上訴高院
不指望什麼， 原歷史作證。
1, The previous lower courts made so many grave mistakes that the case may be taken as case law to set a very wrong precedent for future similar cases. The case will affect areas of public concern about police accountability doctrines / mental health apprehensions, self-represented litigants and access to justice, procedural fairness about the limits of Rule 221 in Charter cases involving vulnerable claimants.
2, It exposes the systematic failure of the current oversight mechanism. Even though I filed 3 complaints to the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission (CRCC) about 3 serious violations by RCMP members, none of them have resolved anything. I haven’t reached any agreement with CRCC , or in some cases never received any report. It proves CRCC is not effective in dealing with RCMP misconduct. Otherwise RCMP misconduct has stopped , instead the unlawful actions get worse. I have been wrongfully searched twice, arrested and detained unlawfully, I can get seriously harmed by wrongfully imprisoned or shot by RCMP if the misconduct is not stopped immediately.
3,This is a case of nation-wide-scale organized crime and misconduct involving police. It is an ongoing situation with implications on foreign interference and public security. Not just because individual Charter Rights were violated, the situation also undermines the foundation of our democracy as a whole. The threat posted by the perpetrators undermines the safety of society as a whole, the same situation could happen to other dissidents and political opponents.
4,The lower courts show grave disregard for Federal Court Rules and procedures, making arbitrary judgements without any factual basis and using minor or unproven deficiencies to inflict fatal blows to cover up and end the case. This is disproportionate between causes and consequences.
5,The Federal Court of Appeal A-301-23 provides no reasoning or factual basis and without citing any relevant legislation to justify its decision, it is an arbitrary decision.
6, The Federal Court Order T-918-24 ( the Order) made several basic mistakes:
7, Violation of Federal Court Rules 221.
It declares that Federal Court Rule 221 does not apply in this case. As a proposition to not hear any evidence during Motion to Strike, all facts are supposed to be taken as true. But the Order basically denies all facts of unlawful actions as true, even goes so far as to claim there is no material fact.
8, It made judgments about technical issues without expertise in the field of ultrasound radiation.
9, It made judgements on motivation that were frivolous, vexatious and scandalous without evidence. This case of me being suppressed and killed is an ongoing scenario with attacks getting more and more intensified on a daily basis till today.The ongoing nature of this case involving police activities proves the motivation is self protection.
10, It claims that this case is beyond salvation. But it can be done by reducing to such a simple case that happened in June 20,2021, well within two years limit with unlawful arrest, detention and impounded vehicle, a false mental illness case to detain me. It denied leave to amend when the improvement is obvious and achievable.
11, It keeps labeling the case as lacking cause of action, making no comments as to why the Charter Rights or defamation or discriminating treatment are not the Causes of Action in this case.
12, It declares no material facts while simultaneously making judgements based upon no material facts, the kind of judgements that require examination and trial of facts in a courtroom.
13, It cited many case law authorities but made no link to this case as to how those cases bear any relevance and resemblance to this case. Only borrowing the conclusions from various case authorities but ignoring the huge factual base differences between those cases, this kind of citing authorities become selectively detached to the particular facts of this case and can be universal arguments to any cases in any scenario. It makes no sense to dispose of this case. The Appellant can do the same by borrowing opposite conclusions from different case laws and the litigation ends up as a fight of case laws.
APPLICANT ‘S MEMORANDUM OF ARGUMENT
PART I—STATEMENT OF FACTS
14, Since 2018 till today, I have been a victim of Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) misconduct, harassment and neglect. This is a case of ongoing nature, the unlawful actions have never stopped even after I filed the case in 2023.
15, RCMP discriminating practice manifests in its actions against me, it also shows in its inactions towards me. I am 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.
16,The discriminating treatment between the attackers and me is manifested in the fact that no investigation into the criminal activities towards me while acting out of ordinary by using law enforcement measures to force wellbeing checks on me with false calls from the attackers.
17, I documented some of those attacks with YouTube videos but no one is interested in looking at them. The attacks are still ongoing and a group of people are stalking me 24/7. There are multiple ultrasound shooting devices surrounding my house now.
18,The RCMP used unfounded calls and complaints, lied about what I did and gross violation of procedures of not informing me of any accusations, searched and arrested and detained without probable cause.
19, Those untrue complaint calls started all the police checks, discriminating policing definitely leads to all the abuse of police power. The RCMP has been used to harass and persecute me, intentionally and/or unintentionally.
20,If RCMP ‘s inaction continues, it will encourage more and worse attacks.
21,I tried to resolve the issues by going to the Human Rights Court of Canada. The case didn’t go through.
22,After years of evading attacks including police misconduct, for me it is about life and death, not about feelings. I could be wrongfully imprisoned or shot by police if the misconduct is not stopped. If RCMP continue its inaction toward murdering attacks on me, I can get seriously injured or killed.
23,The Appellant has suffered substantial damages from RCMP misconducts, which includes police actions with no probable causes of two unlawful searches, one unlawful arrest,one unlawful detention and seizure of property, two alcohol sobriety tests. Countless encounters of questionable police behaviors like in May and June 2024, two RCMP officers came to my house twice in a month, put a police vehicle siren on in my yard and woke me up at midnight claiming someone cared about me. On one hand the Respondent claims that the RCMP does not own a duty of care to me to investigate crimes committed against me, on the other hand the police came to my home with excuses of care about me.
