would be negligence. Conse

honorable Court should Order a Third Party investigation (not members of FREDER

POLICE FORCE) to determine if there is substance to the Applicants allegation of

and malicious manipulation of certain members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORC

negligence, as the case may be.

3. In the matter of Neil Rodgers and Trina Rodgers alleging, that they fear Andverily believe that the herein subject matter of an investigation to determine if there

to the Applicants allegation of the abuse and malicious manipulation of certain mem

FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE will indeed reveal that the true victim in this sce

Andre Murray, furthermore, that the true victimizers are Neil Rodgers and Trina Ro

although not Andre Murray

4. The herein abosubject investigation of Police activities, with respect to conduct, towards Andre M

certain members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, must include an inquiry into

motivating factors, which influenced these subject members of FREDERICTON PO

FORCE to participate in the victimizing of an innocent Andre Murray.

5. I Andre Murray verily believe that Neil Rodgers and Trina Rodgers have bemanipulating members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE to do their evil biddin

their own personal harassment and assault team against Andre Murray.This has been

accomplished because of Neil Rodgers and Trina Rodgers penchant to make fraudu


3/18

3

6. In each and every instance of Neil and Trina Rodgers making false reports toFREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, whereby bearing false witness against their neig

Murray, caused subsequent arrests, which resulted, Andre Murray has, nevertheless

released without charges being laid against Andre Murray, that is in every instance e

matter of assault which is now before the Court.

7. Neil Rodgers is self-affirmed, (by affidavit) as a long term Police informant,confirms that he and his wife Trina Rodgers work very closely, with members of

FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, to amongst other things conduct a full time surv

the activities and or transient behaviour of Andre Murray, from and to his duplex res

civic address 29 and 31 Marshall Street, Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada, as th

be. Confirmation of these claims made by Neil Rodgers regarding his close Police r

as an Informant working closely with certain members of FREDERICTON POLICE

since year 2005 or thereabouts, would seriously bring into question a matter of a po

of interest, therefore causing the public interest to question the allegations made aga

Murray by Neil Rodgers, Trina Rodgers and their son Thomas Rodgers, conduct and

behaviour patterns, which reasonably considering the evidence must be considered a

entrapment and or at the very least an absurd concept, that is very difficult to believenothing more than the consequences of a mentally disturbed Rodgers Family appea

on the excitement of constant discord with their neighbors, et al. however misguided

intentions are at the very least appears to be nothing less than dysfunctional.

8. Access to the documents and or records as requested by Andre Murray will aapplicant to prove, contextually through demonstrable history, that this most recent

brought against Andre Murray by three members of the Rodgers family is once agai

others have been false and that the charge brought against him was made in bad faith

fraudulent misrepresentation for the Rodgers to cause harm to their neighbour Andr

thereby entangling Andre Murray within the Courts of justice which has been ongo


4/18

4

9. The Applicant claims that misconduct by the FREDERICTON POLICE FORoccurred, contrary to Police Act, SNB 1977, c P-9.2, section 12(1) Each police off

charged with responsibility for:

(a)maintaining law and order,(b)preventing offences against the law

inter alia, in its actions to date regarding this Criminal Investigation and prosecution

Murray. The Court should Order an investigation to determine if there is substance t

misconduct of the FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, in its conduct to date regardi

Criminal Investigation and actions of the various members of FREDERICTON POL

FORCE. The most recent Investigation to date has evidentially been biased; FREDE

POLICE FORCE had no grounds for arrest of the accused or to compel the accused

original undertaking April 16, 2012. There can be no valid charge of a breach of und

because original undertaking was invalid and signed by the accused under protest an

Constable David Beck, (whom Andre Murray has filed two formal complaints and a

Suit regarding Constable David Becks conduct in 2 other past encounters) has taken

himself to personally pursue Andre Murray, Andre Murrays, acquaintances, Andre

roommate, in an effort to prosecute Andre Murray for a Breach of Undertaking. This biased and unjustified, Constable David Beck is apparently acting out in the ma

personal vendetta, attempting to create criminal charges, that otherwise would not e

furthermore, are not in the publics best interest. Any so called evidence created thro

