Upcoming Constitutional Challenge to the Street Racing Legislation

[gullyfourmyle]

The following is the first page of my letter to Premier McGuinty to formally challenge the legality and constitutionality of the 2007 amendment to Section 172 of the Highway Traffic Act. I do not expect him to respond to the Challenge so within the next two weeks I'll be filling out the forms and making it official. I plan to represent myself and the people on this. If there are any other challenges, this will give me intervenor status and thus able to make a contribution.

My book, Abuse of Power is now being used in the courts to fight Street Racing and Stunt Driving charges. I haven't heard any outcomes yet but I haven't heard any complaints either. A number of paralegals and others are helping me with the research and the process of making the challenge.

If you want to follow along, PM me and get a copy of the book that including the updates.

November 05, 2008

Premier McGuinty,

Legislative Building,

Queens Park,

Toronto, Ontario,

M7A 1A1

CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE TO SECTION 172 OF THE ONTARIO HIGHWAY TRAFFIC ACT

Dear Premier Dalton McGuinty,

On behalf of all Ontarians, I am respectfully demanding that you instruct the Lieutenant Governor in Council to file a constitutional challenge to the 2007 amendment to Section 172 of the Ontario Highway Traffic Act (HTA) with the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) and notify me on November 24 2008 that this action has been taken. That’s two weeks after your return from China. If I don’t receive notification you have done so by that date, I will file the Challenge.

The following are my reasons for demanding this legislation to be struck down or made to conform to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

My extensive study and research into the matter indicates to me that the amendment to Section 172 denies most of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and indeed the overall intent of the Charter itself.

The following is a point by point summary of my objections to the 2007 amendment to Section 172 of the Ontario Highway Traffic Act:

6. (1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.

(2) Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the right

(a) to move to and take up residence in any province; and

( to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province.

See the explanation of Section 6 combined with Section 9.

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

Section 172 entrenches in law that police officers have the right to detain and penalize without cause any person and find them guilty on the spot by seizing their car, truck or other vehicle and assessing financial penalties at the roadside on suspicion. Charges do not have to be laid or can later be withdrawn but the penalties are in force and are not recoverable. This allows police to discriminate against anyone but it makes visible minorities especially vulnerable. A crime or other misdemeanor does not have to have been committed for this harsh action to be taken.

[Kitch]

Section 172 entrenches in law that police officers have the right to detain and penalize without cause any person and find them guilty on the spot by seizing their car, truck or other vehicle and assessing financial penalties at the roadside on suspicion. Charges do not have to be laid or can later be withdrawn but the penalties are in force and are not recoverable. This allows police to discriminate against anyone but it makes visible minorities especially vulnerable. A crime or other misdemeanor does not have to have been committed for this harsh action to be taken.

I don't know what you mean about "without cause". If somebody is driving at 50k/h over the limit, that's cause, is it not?

How, exactly, does it allow for police to discriminate against minorities?

Now, don't get me wrong, I don't know much about this particular legislation, and I'm DEFINITELY not a fan of most police officers, but I just don't undestand what your beef is.

(It's sad that I feel that I must explain my reasons for asking questions rather than my questions being taken as just that... questions. Not that it's YOUR fault in particular... just the way our society works it seems).

[gullyfourmyle]

I don't know what you mean about "without cause". If somebody is driving at 50k/h over the limit, that's cause, is it not?

How, exactly, does it allow for police to discriminate against minorities?

Now, don't get me wrong, I don't know much about this particular legislation, and I'm DEFINITELY not a fan of most police officers, but I just don't undestand what your beef is.

(It's sad that I feel that I must explain my reasons for asking questions rather than my questions being taken as just that... questions. Not that it's YOUR fault in particular... just the way our society works it seems).

The gateway to discrimination is in how the law is administered - without checks and balances. A cop can take your car and your license. It costs you a lot of money. Then the charges can be withdrawn. The victim has no legal recourse. It's happening. Even police have been helping me with the research.