24,All those unlawful actions by RCMP get reduced to my delusional conspiracy by the Order (the Order) of Judge Lafrenière dated October 12,2023 with only one example of my explanation for motives.
25,The Respondent tries to frame me as being scandalous, frivolous and vexatious by cherry picking words out of context to be over exaggerated. The Order doesn't even mention any fact or evidence, not even a word about the Claims of T-918-23, simply Assuming allegations based on nothing
26,Fact 1
Now I have to wear home made protection gear and sleep in an ultrasound shielding box.l can’t find a job that lasts more than one and half months due to all those attacks. I really don’t know how long I can stay alive like this.
27,Fact 2
Right now I can’t live a normal life. I have to stay protected from attacks including ultrasound bullets, house invasions, car vandalism, slanders complaint attacks, etc. The attackers are basically murdering me now. The attacks started as early as 1996, the attackers got more and more aggressive. I started to report to RCMP about the attacks in late 2018.
28,Fact 3
I reported the attacks to RCMP, each time they responded by asking if I was on medication. They didn’t bother to look at the evidence I have or heard my case seriously. No investigation to see if the attacks are true. Instead the RCMP accused me of being crazy.
29,Fact 4
On Feb.22,2021 in Jumping Pound provincial park by Hwy 68 ,Bragg Creek, Alberta.
My vehicle was searched by two RCMP officers badge #61404 and 57174.No search warrant given. Only said they got a call. After I showed my driver license, registration of the vehicle and insurance. I told them everything was fine.I parked in the designated parking area of provincial park for 3 hours before the officers showed up.They said they didn’t trust my answer that everything was fine and ordered me to get out of my vehicle. I said without any warrant I didn’t consent to any search. The officers were very aggressive and threatened to do it the hard way if I didn’t get out of my van and charged me with obstruction of justice. In order to avoid confrontation. I got out and shut the door. The officers opened the door and did the search. The officers opened all the doors from and back and side ,got inside and searched my vehicle. I was also given an office phone 4038518000.
30,Fact 5
On March 16,2021,17:00pm
I was arrested and searched by three RCMP members by highway 16 close to junction hwy 5 and 16 near the town of Valmont, British Columbia. I am a trucker parking in a rest area on hwy 16. I was sleeping when the officers banged my door claiming they heard something on CB radio and wanted to give me an alcohol test. I agreed to do the test , they demanded that I get out of the truck and go to the police vehicle to do the test. I said it was cold and not safe to stand by the road. I could do it here in my truck. Then they charged me with obstruction of justice, put me under arrest and forced the door open , threw my stuff onto the ground , broke my mirror and other boards and dragged me out. Then searched me and emptied my pocket. After the test result showed 0 alcohol they released me. The officers refused to provide badge #s, I took pictures of them and my damaged stuff. I filed a complaint and there was an investigation but no final report , I received $200 dollars compensation from the RCMP for property damage.
31,Fact 6
On April 2 ,2021 15:00 pm on county regional road close to town Olds, Alberta.
I parked my truck off road on the ramp, and one RCMP officer conducted a document check claiming someone cares about me.
32,Fact 7
On April 4,2021 about 21:00 pm on a regional road close to the town of Crossfield ,Alberta. I parked off road by a small unnamed lake to watch birds. By 13:30pm one RCMP officer conducted questioning and checking documents, the officer claimed they got a call. By 21:00 pm the same day and location another officer conducted visual checking using a torch to look into my truck while I was sleeping and I was woken up by the activity.
33,Fact 8
On 20/04/2021 about 9am I was driving a semi truck along highway 1 A near Lacombe, AB. I was stopped by a RCMP officer#52769. I was given a ticket for driving 75km/h on a 100 km/h highway. I was also given an alcohol test for the same reason. I explained to the officer that the road was bumpy and my load was fragile. I had to drive to conditions. There was very light traffic at the time. There's probable cause to indicate alcohol use.
34,Fact 9
On June 20 2021 about 2 pm I was stopped by conservation officers on highway 40 near the Elbow River Pass. The officer asked me why I swerved . I said there were animals on the highway drinking water in the highway potholes, and many cars parking on the shoulder with people around and also some potholes. I slightly cross the yellow line to avoid road hazards. There was no oncoming traffic and it was safe to do so. It only happened three times lasting about 3 to 5 seconds. Then the officer ordered me to get out of my vehicle. So I put on my home made helmet and foam board as Covid measures and against ultrasound radiation around me.
I waited outside for about 45 minutes and was not allowed to go back to my vehicle to even get some drinking water, not allowed to put my shoes on. Then RCMP officers came , and I explained to him the helmet was for Covid and ultrasound protection. I was not wearing it while driving. Then he handcuffed me and sent me to Rockyview General hospital of Alberta , Mental Health Emergency department. I have been detained until 14/07/2021. I had treatment forced on me despite my objection. I was not provided any paperwork or any explanation to inform me what I have been charged or accused of. My vehicle was impounded, towed and it cost me more than $2000 to get back.
35, From the doctor report I was described as driving recklessly wearing a helmet all along the highway 40, which is not true.
The same Cochrane RCMP detachment conducted an improper search on my vehicle as described in Fact 4 . I filed complaints to the civilian review board for both incidents, file Number not given. The investigating officer is Cpl. Mathew Quallie for Fact 4 incident, but no response or investigation for Fact 9 incident.