Constable David Becks so called investigation should be struck from the record, so

violate Andre Murrays Charter protected Rights. Reference: Maxim Nemoest supra l

is above the laws

10. According to the Criminal Code of Canada, A Hearing should have been schdetermine if there was any substance to the allegations made against the accused An


5/18

5

of such restrictive orders, by having both parties present before the Court, as stated

and (3)(a-b), of the Criminal Code of Canada, which clearly has not been done, mor

Court appears to have not been advised by the Crown Prosecutors Office on these m

however despite this failure to notice or do something members of FREDERICTON P

FORCE has not followed the requirements of the Criminal Code of Canada with res

process being diligently completed. Therefore the accused was coerced into signing

and subsequent Undertaking and also the Promise to Appear under threat of a length

incarceration, nevertheless, the Court has thus far refused to schedule a hearing of th

Undertaking.

11. In the Defendants case, there was no Hearing as required by s. 810 of the Crof Canada, for a Court assessment and review of evidence, which might warrant an

No Summons, was issued to the Defendant. The Defendant was provided no chancemoreover, Andre Murray was not and has not been provided opportunity to provide

his defence. A Court Judge at a Section .810 application hearing, must balance the t

competing interests in determining whether to place the defendant on a recognizanc

the Judge must balance the right of the defendant to privacy or to be left alone again

of the applicant to a protective intervention in appropriate circumstances. The prer

the section provide the balance needed by setting out subjective and objective g

must be satisfied prior to the issuance of the subject recognizance sought by in

members of the Rodgers family. Certainly, the Judge must be cautious in exercisin

to affect the liberty of the subject, but this caution must be tempered with a view to t

protection provided to the applicant, where grounds have clearly demonstrated the

recognizance. The Defendant to date has been barred from having a s.810 applicatio

be heard on the matter, therefore, violating/contravening the most basic natural righ

established common law, and violating Charter protections, that one should be entitl


6/18

6

subjective and objective elements have been proven as evidence. Unless both elem

been proven, the justice has no jurisdiction to make the order. The defendant (in thi

matter Andre Murray) has been restricted by an unwarranted undertaking for 11 mo

(between April 16, 2012, original arrest and undertaking (signed under protest and d

scheduled Trial of March 13, 2013), without due process.

13. Black's Law Dictionary defines Justice, The fair and proper administration 14. Black's Law Dictionary, defines fair, as Impartial; just; equitable; disinteresof bias or prejudice.

15. The conduct of Members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE has to date bbut fair and or proper. The conduct of the Complainants, Neil Rodgers, Trina Ro

their son Thomas Neil Rodgers, in their fraudulent misrepresentations to the Court c

with the conduct and biased actions of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, further c

with the dubious actions of the Crown have created a situation where the accused ca

reasonable believed by the Public interest to be experiencing proper procedure or

Andre Murray verily believe that the continuation of these Proceedings and or Cour

will bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

16. Full disclosure of the requested documents and records are required, so that Andre Murray may make full answer and defence to the vexatious charges against h

to section 31 of the Provincial Offences Procedure Act, SNB 1987, c P-22.1, The C

Rights and Freedoms, Common Law and Jurisprudence.

17. The subject documents and records requested by Andre Murray will assist thto prove that the charge(s) brought against him are false and that the charge(s) broug

him were made in bad faith as part of a fraudulent misrepresentation thereby obstru


7/18

7

the charges of Breach of Undertaking against the accused, by personally moving his

investigation forward and personally engaging in conduct designed to harass the De

Andre Murrays acquaintances and his roommate. Reasonable apprehension of bias

these proceedings, including the bogus investigation and if these charges against An

are not entirely dropped will bring the administration of Justice into disrepute. Pleas

Andre Murray was first unlawfully arrested for these vexatious charges of assault, w

Civil Court Documents (Court file number FC/201/11), upon Defendant Constable D

at the Fredericton Police station, which included a claim for damages against Defen

Constable David Beck for his tortious actions against Andre Murray.