To be charged under this law, you don't have to be doing anything wrong at all. The cop just has to think you look like you are going to break the law. But really he doesn't have to think anything of the sort. Reality says he can do whatever he pleases. If he or she doesn't like you, your colour, your attitude or your car, chances are you can kiss your car and your license good bye. You then become a "notch", a scalp or some other type of tally in the police game to see who nails the most street racers. Except hardly anyone caught is a street racer. When they finally catch someone who really is street racing it's so unusual it makes the news. They denied everyone's rights for those rare moments all over Ontario. But most of the dangerous street racing occurs in the GTA. How do you suppose people in Chapleau feel about that?

My beef is that the government broke the law in several important ways to enact the law. Look it up on another thread. There were plenty of people on various sites who initially didn't understand that the street racing law destabilizes Ontario legislation in total and trashes the entire Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I can't republish the entire book here or the updates, but there certainly is enough material on this site for you to learn that your rights have been savaged. But the complete story is in the book and in the updates.

It's pretty major stuff. That's why the paralegals are using it.

The Constitutional Challenge is six pages long. I can't publish the whole thing because it wouldn't be fair to those who have bought the book. I'm just making this site aware of what's going on as a courtesy since I don't believe anyone from this site has purchased the book. But readers here are interested in the legislation. It isn't often you have a government committing fraud - a criminal code infraction - to enact legislation and are then able to catch them at it. This fraud involves those in the legislature who brought the legislation forward and sold it to the rest of the legislature with literally nothing to substantiate the law. MTO and Fantino's information was only fragmentary. If it weren't, the law could not have passed.

[charter.rights]

Although this isn't pertaining to the racing law an example of the abuse of due process was relayed to me today.

A Mohawk who lives on the Tyendinaga First Nation Territory in southern Ontario was pulled over last Thursday just off the reserve by an OPP. He was handed over to the RCMP because he had 2 bags (200) of unmarked cigarettes sitting on the front seat. He was held without the benefit of bail court through the weekend until Monday afternoon when the judge finally allowed the case to be presented. He was asked to sign the conditions (released on his own recognizance). As he was leaving the police custody the officer handed him back the two bags of smokes and told him that he probably wouldn't need to be back in court.....implying that the charges would be dropped.... They obviously had no concerns about the law be broken (which in fact there were no laws broken) and their whole purpose was to arrest, detain and harass an native. There is little that this guy can do either since to sue or raise an issue with the police services board would cost him a lot more money.

In this day and age the police should not be allowed to use discretion in charging and penalizing people. They cannot be trusted to be a judge and jury on any point. That is what we have courts for. Justice cannot be served by the police.

[noahbody]

Although this isn't pertaining to the racing law an example of the abuse of due process was relayed to me today.

A Mohawk who lives on the Tyendinaga First Nation Territory in southern Ontario was pulled over last Thursday just off the reserve by an OPP. He was handed over to the RCMP because he had 2 bags (200) of unmarked cigarettes sitting on the front seat. He was held without the benefit of bail court through the weekend until Monday afternoon when the judge finally allowed the case to be presented. He was asked to sign the conditions (released on his own recognizance). As he was leaving the police custody the officer handed him back the two bags of smokes and told him that he probably wouldn't need to be back in court.....implying that the charges would be dropped.... They obviously had no concerns about the law be broken (which in fact there were no laws broken) and their whole purpose was to arrest, detain and harass an native. There is little that this guy can do either since to sue or raise an issue with the police services board would cost him a lot more money.

In this day and age the police should not be allowed to use discretion in charging and penalizing people. They cannot be trusted to be a judge and jury on any point. That is what we have courts for. Justice cannot be served by the police.

Were you witness to this or is it just hearsay?

[kengs333]

A Mohawk who lives on the Tyendinaga First Nation Territory in southern Ontario was pulled over last Thursday just off the reserve by an OPP. He was handed over to the RCMP because he had 2 bags (200) of unmarked cigarettes sitting on the front seat.

