起訴加拿大皇家騎警3

 我與共產國際黑幫的官司149

共產國際黑幫控制範圍極广，幾乎覆蓋整個社會及政府部門。我起訴加拿大皇家騎警對我違法逮捕，違法將我送精神病院等侵犯人權案。被聯邦法官亂判。雖我已經上訴，但對司法黑暗十分失望。現將我的上訴案附上，供參考。

我與共產國際黑幫的官司150

現在我的被扣工資案被拖延快三年，現在還被扣押在法院，有判決不肯執行。玩弄程序漏洞來否決失業保險金。他們對政府的操控已經達到為所欲為的地步。

Federal Court of Appeal

A-301-23

BETWEEN:

Xin Wang 

                                                   Applicant (Appellant)

and

His Majesty The King 

                                                         Respondent 

—------------------

Applicant Written Representation 

‐—-----------------

Appellant: Xin Wang

307 1st Ave W, Climax, SK S0N0N0 

3065102499, benkingfirst@gmail.com 

Respondent :Willemien Kruger

Counsel

Prairie Regional Office (Saskatoon)

410 - 22nd Street East, Suite 410, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7K 5T6

National Litigation Sector

Department of Justice Canada / Government of Canada

willemien.kruger@justice.gc.ca / Telephone 639-525-0595 / Fax 306-975-4030

In light of no agreement on the contents of the Appeal Book A-301-23, indicated in the letter (Exhibit 5) sent by the Respondent to the Appellant.

The Appellant is seeking the order to include exhibits 1-4 into the Appeal Book on the following grounds:

1,Denied chance of presenting evidences

Since the Order struck down the Claims at the beginning of the preceding, skipping the examination for discovery stage, the appellant hasn't got the chance to exercise due diligence to present the evidences of exhibits 1-3. As the Appeal argues that:

 "D, Denial of facts and reality

    14,The preceding is still in the early stage, not in the examination for discovery, asking for details

and evidence is premature. Details not present now doesn't mean that they don't exist and cannot be discovered later on."(paragraph 14 of The Appeal)

2,Deviation from procedure rule

At the Motion to strike phase when all the facts are supposed to be taken as true to find out if the Claims presents any cause of action or whether it is scandalous about RCMP as the defendant claims. The Appellant did not expect the Order will go off track, to skip examination for discovery and trial, making premature judgments on presumed facts and/or no fact as the Appeal points out that:

""C,Presumed facts and premature judgements

    8,The Order states "[13] Finally, the Statement of Claim makes a number of allegations in relation

to the detainment of the Plaintiff in Alberta on or about June 20, 2021. Mental Health legislation, such as The Alberta Mental health Act, RSA 2000, c M-13 dictates that when a peace officer has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that a person suffering from a mental disorder may cause harm to themselves or others, or should be examined in the interests of their own safety or the safety of others, the peace officer may apprehend the person and convey them to a facility or secure location for assessment and examination. The Statement of Claim does not plead any material facts to support an allegation of unreasonable tortious conduct by the RCMP members, nor a breach of applicable legislation.(paragraph 13 of The Order).

    9,The Order merely reiterates the legislation but does not offer any clue about what reasonable grounds are in this particular case. Not a single fact mentioned and not a single question answered. Simply Assuming police have reasonable grounds to act are presumed. 

    10,The Order claims there are no material facts to support allegations of misconduct. From the facts presented in the Claim, I find the police misconducts as:

     a, The Officer acted on false ground that I drove wearing a helmet and swerved dangerously on the Highway, which could be an intentional lie and breach of trust.

     b,on unreasonable ground to associate any harm with wearing a helmet.

     c, didn't perform any duties of a reasonable officer is supposed to do,to investigate and lay charges if offenses are committed. If the police account of events were true,the plaintiff should be charged with careless or dangerous driving. But the plaintiff wasn't charged for any offense. The bizarre driving allegation could also be the result of alcohol and/or drug use. The officer made no

effort to investigate.

     d, the police actions contradicts itself which is a strong indication of lying about what happened. If there was a danger in the driving, there should be a charge for that offense, if there is no danger, what is the ground to handcuff the plaintiff and send him to the hospital for examination?

     e, didn't disclose to the plaintiff what he had been accused of, violating the right to know.

     f, didn't advise any legal counseling.""(paragraph 8-10 of the Appeal)

3,Best interest of justice 

The Order denies that “under constant 24/7 ultrasound radiation attacks, there are sonic cannons installed around my house, the attackers chase me everywhere I go or stay, using all kinds of vehicles, choppers and airplanes, launching ultrasound bullets towards me.” The Order labels it as "These are bizarre allegations that are not founded on any material facts, let alone reality." (paragraph4 of the Order).

Since the Order has taken such an extreme view to deny any fact presented by the plaintiff as true or as material fact without going through any examination or trial, it is in the best interest of justice to bring in Exhibits 1-4 as evidences to justify the appeal, especially Exhibit 1 as scientific evidence to prove that the appellant is under the constant attack of abnormal ultrasound radiation. Therefore it is justified for the appellant to take protection measures, not because the appellant is delusional and obsessed with conspiracy as the Order suggests and discredit the plaintiff as such. As the Appeal argues that "30,All those actions with no probable cause including two unlawful searches, one unlawful arrest,one unlawful detention and seizure of property, two alcohol sobriety tests get reduced to my delusional conspiracy with one example of my explanation for motives?"(paragraph 30 of the Appeal). It appears that some of the marginal deficiencies have been used to defame the plaintiff as a delusional conspiracist to strike the Claims rather than any fatal flaw found with the Claims to disqualify it.

4,Substantial impact on the result 

The Order states that "There are no material facts pleaded that would support a claim for such substantial damages." (Paragraph 9 of the Order). Exhibit 4 was established in October 2023, much later than the Respondent brought the Motion to strike, and the Appellant has been trying to get the full medical records released but unsuccessful, this evidence proves the fact that the appellant has been detained unlawfully and suffered substantial damages.

November 16,2023

Appellant: Xin Wang

307 1st Ave W, Climax, SK S0N0N0 

3065102499, benkingfirst@gmail.com