Provincial Court of New Brunswick related Videos:

May 7, 2012 Basic Court Information

Self-represented litigant

Our legal system gives every individual the right to represent himself or herself in legal proceedings before the courts. The judicial system however can be a very complex process, not only in the courtroom, but also in the proceedings leading up to court appearances. There are often many forms and documents to be completed and witnesses to summon. It is also essential to note that while one party may choose self-representation, the other party may have representation by a lawyer. Lawyers are specialists in the field of law and may request that the Rules of Court and the rules of evidence be strictly followed throughout the proceeding. As a self-represented litigant, you will be expected to follow these rules and may find little leniency for errors. Although the presiding judge will likely explain the general procedure to you, he or she will neither conduct your case for you nor act as your lawyer.

Should you decide to proceed with self-representation, note that each court may have different forms and procedures. Therefore, you should thoroughly investigate and prepare for the legal process well in advance.


Overview
The Court of Appeal of New Brunswick
The Court of Appeal is the highest court in this province; hears appeals in criminal and civil matters. It hears appeals from the Court of Queen's Bench, Probate Court, Provincial Court (indictable offences) and various administrative tribunals, for example, the appeals tribunal under the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission Act. The court sits in Fredericton, although it may sit elsewhere if the Chief Justice of New Brunswick so directs.

The Court of Queen's Bench of New Brunswick
The Court of Queen's Bench hears all matters within the domain of family law. The Court of Queen's Bench also has original jurisdiction in major civil and criminal cases. In addition, it has appellate jurisdiction over summary conviction offences from the Provincial Court. The Court of Queen's Bench is divided into two divisions:
          • Family Division
          • Trial Divison

 The Probate Court of New Brunswick
The Probate Court deals with matters involving wills and estates of deceased persons. Judges from the Court of Queen's Bench preside over the Probate Court.
-more

The Provincial Court of New Brunswick
This court is the entry point for all persons charged with offences under the Criminal Code or other federal or provincial legislation. The Provincial Court has jurisdiction over almost all criminal matters involving both youth and adults. Even in cases where the accused chooses to be tried by the Court of Queen's Bench, the Provincial Court still may be required to hold a hearing to determine whether the accused is to be detained in custody, or to hold a Preliminary Inquiry to determine whether the accused is to stand trial.





May 7, 2012 - Legal Matters - CJC STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES ON SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGANT

Procedural information is not legal advice

CANADIAN JUDICIAL COUNCIL: STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES ON SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGANTS AND ACCUSED PERSONS*

PREAMBLE

Whereas the system of criminal and civil justice in Canada is predicated on the expectation of equal access to justice, including procedural justice, and equal treatment under the law for all persons;

Whereas the achievement of these expectations depends on awareness and understanding of both procedural and substantive law;

Whereas access to justice is facilitated by the availability of representation to all parties, and it is therefore desirable that each person seeking access to the court should be represented by counsel;

Whereas those persons who do remain unrepresented by counsel both face and present special challenges with respect to the court system;

Therefore, judges, court administrators, members of the Bar, legal aid organizations, and government funding agencies each have responsibility to ensure that self-represented persons are provided with fair access and equal treatment by the court; and

Therefore, it is desirable to provide a statement of principles for the guidance of such persons in the administration of justice in relation to self-represented persons.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/92233801/CANADIAN-JUDICIAL-COUNCIL-STATEMENT-OF-PRINCIPLES-ON-SELF-REPRESENTED-LITIGANTS-AND-ACCUSED#page=1




May 1, 2012 Video No Legal obligation to identify oneself to Police

Supreme Court of Canada

Moore v. The Queen, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 195 Date: 1978-10-17

Per Dickson and Estey JJ., dissenting: Any duty to identify oneself must be found in either common law or statute, quite apart from the duties of the police. A person is not guilty of the offence of obstructing a police officer merely by doing nothing, unless there is a legal duty to act. Omission to act in a particular way will give rise to criminal liability only where a duty to act arises at common law or is imposed by statute.

There was no statutory duty on a cyclist caught committing a traffic infraction to divulge his name and address. While, as held by the majority, the constable, under the relevant statutory provisions, could have arrested the accused for the offence of proceeding against a red light if it were necessary to establish his identity, it was not accepted that as a consequence the accused was guilty of the further, and much more serious, offence of obstructing the constable in the performance of his duties by refusing to divulge his name and address.

There is no duty at common law to identify oneself to police, and the refusal to so identify oneself cannot constitute obstruction of the police. A person cannot "obstruct" by refusing to answer a question unless he is under a legal duty to answer. The argument that because a duty rested upon constables to investigate crime and enforce provincial laws, an "implied" or "reciprocal" duty rested upon a person, suspected of an infraction, to give his name and address, and refusal to do so amounted to such frustration as to constitute the offence of obstructing the police in the execution of their duty was rejected. Only if the police have a lawful claim to demand that a person identify himself, does the person have a corresponding duty to do so.