18. The fact that Andre Murray is suing THE CITY OF FREDERICTON in musuits, and Members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, who despite having the c

of about 120 members, chose to have included three separate officers, whos profesconduct have all been formally brought into question, therefore complained about, b

Murray, reveals the Bias Members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE has toward

Defendant. The repetitive offensive actions employed against victim Andre Murray

of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE reveal that the Fredericton Police Force have

of even maintaining the appearance of an unbiased investigation procedure or due pr

FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE is apparently getting retribution for the accused

litigation whereby Andre Murray is suing these culprits regarding their past miscond

clearly a violation of the accuseds right to a fair trial and due process, contrary to th

Code of Canada and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

19. The history of continuous frivolous complaints made in bad faith, furthermomisrepresentations forwarded by Neil Rodgers and Trina Rodgers, which will be pro

fruits of providing the requested documents relative to these subject investigations, w

history of conduct which has misused and abused Police resources, and caused Defe


8/18

8

criminal charges are groundless and just the newest expression of abuse and misuse

FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE service.

20. The applicant is entitled to full disclosure pursuant to, but not limited to, Sec11 (d) 15 (1) and 24(1)(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom and sect

and 625.1 of the Criminal Code of Canada..

21. The applicant is entitled to full disclosure pursuant to Common Law, JurisprProvincial Offences Procedures Act, and the following case authorities that are bind

which the judges of the Provincial Court of are required to follow and apply:

22. The defence has two primary ways to obtain disclosure. The first and most fis to request disclosure from the Crown through a Stinchcombe application. The Cr

must disclose the fruits of the investigation that may be possibly relevant for or aga

accused. It is known as first party disclosure. Up and untilR. v. McNeil, 2009 SCC

[2009] 1 S.C.R. 66 (S.C.C.), the police were considered a separate and distinct entity

Crown for all purposes. McNeilchanged that for the purpose of disclosure and esse

they are one and the same for that purpose only. Therefore, information or material

of the Police is considered to be in the hands of the Crown and subject to Stinchcom

disclosure. However, the Crown is traditionally, the gatekeeper of that informatio

will decide relevance for the purpose of disclosure subject to court review.

23. Production of disciplinary records and criminal investigation files in the pospolice that do not fall within the scope of this first party disclosure is governed by th

regime for third party production and the police for this purpose are considered a thi

party. The OConnor procedure is a two-stage process. In the first stage the defenc

establish likely relevance. The second stage concerns privilege and privacy interest

parties versus the right to make full answer and defence of the accused


9/18

9

25. Disclosure of Police Disciplinary Records: first party disclosure involves theinvestigation. The Crown and the police have the same obligation. All other record

party records and subject to an OConnorApplication, including records in the hand

police. Police forces have duties, other than investigation of crime, and may be in p

records, and documents, that have nothing to do with the fruits of a particular invest

regard to those records, they are a third party and are to be treated as such.

26. But what about information, that the police have, that was not gathered throucriminal investigation, that is relevant to the trial of the accused, that is in the hands

but exists independently of that specific investigation? There is clearly a gap, betwe

procedures. The bridging of that gap, when the information is in the hands of the po

addressed by the Supreme Court inR. v. McNeil.

27. CASE LAW: R. v. OConnor, [1995] 4 S.C.R. 411andR. v. McNeil, 2009 S[2009]1 S.C.R.66, R. v. Durette, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 469, at p. 499).R. v. Ahluwalia (2

O.A.C. 154; the leading case with respect to full disclosure isR. v. Stinchcombe [19

326:

28. Anyone accused of a criminal charge, has the right to know the case against put forward a defence. In addition to being a principle of fundamental justice, this ri

protected by the right to a fair trial under section 11(d) of the Charter. Full answer

encompasses a number of things, including the right to examine witnesses, and mos

the right to full disclosure by the Crown and Police.