36,The applicant was detained in the mental health department of the Rockyview Hospital,AB from June 20,2021 till July 14,2021. The situation was similar to prison confinement except for that the applicant was not criminally charged for any offense.
37,The applicant was wrongfully detained due to the police officer misconduct and gross admission procedure violations by the hospital. The applicant has no mental issues that require involuntary confinement and treatment. Therefore the applicant was not responsible in any way for the confinement. The Appellant's Charter Rights have been violated.
38,The police officer's misconduct is manifested in the fact that he didn't perform the duty of a police officer by charging me for what he believed I did, instead he assumed the role of a psychiatrist and judge, sending me to hospital for assessment. Even assuming the bizarre driving allegations were true, it could have been the result of drug and/or alcohol consumption, the police officer made no effort to investigate and rule out those or any other possibilities. In fact, the office didn't perform any duties a police officers are supposed to do, to investigate and lay charges if offenses are committed.
39, There is no reasonable connection between what has been observed and any harm presented or perceived. What makes them believe it was a mental issue?
40, Not informing me of any legal rights and what I had been accused of. How could I defend myself without even knowing what I had been accused of?
41, I received no legal counseling despite my numerous requests.
42, The wrongful confinement is also obvious that there is no diagnosis or treatment suggested before issuing certificates for detention and permission to treat without my consent, no such information before the Mental Health Review Panel hearing. Only during the hearing,Dr. Sargent suggested I was suffering from delusional disorder, which is not a known mental health disease. Dr. Sargent also told me he didn't think I was harmful to society during our clinical session conversation before the hearing.
43,I didn't receive any treatment except for one pill of lowest dosage per day. I only started taking the pill 7 days later, during that first week of confinement, I was doing fine without any treatment.
44,despite there being no diagnosis and any symptom that called for any treatment, the hospital still issued a certificate requesting treatment without my consent.
45, The hospital admitted during the hearing before the Mental Health Review Panel, AB, that it didn't find anything abnormal about me, only delusional about China Communist Party, but still insisted on detaining me and permission to treatment without my consent.
46, I didn't take the pill, I spitted out. That proved that the treatment is absolutely not necessary.
Abnormalities and conflict of interest
47,I am a political dissident from China while Dr Fung, a Chinese origin, who issued two certificates for detention and treatment without my consent, never had a clinical session with me and our conversation lasted less than 10 sentences, he also claimed seeing me yelling at police officers despite the hospital testimonials admitted there's no abnormal behavior of mine. He also claimed that I had erratic community behavior in his long report about me, since we never discussed anything but a few words of greeting exchange, how did he know about my community situations?
48, Cherry Picking what I said to use as evidence. I said I crossed the yellow line a few inches to avoid animals and potholes, there was no oncoming traffic and it was safe to do so. The doctor only quoted me as saying "I crossed the yellow line". That is it. One line report of five words by another doctor was good enough to detain me and request for permission to treatment without my consent.
49, Abnormal treatment at the hospital
I was denied access to dental care and cardiac examination despite heavy teeth bleeding and hypertension. I was also denied Aspirin pills to treat headaches as I specifically asked Dr. Sargent because that is the medicine I use regularly on a daily basis. It appears they don't care about my health. They just want to hold me there unprotected from ultrasound radiation and/or some other undisclosed reasons. I bought my own food as long as it was feasible and only drank tap water to prevent poisoning.
50, After I complained about hypertension to the nurse staff repeatedly, they stopped taking my vital signs during the morning routine check after one miracle morning check that showed normal readings about my blood pressure. It appears they faked the results to stop me from talking about my hypertension.
51, I tried to adduce ultrasound radiation log recorded during my detention at the Hospital as evidence to prove that I suffered health damages of bleeding teeth, hypertension and severe headaches. All the symptoms were ignored by the Hospital.
52, In 2024 from the recently released medical records of mine, I finally got to read the police report that started my detention at the Hospital. The report made no comments about what I was wearing before I was chased and stopped by the conservation officers accusing me of speeding and swerving. The Hospital simply made the things up that I was wearing a huge helmet while driving as the reason to detain me.
53, The above police report identifies no danger either. The reason given is that “ can't take care of himself “ and no facts about what leads the police to this conclusion. I wasn't charged for speeding and the report made no comment about how the swerving was done. Slightly swerving is normal and no reason for police actions.
54, The newly released medical records are only a partial report. Some important information is still missing like the admission physical report, Hearing records. etc.
55, Abnormalities with the hearing before the Mental Health Review Panel,AB. I didn't have access to resources to research my case and the hearing was scheduled at short notice of 4 days with my medical records partially released to me just two days before the hearing date. I didn't have any access to submit my written representation to the Panel before and after the hearing.
56, I had only 15-20 minutes to present my case. Given so many issues from police misconduct to admission procedure violations, I could barely cover one topic in whole.
57, Despite my numerous requests for the hearing records to appeal the Panel decision at the Queen's Bench of Alberta, the hospital never released the document to me.
58,The Panel didn't give any reason or explanation for the decision.
59,During my stay in the mental unit, one radio player of a medium mailbox size, placed outside the room but close to the door with wall power socket, facing my hospital bed, same device seen also seen before behind my back at the poker table at the casino in New Brunswick, these kind of devices can be easily put into a backpack following me wherever I go.