The General Principle

Any duty to identify oneself must be found in either common law or statute, quite apart from the duties of the police. A person is not guilty of the offence of obstructing a police officer merely by doing nothing, unless there is a legal duty to act. Omission to act in a particular way will give rise to criminal liability only where a duty to act arises at common law or is imposed by statute: 11 Hals. (4th ed.) p. 15.

The point under discussion is dealt with at some length by Dr. Glanville Williams in an article entitled "Demanding Name and Address" appearing in (1950), 66 Law Quarterly Review, at p. 465. The general principle of the common law is stated:

...neither a private person nor a constable has any effective power to demand the name and address of a person on the ground that he has committed an offence or is under a civil liability.

No Common Law Duty

There is no duty at common law to identify oneself to police. As was stated by Lord Parker in Rice v. Connolly[5], at p. 652:
It seems to me quite clear that though every citizen has a moral duty or, if you like, a social duty to assist the police, there is no legal duty to that effect, and indeed the whole basis of the common law is the right of the individual to refuse to answer questions put to him by persons in authority, and to refuse to accompany those in authority to any particular place, short, of course, of arrest.

The case stands for the proposition that refusal to identify oneself to the police could not constitute obstruction of the police. The Court distinguished a refusal to answer, which is legal, from a "cock and bull" story to the police, which might constitute obstruction. No other distinction was made. Lord Parker said, p. 652:

In my judgment there is all the difference in the world between deliberately telling a false story, something which on no view a citizen has a right to do, and silence or refusing to answer, something which he has every right to do.

The legal position in England and Wales has been described in these terms in Police Powers in England and Wales (1975), by Leigh, at p. 195:

And in general it still remains the rule that a citizen has a right to be as unco-operative as he pleases, provided that he does not impede the course of justice by knowingly giving false information to the police.

See full Decision at the following link:
http://scc.lexum.org/en/1978/1979scr1-195/1979scr1-195.html



September 27, 2012 educated opinion on "Plea Bargain" - Plea Bargains: BE CAUTIOUS / BE WARNED !


Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure

 Rule 11. Pleas

(a) Entering a Plea.

(1) In General. A defendant may plead not guilty, guilty, or (with the court's consent) nolo contendere.

(2) Conditional Plea. With the consent of the court and the government, a defendant may enter a conditional plea of guilty or nolo contendere, reserving in writing the right to have an appellate court review an adverse determination of a specified pretrial motion. A defendant who prevails on appeal may then withdraw the plea.

(3) Nolo Contendere Plea. Before accepting a plea of nolo contendere, the court must consider the parties' views and the public interest in the effective administration of justice. [Latin, I will not contest it.] A plea in a criminal case by which the defendant answers the charges made in the indictment by declining to dispute or admit the fact of his or her guilt.

The defendant who pleads nolo contendere submits for a udgment fixing a fine or sentence the same as if he or she had pleaded guilty. The difference is that a plea of nolo contendere cannot later be used to prove wrongdoing in a civil suit for monetary damages, but a plea of guilty can. Nolo contendere is especially popular in antitrust actions, such as price-fixing cases, where it is very likely that civil actions for treble damages will be started after the defendant has been successfully prosecuted.

A plea of nolo contendere may be entered only with the permission of the court, and the court should accept it only after weighing its effect on the parties, the public, and the administration of justice.

(4) Failure to Enter a Plea. If a defendant refuses to enter a plea or if a defendant organization fails to appear, the court must enter a plea of not guilty.

(b) Considering and Accepting a Guilty or Nolo Contendere Plea.

(1) Advising and Questioning the Defendant. Before the court accepts a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, the defendant may be placed under oath, and the court must address the defendant personally in open court. During this address, the court must inform the defendant of, and determine that the defendant understands, the following:

(A) the government's right, in a prosecution for perjury or false statement, to use against the defendant any statement that the defendant gives under oath;

(B) the right to plead not guilty, or having already so pleaded, to persist in that plea;

(C) the right to a jury trial;

(D) the right to be represented by counsel—and if necessary have the court appoint counsel—at trial and at every other stage of the proceeding;

(E) the right at trial to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, to be protected from compelled self-incrimination, to testify and present evidence, and to compel the attendance of witnesses;

(F) the defendant's waiver of these trial rights if the court accepts a plea of guilty or nolo contendere;

(G) the nature of each charge to which the defendant is pleading;

(H) any maximum possible penalty, including imprisonment, fine, and term of supervised release;

(I) any mandatory minimum penalty;

(J) any applicable forfeiture;

(K) the court's authority to order restitution;

(L) the court's obligation to impose a special assessment;

(M) in determining a sentence, the court's obligation to calculate the applicable sentencing-guideline range and to consider that range, possible departures under the Sentencing Guidelines, and other sentencing factors; and

(N) the terms of any plea-agreement provision waiving the right to appeal or to collaterally attack the sentence.