29. The following comments from the Stinchcombe case are relevant to this AppI. The Crown has a legal duty, to disclose all relevant information to th

II Th l i i l th t i f ti h ld t b ithh ld if th


10/18

10

30. The Charter guarantees, that Canadian citizens, will not be subject to unreasosearches and seizure or arbitrary detention or imprisonment. They also have the righ

informed of the reason for arrest or detention, and the right to obtain and instruct cou

delay. If any of these rights are violated in the conduct of a criminal investigation, th

obtained can be excluded at trial, if the evidence would bring the administration of j

disrepute.

31. Where the prosecution relies on the powers of police, constables at commondescribed as the ancillary police power, to justify police conduct, that, which interfe

individual liberties, a two-pronged case-specific inquiry must be made. First, the pro

must demonstrate, that the police were acting in the exercise of a lawful duty, when

in the conduct in issue. Second, the prosecution must demonstrate that the impugned

amounted to a justifiable use of police powers associated with that duty. On this latt

the inquiry the competing individual rights, and societal concerns, must be evaluated

context of the specific fact situation faced by the police. It is not enough, that impug

conduct assisted the police in the performance of their duties. Police powers are not

with their duties. The justifiability of an officer's conduct depends on a number of fa

including the duty being performed, the extent to which some interference with indi

is necessitated in order to perform that duty, the importance of the performance of th

the public good, the liberty interfered with, and the nature and extent of the interfere

32. First, the Defendant will demonstrate that the police were not acting in the elawful duty, when, they engaged in the conduct in issue, namely the arrest of Andre

April 16, 2012, at the Fredericton Police Station and later in taking the Accused pho

fingerprints and biometric information to enter same into the criminal database, con


11/18

11

accused and FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE members, further a history of haras

between Neil Rodgers and Trina Rodgers to the FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE

Andr Murray at his residence civic address 29 and 31 Marshall Street, Fredericton,

Brunswick.

33. Section 11 of the Chartersets out a number of specific guarantees for personcriminal trial. These include the following:

the right to be presumed to be innocent, until proven guilty according to lawand public hearing, by an independent, and impartial court;

the right, not to be denied reasonable bail, without just cause;

34. The Crown did not schedule a Hearing to ascertain the reasonableness of a aproposed Undertaking in these circumstance, as is mandated by the Criminal Code otherefore, violating the accused rights, without due process, in this regard the crown

adequately safeguard the liberty of the accused.

35. One of the most important protections, that, an accused person has in Canadthe Charter. This is the right to full disclosure by the Crown, of all the evidence that

prosecutor has. The crown prosecutor has a special obligation within the Canadian j

to see that the accused is treated fairly. The Supreme Court of Canada has said: "Th

investigation which are in the possession of the counsel for the crown are not the pr

crown for use in securing a conviction but the property of the public to be used to en

justice is done". Disclosure of all relevant evidence is necessary, so that the accused

full answer and defence to the charges.

36. The admission of the evidence following a biased Investigation would violatinterests of the accused, in a manner, that is not in accordance with the principles of


12/18

12

invoked. We must be mindful that a constitutional rule may be adopted to ensure tha

of obtaining evidence is so devised, as to ensure that a guaranteed right is respected,

of course.

37. Although protected expressly in s.11(d), the presumption of innocence is refintegral to the general protection of life, liberty and security of the person contained

Charter. The presumption of innocence protects the fundamental liberty and human

any and every person accused by the state of criminal conduct. The right to be presu

innocent requires that s.11(d) have, at a minimum, the following content: (i) an indi

be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; (ii) it is the State which must bear the b

proof; and (iii) criminal prosecutions must be carried out in accordance with lawful

and fairness:R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103.

38. The results of the requested investigation will establish the Credibility of WiRodgers, and Trina Rodgers, including Thomas Neil Rodgers to be non-existent and

Police Force were well aware of same, this was simply an opportunity for Members

FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE to get revenge of the accused, retaliation for suin

of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE for their previous misconduct against the accu

Murray.