60, One day I was asked by the nurse to sit at a specific spot against the nurse office wall outside, that was unusual, typically the nurses would come to the patients with their machines, I declined the request and went to a spot of my own choice, later I went around the office and noticed a fully stuffed mountain backpack put right on the opposite side of the wall where I was told to sit. Similar scenarios happened before when I worked as a trucker, these types of backpacks were placed facing the position where I would stand handling paper works with the shipping staff, or simply carried by individuals chasing me on foot wherever I went,including in the bathrooms.
61,Fact 10
I had two RCMP officers coming to my house in Coles Island, New Brunswick, walking all over my property without a warrant on Sep 30 2021, claiming my neighbor called the police about some burning smell. They also demanded to look into my van despite my car having nothing to do with any smell. I refused,then they left.
62,Fact 11
June 2022, in Climax ,SK I was out around my town in a country field dirt road parking by the side of the road. Two RCMP cruisers with multiple officers came claiming someone called about a parking issue. It was a wheat farmland dirt road with no traffic, even though they found nothing wrong with my parking,they still asked me to move my vehicle for no reason.
63,Fact 12
Oct. 2022, Climax, SK Two RCMP officers came to my house claiming someone cared about me. I am not sure what they were looking for. But that is typical of the officers approaching me claiming they got calls or someone cares about me. In my opinion, they are the people who stalk me and attack me made those calls to use police to harass and intimidate me, also try to force me to leave the spot where I park because the attackers couldn’t get good shot at me, or force me or lure me to get out of my vehicle where I have protection shields inside.
64, On April 4,2021 and June 5 2024, two similar wellbeing checks conducted with false calls of care about me. In one case the officers put the siren on to wake me up at about 11 pm to force me answer the door. After I filed complaints with the CRCC, the detachment commander acknowledges to me in a signed form that admits police neglect of duty. But when I insisted on formal investigation into those incidents, I received final report denying any wrong doing.
65,The police wellbeing check needs evidence to believe that life is in danger. But the police acting on false claims of care without any evidence multiple times is obviously a bogus excuse to look for opportunities to do harm and a neglect of duty to say the least, with possible collusion.
66, Fact 13
On October 19,2024, I reported to the commander of RCMP Shaunovon detachment by email but no investigation by the police about this event:
“Hello Sgt.James
I am writing to you to report a crime .
My neighbor, who claimed to care about me to call the police, had just cut down the tree fence separating my yard from theirs, damaging my property.
They used to trespass into my yard by cutting a hole in the fence. I reported the illegal trespassing to the police before. My roof has been cut open leaking water, my secondary fence near my house has been torn down before, they drove ATVs around my house during the night to get into my yard damaging my property for possible illegal purposes.
I blocked the hole they cut in the fence to stop their trespassing, now they cut the whole fence down so they can trespass my yard freely.
I called the police 15 minutes ago about this incident. I thought you may want to know about this as well.
They falsely claim to care about me, their true intent is to do harm to me.
The attackers cut my yard for easy access into my property, carrying surveillance on me with a better view and easy aiming and timing at me with their ultrasound radiation shooting devices. ”
PART II—-STATEMENT OF THE QUESTIONS IN ISSUE
67, Whether the Claims are scandalous, frivolous and vexatious about RCMP in general. Or the motivation of the Appellant is self-protection.
68, What is the fatal flaw that warrants without leave to amend? Especially when the amendment solution is obvious and achievable by focusing on one incident within statute limit and proveable facts of police misconduct and damages like financial loss and costs.
69, Is it justified for the Order to not follow Rules of Motion to Strike ,Federal Court 221(a)(c) by not taking any fact as true.
70, Are arbitrary judgements based on no fact and law acceptable?
PART III—STATEMENT OF ARGUMENT
71,In addition to the serious mistakes listed in the above grounds for appeal section. There are more factual and procedural mistakes as:
Selectiveness of the Order (T-918-23),
Striking down the entire Statement of Claim T-918-23 (the Claims)without addressing the entire Claims, especially the proposed amended Claims.
72, Selectiveness is a telltale sign of having conclusions in mind,then select the elements that suit the conclusions and leave out the elements that say otherwise. Therefore, the whole issue gets distorted into something else.
73,Selectiveness is characteristic of the Order. Selective in picking points and issues to address,in picking facts and evidence, then jump into conclusions about the entire case. The Claims by the plaintiff are about the unlawful actions of 6 specific RCMP members, they could be added as defendants as their information made available and the Rockyview General Hospital as well. The plaintiff has to choose how many defendants he can afford to pursue. The Order distorts the whole issue into being narrowly scandalous about RCMP in general. I will elaborate further about the selectiveness as we go on examining the Order.
74,The Order offers opinions and general principles without any chain of thoughts. How those principles are related to this particular case, leaves others to wonder how they get there.I will elaborate later on as well.
75, Factual errors Exaggerated and distorted facts
The Order states "Later on at page 7, the Plaintiff alleges that the RCMP is colluding with the government of China in an attempt to “suppress and kill” the Plaintiff." (paragraph 4 of the Order)
76, I mention in the Claims the following entities as Communist International Organization, China Communist Party and government, a group of secret Communist International members who infiltrate RCMP, 6 RCMP members who acted unlawfully, Rockyview General Hospital. The Order selectively cherry picks RCMP out, then declares the case is narrowly scandalous about RCMP.