You wouldn't happen to know who's been stealing all that tobacco in Brant county the last couple of months, would you?

In this day and age the police should not be allowed to use discretion in charging and penalizing people. They cannot be trusted to be a judge and jury on any point. That is what we have courts for. Justice cannot be served by the police.

WHAT?!?!?!?!?!?!

Edited November 11, 2008 by kengs333

[Bryan]

In this day and age the police should not be allowed to use discretion in charging and penalizing people.

Yesterday I was pulled over for speeding. The route I was taking has a speed limit of 80 km/h for the majority of it, and I was actually going around 70. Apparently, unbeknownst to me, there is a short section in this route where the speed limit goes down to 50 for a few blocks before going back up to 80 a few blocks later. By the time I noticed the "limit 50" sign, the police car was already behind me with their lights on. By the book, I was doing 72 in a 50, and faced a $280 fine. However, because the Police do have the power of discretion, I was given a warning. I'm a big fan of police discretion.

[charter.rights]

Were you witness to this or is it just hearsay?

It was told to me by the guy it happened to.

Edited November 11, 2008 by charter.rights

[charter.rights]

Yesterday I was pulled over for speeding. The route I was taking has a speed limit of 80 km/h for the majority of it, and I was actually going around 70. Apparently, unbeknownst to me, there is a short section in this route where the speed limit goes down to 50 for a few blocks before going back up to 80 a few blocks later. By the time I noticed the "limit 50" sign, the police car was already behind me with their lights on. By the book, I was doing 72 in a 50, and faced a $280 fine. However, because the Police do have the power of discretion, I was given a warning. I'm a big fan of police discretion.

Fines are unconstitutional unless they have been issued by the Court. When a police officer issues you a ticket and you pay it you are pleading guilty without the benefit of going to court.

[charter.rights]

You wouldn't happen to know who's been stealing all that tobacco in Brant county the last couple of months, would you?

WHAT?!?!?!?!?!?!

Still having a problem with comprehension I see...that's "and" not "or".

[madmax]

Although this isn't pertaining to the racing law an example of the abuse of due process was relayed to me today.

Then put it in a thread where it belongs. This thread is with regards to street racing legislation. Your post on smokes is an unnecessary diversion to get people off topic.

A majority of people in Ontario have no idea how this law effects them. Lets talk about this law in this thread.

[charter.rights]

Then put it in a thread where it belongs. This thread is with regards to street racing legislation. Your post on smokes is an unnecessary diversion to get people off topic.

A majority of people in Ontario have no idea how this law effects them. Lets talk about this law in this thread.

Perhaps you just missed the point that others seem to have gotten.

[madmax]

Perhaps you just missed the point that others seem to have gotten.

I understand that you are using analogies unrelated to the Street Racing Legislation. You can use thousands of analogies, from being picked up off the street for looking like hobo. None of these analogies will have any bearing whatsoever on the validity of the street racing legislation.

Show some direct circumstances that demonstrates that the Street Racing Legislation is unconstitutional.

I do get it. If that is the argument you are bringing to the Judge, you won't get to the chamber.

[Smallc]

Yesterday I was pulled over for speeding. The route I was taking has a speed limit of 80 km/h for the majority of it, and I was actually going around 70. Apparently, unbeknownst to me, there is a short section in this route where the speed limit goes down to 50 for a few blocks before going back up to 80 a few blocks later. By the time I noticed the "limit 50" sign, the police car was already behind me with their lights on. By the book, I was doing 72 in a 50, and faced a $280 fine. However, because the Police do have the power of discretion, I was given a warning. I'm a big fan of police discretion.

What street was that on?

[kengs333]

It was told to me by the guy it happened to.

That's hearsay.

[kengs333]

Fines are unconstitutional unless they have been issued by the Court. When a police officer issues you a ticket and you pay it you are pleading guilty without the benefit of going to court.

You've got to be kidding? Well, seeing that you have no ability to respect the law, it should not come as a surprise I guess that you have no understanding of how it works...

