Court file no. AH08331530-1
Kelowna Registry
In the Provincial Court of British Columbia
Between:
Office(s) of the Attorney General(s) and others,
Prosecutor(s), Respondent(s)
-v-
David Hunter Thomson
Defendant, Applicant.
Notice to Admit
Rule 31 – Form 23
David Hunter Thomson
725 Franklyn Rd.
Kelowna, British Columbia
250 765-6826
fax 250 765-6813
Court file no. AH08331530-1
Kelowna Registry
In the Supreme Court of British Columbia
Between:
Office(s) of the Attorney General(s) and others
Prosecutor(s), Respondent(s),
-v-
David Hunter Thomson
Respondent, Applicant.
Notice to Admit
Form 23 - Rule 31
TAKE
NOTICE that the Respondent, David-Hunter: Thomson requests the Prosecutor,
Bryant Mackey, for the purpose of this proceedings only, the facts set out
below and the authenticity of the documents referred to below, copies of which
are attached.
AND TAKE NOTICE
that, unless the court otherwise orders, if the part to whom this notice is
directed does not deliver a written statement, as provided in Rule 31 (2)
within 14 days after delivery of a copy of this notice to him or her, then the truth of the facts
and the authenticity of the documents shall be deemed to be admitted.
Dated………………………………….. ……………………………………… David-Hunter
Thomson
The facts, the admission of which is requested are:
1. You are the Constitutional Barrister, appointed by the Office of
the Attorney General for the Province of British Columbia, to oppose me in this
matter.
2. The
Province can issue licenses because s. 92(9) of the British North
America Act, 1867 says Provinces may make laws to issue
licenses to raise Provincial Revenue. Provinces may issue licenses for
shops, taverns, saloons, auctioneers and any other licenses, like driver's
licenses and law licenses.
3. On January 23.03, Associate Chief Judge Hugh Stansfield
said a license to practice law under the Legal Profession Act -
a license granted under that Act was a "right" and gave the
licensee the "right" to practice law. R.
v. Eisbrenner - Penticton Provincial Court.
4. Driver's Licenses are issued under a statute, probably the Motor
Vehicle Act or the Highway Traffic Act.
5. Drivers licenses and law licenses both come
from the same branch of the B.N.A. Act, 1867? Or is it your position that
rights and privileges, like apples and oranges, both grow from the same branch?
6. A
privilege, such as solicitor-client privilege clearly denotes powerful rights.
- The Court of Appeal has
been wrong before. In a case called Reference Re: Section 6 of
the Family Relations Act,
the B.C. Court of Appeal said a Provincial Court Judge did not have 6
specific powers - powers that were given to Judges by that statute.
- The case went to the
Supreme Court of Canada. That Court contradicted the Court of Appeal
- and gave Judges 4 of the 6 powers that the statute empowered them to do.
- It’s been published in
The Advocate, July 1998, Volume 56, # 4.
- Later, at least 2 Provincial
Court Judges took those other 2 powers back, even though the Supreme Court
of Canada said they could not have them or use them to help families in
crisis, using the Law and Equity Act.
- Section 1 of that Act
says it applies to all courts.
- The Provincial Court
has jurisdiction under the Law and Equity Act, to apply Principles and
Rules of Equity?
- British North America
Act, 1867 says that Provinces are to provide
for their own courts.
- We do
have provincial courts, courts of equity that have been considered equal
to all courts, not to be “bound” by the decision
of another court.
15. A
1988 ruling by Supreme Court Justice McEachern
effectively “bound” our provincial court judges,
preventing them from providing relief for aggrieved children and families.
16. Provincial
Court judges have been vocal in their unhappiness, “bound” from
providing relief to aggrieved children and families that they find before them.
17. On January 23 .03, Associate Chief Judge Hugh Stansfield
admitted that he was the first to acknowledge, his understanding of Provincial
Court jurisdiction was “unclear”, “grey” and “blurry”. He also acknowledged
that those
jurisdictional arguments raised, were legitimate ones. R. v. Eisbrenner
- Penticton Provincial Court.
18. On March 17 .03, also in Penticton Provincial Court, Gayle Sinclair
said that he was “not competent” to rule on constitutional submissions and that
Judge Stansfield, “God bless him”, now Chief Justice Stansfield, is the only
Provincial Court Judge who is competent to preside over Constitutional issues.
19. These are
all issues that are in the best interests of the public to be resolved.
20. You are a Barrister, licensed to practice law in
the Province of British Columbia.
21. When engaged as a Crown prosecutor, a lawyer’s primary duty is not
to seek a conviction but to see that justice is done and should make timely
disclosure of all facts and known witnesses whether tending to show guilt or
innocence.
- The purpose of our laws
are to “protect the safety and well-being of children and families” and
that it is a primary and fundamental tenet of law.
- Concerns over the
safety and well-being of children and families is not
“frivolous and vexatious”
24. The primary function of any Barrister is to
apply the law to all the relevant facts to any given matter that is set out
before him or her in his or her professional capacity.
- In order to become a
duly licensed Barrister, you did swear an Oath, enshrined
in such principles as the
protection and well-being of children and families.
26. You are
bound in your duty, set out in the Legal Profession Act.
27. You are
bound to uphold all sections of the Criminal Code of Canada.
- Any attempt to obstruct
my effort falls under Part IV of the Criminal Code – “Offences Against
the Administration of Justice”.
29. You have a duty to assist me in seeking all remedies, afforded by
law and equity, according to the facts, as are supported by the substantial
evidence that I have put before you.