77, My allegations are about a group of RCMP members, not RCMP as a whole. This group is colluding with the China Communist Party. This order fails to distinguish this group from RCMP as a whole. " They are a small group that infiltrates the RCMP, they are not the RCMP itself. Anything related to this group does not apply to the RCMP in general. Most of the officers I encountered acted within the authorities, only 3 events with 6 officers involved acted unlawfully."(Paragraph 11 of the Motion Record). This group does manage to control considerable resources of RCMP but operate outside the police authorities.
78, This distortion of the issue leads to the wrong conclusion that my Claims are scandalous, frivolous and vexatious about the RCMP.
79, Presumed facts and premature judgements
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).
80, The Order merely reiterates the legislation but does not offer any clue about what reasonable grounds to justify police actions 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.
81, The Order claims there are no material facts to support allegations of misconduct from the facts presented in the Claim, but 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 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.
82,The Order states that"[6] To make out a case under paragraph 221(1)(c), the moving party must show the pleading is so clearly futile that it has not the slightest chance of success. In Ceminchuk v Canada, [1995] FCJ No 914 [Ceminchuk] at paragraph 10 (QL), Prothonotary John Hargrave described what is meant by a scandalous, vexatious or frivolous pleading: [10] A scandalous, vexatious or frivolous action may not only be one in which the claimant can present no rational argument, based upon the evidence or law, in support of the claim, but also may be an action in which the pleadings are so deficient in factual material that the defendant cannot know how to answer, and a court will be unable to regulate the proceedings. It is an action without reasonable cause, which will not lead to a practical result. [7] That is precisely what the Court is facing here. It is for a plaintiff to provide a statement of claim containing enough particulars and material facts not only to show a cause of action, but also both to allow the defendant to plead to the statement of claim and to allow the Court to properly regulate the proceedings. The Statement of Claim provides no factual foundation for what appears to be unconnected allegations, leaving both the Defendant and the Court to speculate as to the circumstances that are alleged to ground a claim against the members of the RCMP. This would prove to be an unmanageable proceeding both from the point of view of the Defendant to be able to plead intelligently to as it fails to define the issues or give fair notice of the case to be met, and from the point of view of the Court as it would be practicably impossible to oversee or control."
83, Again these are general assertions with no link to this particular case. It does not offer any example of what claim by the plaintiff is vexatious and unable to be pleaded by the defendant. How hard is it to tell what reasonable grounds the officer had in mind when taking those actions? What were the probable causes for the actions? This is a pretty standard question that any officer should be able to answer. Unless, of course, they didn't have any reasonable grounds to justify their actions.
84,The Order keeps complaining that there are not enough material facts about anything the plaintiff put forward, but decline to name a single fact or any type of details or evidence listed in the Claim in chronological order from fact 1-fact 12 except once for claiming statute barred for Fact 4-Fact 8 and declaring no misconduct of the officers found in the unlawful mental hospital detention without giving any details or offering any clue how the findings are reached. Selectively leave out more facts out of the conversation.
85, Denial of facts and reality
86, 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.
87, 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).
88, As for the existence of sonic weapons, please Google the following words: ultrasound cannon, harmful level of ultrasound radiation, sonic weapons. Wikimedia is a good source of information as well.
89, As an engineer working on weapon systems before, I would like to offer some facts about ultrasound. It penetrates solid objects like steel and concrete, therefore ultrasound cannons can shoot from within closed spaces like any housing structures and vehicle cargo trailers, avoiding being noticed from outside, that is why I call it the "perfect stealth murder weapon." (paragraph 1 of the Motion Record). Ultrasound can rupture tissues causing bleeding, lethal if vital organs get hit. It also interrupts nerve functions causing seizures and stroke, it leaves no trace behind because the bullets are made of highly compressed air , disappearing into thin air after hitting targets. It generates loud sounds if the launch wattage is high like regular cannons, but pretty much silent at lower level. That's why I always get someone playing loud music or making noises in his vehicle around me to cover up the sound of ultrasound cannons.
90, Some ocean freight liners use ultrasound cannon to expel pirates from hijacking their ships.
91, I have ultrasound radiation levels around me and my home monitored 24/7 with cell phone and tablet apps and documented those attacks events, again I offered but no one wants to look at this evidence. These are scientific evidence I included in this Appeal. See Exhibit 1 abnormal ultrasound event log recorded by cell phone and tablet using ultrasound detection apps. Anyone can download the app and monitor the ultrasound radiation levels and compare them with mine. 20,What are the odds that I get these abnormal at harmful level ultrasound radiation when I lived in New Brunswick and now ten thousands kilometers away in Saskatchewan? Basically the abnormal ultrasound radiation follows me everywhere I go or stay, including when I was detained in the hospital mental unit. I3r9As a trucker I am all over the map including in The US, my ultrasound radiation monitoring devices set off alarms constantly.
92,Denied fact . The Order denies the fact of the existence of the attackers who are doing everything to harm me, asserting that it is the result of paranoia ,"Plaintiff’s claim falls somewhere between incoherence, conjecture, and paranoid thinking and delusions.(paragraph 4 of the Order).