[kengs333]

Still having a problem with comprehension I see...that's "and" not "or".

?

[kengs333]

Perhaps you just missed the point that others seem to have gotten.

Yes, that you're a complete waste of time...

[eyeball]

Were you witness to this or is it just hearsay?

This is why police need to be wired with cameras that record everything they say and do. People should carry their own wearable cameras as well so they can better defend themselves.

[Bryan]

What street was that on?

Route 90.

I was coming from the south end along Bishop Grandin. It slows down to 50 in that stretch of Kenaston where all those vacant Army barracks houses are, then goes back to 70 and up by the time you cross Academy.

[Smallc]

Route 90.

I was coming from the south end along Bishop Grandin. It slows down to 50 in that stretch of Kenaston where all those vacant Army barracks houses are, then goes back to 70 and up by the time you cross Academy.

Ok, thats what I thought. It goes from 80 to 60 to 50 to 70 and then back to 80. They wanted to change that, but now with the court battle over the land, I don't know if they ever will.

Edited November 11, 2008 by Smallc

[Griz]

You wouldn't happen to know who's been stealing all that tobacco in Brant county the last couple of months, would you?

WHAT?!?!?!?!?!?!

Oh quit your whining! You're worse than a little kid who didn't get his way in a Candy Store. Grow up--act like the man you make yourself out to be--just like all you other big baby manly type whining right wingers

[charter.rights]

Oh quit your whining! You're worse than a little kid who didn't get his way in a Candy Store. Grow up--act like the man you make yourself out to be--just like all you other big baby manly type whining right wingers

No, you have it wrong...Kengs333 isn't a whining right winger....he's just....~SpeciaL~. The bus driver tells him so every day....

Edited November 11, 2008 by charter.rights

[Keepitsimple]

I don't understand what this thread is all about. If you are going 50 KM over the limit, you're always going to get stopped and you'll rightly get a hefty fine. If the police officer determines - somewhat arbitrarily I agree - that you were involved in street racing - that's where the severe penalties come into play. This is a law that reflects the public's outrage where street racers senselessly put people at deadly risk with their selfish pursuit of an adrenaline rush. The law has been enacted for the greater public good....police officer's enforce it for the same reason. Even Libertarians would likely support this law.....they believe that anybody can do anything as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. Street racing does have the capability of harming others - it can KILL.

Edited November 15, 2008 by Keepitsimple

[charter.rights]

I don't understand what this thread is all about. If you are going 50 KM over the limit, you're always going to get stopped and you'll rightly get a hefty fine. If the police officer determines - somewhat arbitrarily I agree - that you were involved in street racing - that's where the severe penalties come into play. This is a law that reflects the public's outrage where street racers senselessly put people at deadly risk with their selfish pursuit of an adrenaline rush. The law has been enacted for the greater public good....police officer's enforce it for the same reason. Even Libertarians would likely support this law.....they believe that anybody can do anything as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. Street racing does have the capability of harming others - it can KILL.

A speeding ticket is a summons (to court) where the court has previously determined a set fine as an option to appearing in court. When you sign the ticket and take the fine option, you are pleading guilty and short-cutting the court process by your own choice.

The determination that over 50 = racing is an arbitrary decision by a police officer who then seizes you vehicle, impounds it and then issues a summons to appear without offering you any choices. The unreasonable seizure of your vehicle infringes on your charter right to be offered due process under the law and penalizes regardless if you are guilty, regardless if you admit guilt and regardless if you are convicted. The police have a very specific role in exercising justice however, determining guilt and issuing penalties at their discretion is not one of those roles. Only the court can determine guilt and issue punishment. And it is in everyone's constitutional rights to be protected from arbitrary punishment and seizure by the police.

And no, not always if you are going 50 over the limit will you be subject to a hefty fine. That will happen only if you are convicted and there are lots of reasons why people don't get convicted of many criminal offenses. That is why the court is there to make that determination.