(2) Ensuring That a Plea Is Voluntary. Before accepting a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, the court must address the defendant personally in open court and determine that the plea is voluntary and did not result from force, threats, or promises (other than promises in a plea agreement).

(3) Determining the Factual Basis for a Plea. Before entering judgment on a guilty plea, the court must determine that there is a factual basis for the plea.




August 30, 2012: Information on Criminal Code of Canada Assault and Undertakings.


Criminal Code of Canada sections:
265. (1) A person commits an assault when

(a) without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly;

(b) he attempts or threatens, by an act or a gesture, to apply force to another person, if he has, or causes that other person to believe on reasonable grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose; or

(c) while openly wearing or carrying a weapon or an imitation thereof, he accosts or impedes another person or begs.

810. (1) An information may be laid before a justice by or on behalf of any person who fears on reasonable grounds that another person will cause personal injury to him or her or to his or her spouse or common-law partner or child or will damage his or her property.

Duty of justice

(2) A justice who receives an information under subsection (1) shall cause the parties to appear before him or before a summary conviction court having jurisdiction in the same territorial division.

Adjudication

(3) The justice or the summary conviction court before which the parties appear may, if satisfied by the evidence adduced that the person on whose behalf the information was laid has reasonable grounds for his or her fears,

(a) order that the defendant enter into a recognizance, with or without sureties, to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for any period that does not exceed twelve months, and comply with such other reasonable conditions prescribed in the recognizance, including the conditions set out in subsections (3.1) and (3.2), as the court considers desirable for securing the good conduct of the defendant; or

(b) commit the defendant to prison for a term not exceeding twelve months if he or she fails or refuses to enter into the recognizance.

Conditions

(3.1) Before making an order under subsection (3), the justice or the summary conviction court shall consider whether it is desirable, in the interests of the safety of the defendant or of any other person, to include as a condition of the recognizance that the defendant be prohibited from possessing any firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or explosive substance, or all such things, for any period specified in the recognizance and, where the justice or summary conviction court decides that it is so desirable, the justice or summary conviction court shall add such a condition to the recognizance.




Read the Attorney General's Policy - Public Prosecutions yourself at:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/100205258/Attorney-General%E2%80%99s-Policy-Public-Prosecutions#page=1

Attorney General's Policy - Public Prosecutions

Introduction

The purpose of stating the Attorney General's policy in regards to public prosecutions is two-fold:
• to ensure the fair and effective prosecution of criminal and quasi-criminal cases, and
• to provide public access to the Attorney General's policy and to guidelines issued by

the Director of Public Prosecutions under the policy, in order to instill and maintain confidence in the administration of justice in the province.

The Attorney General, as chief law officer of the Crown, is responsible for prosecutions under the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act, some other federal statutes and all public provincial statutes containing enforcement provisions. Only as a result of statutory requirements, or in exceptional circumstances, is the Attorney General personally knowledgeable about or directly involved in particular cases being prosecuted. Individual prosecutions are conducted by Crown Prosecutors acting as agents of the Attorney General who are as such public officers engaged in the administration of justice.

It follows that the Attorney General's responsibility in day-to-day public prosecutions is discharged mostly by means of general policy direction to Crown Prosecutors in various areas of prosecutions that require a fair and consistent approach throughout the province.

By tradition and necessity, Crown Prosecutors have a broad and generous area of discretion in prosecutions, subject to general policy directions of the Attorney General or specific direction in exceptional cases. They act under the direct supervision of the Director of Public Prosecutions and Regional Crown Prosecutors. Guidelines issued by the Director are mainly advisory and are designed to further assist Crown Prosecutors in achieving a uniform approach to prosecutions.

The major topics covered in the Attorney General's policy are those not dealt with in detail by specific statutory provisions or judicial direction. The major topics include police investigations, alternative measures, the decision to prosecute, laying the information, private prosecutions, Crown immunity, and resolution discussions.

Attorney General's Policy - Public Prosecutions Part 1







Attorney General's Policy - Public Prosecutions Part 2




Sept 27, 2012, when Fredericton Police in New Brunswick, Canada, are asked to provide PROOF OF CLAIM that I am obliged to perform any such act as pay a By Law ticket than I do not have to pay !
Where is their Proof of Claim that I must perform?