93 ,Being attacked is my whole life everyday now. Let me give some examples. My phone can't get started at home, I have to unplug the antenna and SIM card to turn my phone on at home, otherwise it will keep getting shut down. I have to drive to sit under the cell towers to be able to start my phone with an antenna on and SIM card in it and get the phone connected to services. Even that is no guarantee. When I tried to upload my application record for judicial review T-1451-23, I got constantly cut out and dropped off. I had to drive 200 km to Swift Current to use TD bank wifi to upload the files into the federal court electronic filing system. I believe they were trying to make me miss the deadline to file the record. After I finished uploading the files, my tire got slashed, I lost count of how many times my tire has been damaged and windshield got smashed, my brakes got tampered. I got one truck driving aggressively toward me and chasing me in the wheat field dirt roads while downloading this Order under the cell tower. A few minutes ago, a pickup truck drove into my yard beating horns and yelling,then ran away. Similar scenarios repeat on a daily basis. 23,I documented some of the attacks with videos and uploaded them to my YouTube channel https://m.youtube.com/@tiandaotan. Again I offered to show the doctors and police officers those videos but no one is interested in watching them.
94, Oddly enough, I have attackers coming into my yard while I was sleeping, frequently and almost on a daily basis to knock off glass panels and used tire walls that I built to fend off ultrasound radiation, which is something the Judge has denied its existence and the police have refused to investigate. The ultrasound bullets are like some kind of taboo that no one wants to look at.
95, I have attackers driving ATVs around my house on a daily basis, especially when I was sleeping, to look for opportunities to intrude, try to put poison in my food and water, set up guiding devices for airplanes and ground shooting devices, remove defending shield walls I made in my yard, etc.
96, I suffered a housing crisis of roof cut and windows broken, water pipes busted etc. caused by unidentified attackers, communication interruption of jamming, hacking and destroyed equipment caused by unidentified sources.
97, Confused fact
Paragraph of the Order "[5] The Plaintiff claims that since 2018, he has been a victim of RCMP misconduct,harassment and neglect. Oddly enough, the Plaintiff claims on the one hand that the RCMP have ceaselessly harassed the Plaintiff while on the other hand they have failed to act or neglected him."
98, My complaints about RCMP actions are those taken against me, my complaints about RCMP in-action are about no serious investigation about criminal activities towards me. The Order confuses both as the same.
99, Selective approach
Assuming statute-barred for Fact 4-Fact 8 without addressing my reasons for extension. Selectively leave those facts that are not statute-barred.
100, Selectively pick the disputables and ignore the indispensables. Using the disputables to strike the indisputables is flawed reasoning.
101, Illogical and incoherent reasoning. The Order states that " I find that the Plaintiff’s claim remains at its core vexatious and discloses no reasonable cause of action. By way of example, the Plaintiff alleges that China has influenced the RCMP to “deliver poison with poison laced devices like to blow an alcohol tester with poison laced nuzzles (sic).” This is emblematic of the Plaintiff’s continued intention to raise outrageous and baseless conspiracy allegations. The proposed amendments do not alleviate confusion nor do they address the plethora the Defendant with respect to the pleading in its entirety."( Paragraph 8 of the Order).
102, The Order selectively picks one out of two explanations for motives to strike my Claims. In this particular scenario,I offer two possible motives,one is the poison laced nuzzle, the other is defamation making me look like a would- be DUI offender. The Order conveniently leaves the other one out ,then jumps into the conclusion that the whole Claim is just a conspiracy allegation.
103, 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?
104, The Claims should be disputed by facts, not by explanations for motives. As I made it clear in the Motion Record ``18,Most importantly I am just offering some possible explanation to why some acted unlawfully, my claims are not based on the explanations, my claims are based on the actions taken and the tortious consequences of the unlawful actions. Whether my explanation for the motive is true or not does not affect the tortious nature of those actions. The explanations help to consider all those incidents as a series of connected actions." (paragraph 18). Those explanations are for better understanding of motives, my claims are not based on those explanations for motives.My claims are based on the actions taken and the tortious consequences of those actions. Disputing the explanations for motives doesn't undermine the integrity of the Claims.
105, Bearing in mind that we are dealing with state sponsored sophisticated spy works,if it can happen,it will happen, they have vast resources to make that happen.
106, Damage claims . The Order complains that"[9] Moreover, in his amended prayer for relief, the Plaintiff requests $3,500,000 in damages for loss of income, violation of his Charter rights, “health damages” and punitive damages, as well as an “order to investigate the attacks by police and agents on behalf of the China Communist Party”. There are no material facts pleaded that would support a claim for such substantial damages. This Court also has no authority to order that an investigation be conducted." (Paragraph 9)
107,The damages are identified in the Order as: a,Loss of income and opportunities b,Harassment claim has been dropped in the amended Claims, but still being used as evidence of deficiency. c, Health damage
108,The Order selectively leaves out damages like defamation, lost and damaged teeth, reasonable enjoyment of life, financial loss and costs.
109, Let me offer some perspectives about damages. I am a trucker making $50000-60000 per year. Assuming 10 years lost wages, that is $500,000-600,000 pure wage loss. What about medical and dental plans? What about pensions? I went to a decent trucking school and have a decent safety record and working experience, I can easily land a job with benefits under normal circumstances. Now I have to work for companies that don't even want to pay wages, let alone benefits and pensions. How much it will cost me to restore the dental damages without insurance, now I don't have one tooth that is not damaged in one way or another and is bleeding heavily everyday. What's the price for your pleasure? What is the price tag for stress of living in pervasive fear for years and years? What kind of loss is living in a house arrest torturing conditions?
110, It has been a norm for me that wherever I go defamation rumors follow. The most damaging loss is defamation, ruining my life by ruining my driving safety records.