39. In the context of a preventive provision like Criminal Code: s.810.1, makingissuance of process on a defendant mandatory or automatic (without due process) vi

and 9 of the Charter and cannot be justified under s.1of the Charter. An automatic is

of process, with the potential arrest of the defendant, is excessive and unwarranted. no control on obviously unfounded informations, under which a person may be sum

arrested. Thus, it subjects the ordinary citizen to capricious, or unjustifiable

detention. Relying on the Supreme Courts decision in Baron v. Canada,19 a resid


13/18

13

40. Without following proper procedure, the defendant has been subjected to Se1(a),1(b), 2(a), 2e, 2(f), 7 and 9 Charter violations. Please remember The Charter s

the individuals liberty by guaranteeing, the right not to be deprived thereof, except

process of law. A defendant has the right to equality before the law and the protectio

and should not be subject to arbitrary arrest, detention, or imprisonment. The Charte

guarantees that a person is not deprived of the right to a fair hearing in accordance w

principles of fundamental justice, for the determination of his rights and obligations

furthermore, shall not deprive a person charged with a criminal offence of the right,

presumed innocent until proved guilty, according to law, in a fair, and public hearin

independent and impartial tribunal, and or the right not to be deprived of reasonable

just cause. The defendant has been arrested twice, spent two days in jail, and has be

by an unwarranted undertaking for 11 months, (used by Members of FREDERICTOFORCE to vindictively add more charges) without just cause. In all cases, regarding

mentioned matters, the defendants rights have been trampled and injustice has over

justice system.

41. The Provincial Offences Procedure Act, SNB 1987, c P-22.1 section 5(1) allA police officer who has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that a person

committed an offence may serve that person with an appearance notice in prescribe

an information is laid in respect of that offence. FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE

therefore, have only have served an appearance Notice on the Defendant. When the

considers if the FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE had the power to arrest accused

Murray, April 16, 2012, despite the fact no Information had been laid, regarding the

assault, furthermore, no information had been laid regarding the s. 810 application,

would conclude that the FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE did not have to arrest ac

Murray, April 16, 2012, furthermore, that arrest was, in violation of due process and


14/18

14

subject materials be withdrawn from the System and relative records destroyed. FRE

POLICE FORCE had no lawful authority to demand same of the accused, because th

breach of Under taking Section 145(3)(b), is a hybrid offence and does not qualify

Identification of Criminals Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. I-1) section 2.(1), as a condition wh

FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE would have had lawful authority to do so,

43. When the Court considers the charter implication of vagueness and asks the the initial undertaking given to a Police Officer, (under protest and duress) April 19

for vagueness? The Court would conclude, that, yes it was, and is, therefore, of no fo

effect.

44. The Court should declare that every undertaking signed by the Defendant (uand duress) from April 19, 2012 onward, is void and of no force or effect, and any c

of a perceived and or alleged breach of same is withdrawn, so that proper service of

administration of Justice is accomplished.

45. The Court should declare every warrant, or order, made in the process of theInformation No. 09458205, 09479105, and 09497005 as void and are of no force an

46. The Court should withdraw the plea of not guilty, made by the initial Court, entered under protest and objected to by the Defendant and dismiss all the charges a

Murray in their entirety, because irreparable prejudice would be caused to the integr

judicial system if the prosecution were continued.

47. The New Brunswick Provincial Court Rules are intended to provide for the jdetermination of every criminal and quasi-criminal proceeding, and shall be liberally

to secure simplicity and uniformity in procedure, fairness in administration, the elim

unjustifiable expense and the avoidance of delay Where an accused is not represent


15/18

15

sub-rule 2.02, on such terms as are just, to secure the just determination of the real m

dispute or, where it is necessary in the interests of justice, the Court may set aside th

or a step, document or order in the proceeding in whole or in part. Furthermore, The

in the interests of justice, dispense with compliance with any rule at any time or sub

process that would produce an equally just result, pursuant to The New Brunswick P

Court Rules 1.01 (1), 1.01 (2), 2.01(a), 2.01(b) and 2.02.