1. I André Murray verily believe that no agent for have provided proof of claim that the alleged claims apply to the myself André Murray, nor that myself André Murray am obligated to accept the benefits offered.
2. I André Murray verily believe THE CITY OF FREDRICTON has failed to provide proof of claim to myself, therefore there is no dispute between the parties, simply put, an offer was made and an offer was in good faith conditionally accepted, there the matter stands.
3. I André Murray verily believe, since THE CITY OF FREDRICTON has failed to substantiate their claims against the André Murray through negotiation and discussion, further, there since it is a fact there lacks an injured party, THE CITY OF FREDRICTON has no locus standi in this matter before the Court.
4. I André Murray verily believe, that jurisprudence has established, that a Provincial Court has no jurisdiction unless jurisdiction can be proven to exist, as opposed to a superior Court, where jurisprudence has established that jurisdiction is assumed to exist unless the contrary is shown.
5. The Provincial Court of New Brunswick is a court of special, limited, or statutory jurisdiction, whose record must show the existence of jurisdiction in any given case to give its ruling presumptive validity.
6. I André Murray verily believe, that if there is not dispute between Parties, the Court lacks a lis inter partes to judge, therefore the Court has no jurisdiction to act.
7. I Andre Murray am an adult man;
8. I Andre Murray claim common law jurisdiction;
9. I Andre Murray do not consent and I waive all the benefits;
10. I Andre Murray do not consent to the Court making any legal determinations against me;
11. I Andre Murray do not consent to represent the person known as the defendant, be associated by joinder, or accept liabilities for same;
12. I Andre Murray do not consent the Court's jurisdictional claims against me;
13. I Andre Murray do not consent to the Court contracting with the me;
14. I Andre Murray do not and did not consent to the Courts Jurisdiction;
15. I Andre Murray do not and did not consent to abide by The City of Fredericton Bylaws;
16. I Andre Murray do not and did not consent to attorn to the jurisdiction of any Court;
17. I Andre Murray do not and did not consent to any Court hearing bylaw matters any further than considering the jurisdictional issues herein presented;
Conclusion I André Murray verily believe The Provincial Court of New Brunswick lacks: • personal jurisdiction of the Court over the Defendant; • Subject matter Jurisdiction and; • jurisdiction over the particular case.





Resisting arrest can be defined as any attempt to refuse or prevent a police officer from conducting a lawful arrest and can be used in conjunction with other charges. The arrest is lawful as long as the police officer is following proper procedures and protocols for the arrest.

Resisting arrest can include the following but not limited to: arguing or yelling at a police officer; struggling, fighting or resisting while the officer is attempting to handcuff you or direct you into a patrol vehicle.  It may also includes running away from the officer, physical confrontation with the officer (with or without a weapon), and providing false identification to the law officer.

Resisting arrest is when a man or woman refuses to yield themselves and/or uses physical force to prevent arrest and/or lawful restraint by an authorized law enforcement official acting in the line of their duty.
 
  
 Primary Fact(s)
 1. That a law enforcement officer at a particular time and date identified themselves to be a valid law enforcement officer to the accused; and
 2. That following their identification to the accused, the law enforcement officer called upon the accused to immediately halt and yield themselves in order to be placed under arrest; and
 3. That upon the clear instruction of the law enforcement officer to halt and yield, the accused did refuse and/or physically resist such instruction.

"Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary." Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: "Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed."

R. v. Macooh, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 802:
He then turned to a consideration of R. v. Landry, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 145, and held that the police constable's entry "into the dwelling house in hot pursuit of a person suspected of a breach of summary legislation contained in a provincial enactment, as opposed to an indictable offence, was unlawful, and that the arrest of the person within the premises was therefore also unlawful" (p. 316).  Thus, the resisting arrest charge was dismissed.

The Canadian Criminal Code states the following on resisting arrest:

129. Everyone who

    (a) resists or wilfully obstructs a public officer or peace officer in the execution of his duty or any person lawfully acting in aid of such an officer,
    (b) omits, without reasonable excuse, to assist a public officer or peace officer in the execution of his duty in arresting a person or in preserving the peace, after having reasonable notice that he is required to do so, or
    (c) resists or wilfully obstructs any person in the lawful execution of a process against lands or goods or in making a lawful distress or seizure, is guilty of
    (d) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or
    (e) An offence punishable on summary conviction.

270. (1) Every one commits an offence who

        (a) assaults a public officer or peace officer engaged in the execution of his duty or a person acting in aid of such an officer;
        (b) assaults a person with intent to resist or prevent the lawful arrest or detention of himself or another person; or
        (c) assaults a person
            (i) who is engaged in the lawful execution of a process against lands or goods or in making a lawful distress or seizure, or
            (ii) With intent to rescue anything taken under lawful process, distress or seizure.

(2) Everyone who commits an offence under subsection (1) is guilty of

        (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or
        (b) An offence punishable on summary conviction.