111, As the Order suggests"Plaintiff appears to acknowledge in his pleading that many of his interactions with the RCMP arose because they received calls from someone claiming to care about the Plaintiff."(paragraph 5 of The Order)
112, If someone unknown offered such intense care as calling police about my parking by a wheat field dirt road with zero traffic, what do you think they would do when they got pictures of me sitting in a commercial vehicle cabin blowing cop's alcohol testers? My employer at Monarch Transport Inc. once told me he had been fighting for me every day during my brief employment of one and a half months. He received complaints every day about me. Someone also cared about me wearing a helmet while working around my truck and took a picture and sent it to my boss. My employer got exhausted handling the complaints and eventually I got fired. Who are those guys who offered such free harmful intense stalking care about me? What are the odds that I got innocent people complaining about me wearing a helmet everywhere I go? Even the police went to such lengths as sending me to a mental hospital for wearing a helmet. Because it gives me good protection and they want to get rid of it. My boss offered to give me a helmet after seeing pictures of me wearing a homemade helmet. But what I need is an ultrasound proof helmet.
113, I am a trucker staying in remote locations with no one nearby. How did they know what I did and complain to my boss? Who are those all-present intense malicious care givers?
114,That's how the defamation was done. Ruining my driving safety reputation by making look-likes. They can't get a real DUI case because I don't do it. Making me do a sobriety test and then taking pictures and sending to my employer or potential employers I apply. What would come to your mind if you got those pictures as a potential employer? The police must have gotten some things about this guy like a beer bottle in the cabin,or smell alcohol,or something wrong with this guy to ask him to do sobriety test, that is what police normally do, they will not assume the police would bang my door asking for sobriety test while I was off duty sleeping. But that is exactly what happened to me.The police simply did it out of blue. I don't get to explain myself as it was all done on my back. My boss at Monarch Transport called me the next day asking what happened. Apparently some intense care giver made the calls to my employer, possibly sending some pictures as well. Now I got some serious explanation to do. I was still in the probation period of employment. I could get fired right on the spot. You know how hard it is to make people believe you are innocent when the police are doing some things to you? When it comes to DUI offenses with commercial transportation companies, the company safety rating and insurance premium and audit are all at stake if something happens. What if some intense care giver also told you that this guy is crazy doing funny things like wearing a helmet, swerving on the road and getting detained in a mental hospital? If I apply for another job and the company checks references back to the last employment and being told I got fired for being made to do sobriety tests. I am done. They don't bother to find out if I was innocent or not. New recruits must also pass insurance company screening,if one insurance company got those intense care calls and the pictures of me blowing cop's sobriety devices on multiple occasions and heard the crazy story in mental hospital, I am out of the industry, the insurance company will tell the company to stay away from this guy, not worth the risks.
115, I retired early because I couldn't find a good job after working for a few companies that don't even want to pay wages. Now I have to live on social assistance not by choice.
116,This kind of malicious care can be traced back to 2013 when I was running a restaurant in Windsor,ON. I noticed that there was always someone chasing the customers who just left my restaurant and talking to them. Later on I had to shut down the restaurant due to lack of customers. Spreading rumors to isolate me,the target, is a standard spy operation. 44,I am sure this kind of intense harmful all-present care is the result of 24/7 stalking surveillance on me. It must have happened much earlier than I realized.
117,I also took pictures of drones hanging around my house all the time and chasing me everywhere I go. These are military grade drones that work at high altitude and long hours.
118, Uncertainty on cause of action . The Order contradicts itself by saying there's no cause of action, later on complaining that there are not enough material facts to support the cause of action. Not enough material facts are not good reasons to support without leave to amend, it simply calls for amendment to add more material facts unless it is proven that such material facts don't exist.
119, The Order's stance on the cause of action drifting between no cause of action and no material facts to support the cause of action. Even though the Claims are not struck down on no cause of action, this kind of uncertainty undermines the integrity of the Order. The amended claim clearly states the causes of action and offers a list of facts. Stating there is no cause of action and material facts is a plain denial of obvious facts.
120,Using points in the original Claims, which are dropped in the amended Claims like harassment, to strike down the amended Claims.
121, I admit that pleading harassment and racial discrimination is a mistake. That's not what the whole thing is about. It is discriminatory treatment between the attackers and me. I have to dodge attacks constantly and don't have the luxury to sit down organizing my thoughts. Some steps are not carefully defined. My take on the situation evolves too. The Order offers some analysis on this issue in a different approach. We wish similar works on other issues as well. The selective approach on different issues undermines the integrity of the Order too. Having said that, it still doesn't belong to the unamendables and as a matter of fact, the harassment pleading has been dropped in the proposed amended Claims.
122,The Order is stuck in the past of the original Claims and paid very little attention to The proposed sample of amended Claims. The focus examination should be on the sample amended Claims to find out if it meets the requirements. Beating a dead horse hard doesn't make a lot of sense. J, Lack of material facts 51,To support the decision to strike down the Claims without leave to amend, we need material facts about the Claims or examples of defects in the Claims that can not be fixed in any way possible.The Order points out some mistakes or shortcomings, those defects are repairable, like the relief amounts, injunction order request, harassment allegation, explanations for motives, they can be amended or simply dropped. None of them fall into repairables. Minor deficiencies have been exaggerated into fatal flaws. The evidence supports "to amend" but does not support"without leave to amend".
123,The Order offers lectures in principles about unrepairable,but offers no material facts as to what defects in the Claim are repairables. The Order complains about no material facts in the Claim but does not point out what facts listed in the Claim don't qualify as material facts.