IN SUPPORT OF THIS APPLICATION THE APPLICANT RELIES UPON T

FOLLOWING:

1. The Affidavit of Shane Henry Dated: February 20, 2013;2. The Affidavit of Andre Murray Dated: February 26, 2013;

THE RELIEF SOUGHT IS:

48. An Order allowing the application and granting the following:

49. An Order that all related FORM 2 information in this file, against the applicaMURRAY be quashed and or all charges dismissed under sections 1(a),1(b), 2(a), 2

9, 10 (a) (b) (c), 11(a) (d),(g), (12) 15(1) (2) 24 (1) (2), and 28, 32 of the Canadian

Rightsand Freedoms, and ss. 603, 605, 625.1 of the Criminal Code of Canada on th

that the continuation of the proceedings is an abuse of process because the proceedin

brought:

a. Arbitrarily and for an oblique and improper purpose,b. On the basis of false, contrived and fabricated evidence, andc. In a manner calculated to deny the accused the right to a fair trial.


16/18

16

51. An order that FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE or the Crown Prosecutors Ocopies of the following:

(a)Copy of pre-charge review and which crown prosecutor signed the c(b)Copy of the post-charge review; and(c)Copy of the entire Complaint file FPF 11-23456 against: Constable

et al., regarding Physical assault of Andre Murray October 7, 2011,

Complaint file 2010-23628 attendance and participation unlawful evuttering threats October 23, 2009.

(d)Copy of the entire Complaint file 2010-23628 against: Constable Alregarding unlawful eviction and Uttering Threats October 23, 2009.

(e)Copy of the entire Complaint file FPF11-19229 against: Jeff Lingleyregarding a home invasion and assault the 8th day of March 2011.

52. An order that FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE or the Crown Prosecutors oproduce copies of disciplinary records and criminal investigation files in the possess

FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE regarding:A. Constable David Beck,B. Constable Ali Yerxa andC. Constable Jeff Lingley.

53. Order a third party investigation (not by members of FREDERICTON POLIbecause they may be complicit or integrally involved) to determine if there is substa

Murrays claim of abuse and malicious manipulation of Members of FREDERICTO

FORCE services by Neil Rodgers and Trina Rodgers and thereby used against the a

Murray. The Investigation shall reveal:

i. the excessive volume of `non productive` complaint telephone calls regaApplicant and activities observed at the Applicants residence 29 31 M

over the 7 year period from 2005-2012.


17/18

17

iii. the source of the telephone reports and complaints to FREDERICTON PFORCE regarding the Applicant and or Applicants residence of 29 31

Street over the 6 year period from 2005-2012, which have resulted in the

being arrested and released without charge.

iv. the unfounded substance of the telephone reports and complaints to FREPOLICE FORCE regarding the Applicant and or Applicants residence o

Marshall Street over the 7 year period from 2005-2012.

v. the identity of the telephone reports/caller, so that it may be determined, complaints are without substance, nevertheless caused suffering of the in

Applicant by relentless stalking and or surveillance or the Applicants re

31 Marshall Street occurring regularly over the 7 year period from 200

54. Order full disclosure of same investigation to the Applicant, that the Applicafull answer (if still necessary) and defence to these frivolous and vexatious Crimina

subsequently, acquire a Cease and desist Order for the protection of his body and so

55. An order that the trial herein be adjourned for three (3) months to permit the of the Investigation report and requested documents and to allow for a reasonable pe

for the applicant to conduct necessary examination of the documents and records pr

appropriate Investigators.

56. To preserve the appearance of integrity of the justice system, Order the fingebiometric and photographic records, which were taken unlawfully by FREDERICTO

FORCE from the Defendant, are withdrawn from the System and records destroyed

57. The Court declares that FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE had no powers o


18/18