124, Selectively not to apply rules .The Order rules that"[3] On a motion to strike a pleading on the grounds that it does not disclose a reasonable cause of action, those allegations that are capable of being proved must be taken as true: Hunt v Carey Canada Inc, 1990 CanLII 90 (SCC), [1990] 2 SCR 959. This rule does not apply." 54,Most of the Claims are based on facts that can be proved in Court, like what is probable cause for the actions? What are the reasonable grounds? Why not telling the plaintiff what he has been accused of? What harm is perceived? Pretty standard in cases involving police actions. Declaring this rule not applying without any material facts seems detached from this case, baseless and not acceptable.
125, 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. 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.
126, It is typical of the Order of Judge Lafrenière October 12,2023 (the Order) and the Respondent (Defendant) to give false conclusions about this case veiled in abstract principle discussions while providing no contents of substance as to how those principles are related to this particular case, without any material factual content and logical reasoning chain of thoughts about how those conclusions are based upon, only name labeling allegations throughout the whole litigation process so far. The defendant's style of argument is like giving the Statement of Claim (T-918-23 ,the Claims) all the bad names, then hang it, no material facts and reasoning are needed. This is an irresponsible way of litigation because whoever responding to this name labeling job got nothing to work on, there's no fact to examine for relevancy and truthfulness and no chain of thoughts to check the causality. All you have are a bunch of bad name labels with no idea where they come from. The litigation is downgraded to a shouting match in this way.
127,The Appellant is not appealing for a second chance. The appeal is about a denied first instance. Allowing leave to amend is not granting relitigation, we hardly have had much litigation so far, let alone relitigation. Striking down the Claims with marginal deficiencies at the beginning of the preceding is against the best interest of justice.
128,The Order diverted itself from The Rules of Federal Court 221(a)(c) of finding cause of action and anything scandalous,frivolous or vexatious into making premature judgments about damages claims, police misconducts, delusional conspiracy ,questioning the existence of ultrasound cannons,etc. The Order did everything else except for what the Rules require it to do. Instead of finding any material fact that is scandalous, frivolous and vexatious in the Claims, the Order ends up declaring a delusional conspiracy found. Instead of taking facts as true , the Order did exactly the opposite to deny all the facts presented in T-918-23 as true or as material facts. The Appellant didn't start the diversion and has been forced into presenting evidence in responses to those premature diversion judgments. Not allowing the Exhibits to be included in the Appeal Book is like saying the Order can divert anyway from the Rules while the Appellant is not allowed to respond accordingly. This is also another reason why the Order should be set aside.
129,The Respondent is desperate to strike down the Claims because its position is undefendable. The Statement of Claim is struck down on the ground of being scandalous, frivolous and vexatious as the Order suggests, not because of no cause of action or devoid of success. If there were elements of scandalous, frivolous and vexatious nature, they were not fundamental flaws and can be amended or dropped completely. Stating the Statement of Claim cannot be saved by amendment is an exaggerated assessment. Not to mention the Defendant and the Order cannot point out any material fact that is scandalous, frivolous and vexatious in the Claims. Any finding coming out of the Rules violating process can not be accepted. Not to mention the conclusion has no material facts to base upon and no reasoning chain of thoughts provided. This ruling is another bad name labeling without any factual and logical reasoning contents.
130,The Order doesn't follow the Motion to strike rules to take facts as true and make judgments that can only be possible after examination for discovery and trial. The appellant is either to adduce evidence in response or suffering from the consequences of other's Rules- breaking practices.
131,The applicant is the victim of a series of police and governmental authorities misconduct. The applicant is the victim of crimes carried out by a group that acted unlawfully. The detention at the Hospital is similar to jail and the applicant was not responsible for the detention.
132, The detention deprived the Appellant the protective means to shield off harmful ultrasound radiation causing hypertension, headaches ,bleeding teeth and open wounds all over the body. I have ultrasound radiation logs recorded with a cell phone app to prove I was exposed to the ultrasound radiation during my stay at the mental detention unit, violating the Charter Rights to security, unlawful detention, unlawful search and seizure of property.
133, The applicant has been targeted to be murdered by a group and they have accomplices within the governmental authorities. The police accomplices of the group are planning to act unlawfully to imprison the applicant to have me killed in prison. The biggest threat to my safety and security of life is the police accomplices of the group.
134, The series of police misconduct, the hospital treatment and 24/7 attacks by the group, make the applicant insecure and unsafe to leave home,let alone go to work, the situation is similar to being put under house arrest. It has been like that ever since then.
135, No probable cause, no reasonable grounds, no evidence by the callers, to initiate police actions, while ignoring evidence of any kind by the Appellant, refuse to act citing not owing duty of care. This double standard treatment forms discriminating policing.
136, No probable cause police actions means arbitrary authoritarian actions , from which the Charter Rights are intended to shield citizens.
The none-stop nature of the attacks with police involved proves that the Appellant is acting in good faith to protect himself from more vicious attacks, not being frivolous ,vexatious and scandalous.
PART IV—-SUBMISSION IN SUPPORT OF ORDER SOUGHT CONCERNING COST
N/A
PART V—-- ORDER OR ORDERS SOUGHT
137, To set aside the rulings by the previous two lower courts.
138, To grant leave to amend the Statement of Claims of T-918-23.
由 天道壇 發佈 @ 6月 15, 2026
0 則留言
