Young native fellow takes my picture as young lady rapidly walks towards us and yells about “hate literature.”
Dear Friends,
Yesterday was an interesting day. I was not able to make it to my court hearing to face the so-called “Wilful Promotion of Hatred” charge that I am facing for sharing the Gospel in the Toronto Homosexual Shame Parade in 2016.
You can see my “crime” here: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=10526&p=26006#p26006
The Ontario Attorney General is proceeding by Indictment and is seeking to put me in prison for up to two years for the above stunt.
In my stead I sent my good friend Mark Theodoro to act as my agent and read my lawyer’s concerns to the court along with a request for a January 8 court date. In specific Dr. Lugosi wanted to express his concern about not getting disclosure and wanted time to appeal to the Ontario Superior Court the Crown Attorney’s refusal to give my side disclosure.
Anyways, the Crown Attorney Jennifer Epstein refused to acknowledge that Mark Theodoro was my agent and tried to get a bench warrant issued for my arrest, and presumably have me extradited back to Ontario again. Thankfully, the judge declined to do that and accepted that Mark was my agent, however the judge prevented Mark from reading Dr. Lugosi’s letters in court, demanded them to be handed to him, and only looked at them for 10 seconds before calling them “irrelevant.”
My lawyer’s request for an adjournment to January so he could appeal to the Ontario Superior Court was denied, a discretionary bench warrant for my arrest was issued, and I am now ordered to fly out to Toronto to appear in College Park Court, courtroom 503, 10:00 am, on my birthday, Tuesday, October 16th.
Here are the letters that were prevented from being read into the court record and which are called “irrelevant.”
Letter 1
————————————
Dear Jennifer,
In a situation where there is the appearance of a glaring conflict of interest, I suggest that the usual rule is open to an exception.
Conflict of Interest
In this case, the Premier and possibly other cabinet members were plaintiffs, in a Liberal subclass, in a 2016 civil class action against the defendant, Mr. Whatcott. That class action litigation was effectively stopped on March 20, 2017.
Then the Liberal subclass, which includes Prime Minister Trudeau and former Premier Wynne, decided not to pursue individual civil actions against my client.
Instead, the timeline reveals that the litigation changed in or about May of 2018, from a civil track to a criminal track once the civil litigation stalled in appeals.
The AG of Ontario, who marched in solidarity with the LGBTQ community in Ottawa in 2016, then may have assisted or benefited the Liberal subclass, to allow the approval of a criminal charge on the same content that was the subject matter of the civil action. As you know, the AG was accountable to the person who appointed him, Premier Wynne, who was a prominent member of the Liberal subclass.
The six month summary conviction time limit had long expired before Mr. Whatcott was arrested in June 2018, nearly two years after his participation in the Parade.
The timing of the charge approval is suspicious, as there is no explanation why no charge was approved many months earlier, nor is there an explanation why the matter could not have been left until after the Ontario election, to another AG who did not have an apparent conflict of interest.
Is the Crown is protecting the AG and the former Premier, who may have been politically motivated, by using privilege to prevent full disclosure?
An abuse of process may occur when there is an improper use of discretion, rooted in conflict of interest.
Selective Prosecution
Why is only Mr. Whatcott being targeted?
There appears to be selective prosecution, as Kerry Simpson came forward and volunteered to be a defendant in the civil action, and Stefan Jetchick was a named defendant in the civil action, along with Mr. Whatcott.
Misuse of Privilege
A blanket claim of privilege is improper, unless there is proof legal advice was given to the Attorney General. No such proof is being offered.
Under the disclosure case law, my client is entitled to know if any legal advice was provided to the AG or his designate, to establish a legitimate claim of privilege.
He is not asking for the content of that advice.
If advice was provided, then a legitimate claim of privilege might be made. That advice could be independently reviewed by a judge to examine the authenticity of that advice and to decide if the privilege claim is genuine and legal.
But the Crown to this date refuses to even disclose whether or not legal advice was given. If the answer is no, then no privilege attaches to the information used or considered by the AG in the exercise of his discretion.
All this is troubling to say the least and makes my client question the good faith of the Crown, which has a duty to be fair and independent of politics, and not to be seen to protect a possible politically motivated discretion to charge.
Request
We could save a lot of time, money and judicial resources if you can satisfy my client that the AG’s approval was independently, fairly and impartially arrived at, without any possibility of a conflict of interest, and without the hint of influence from Liberal subclass members, with the assistance of independent legal advice, and that his discretion was properly exercised.
Again, I urge you to seek new instructions to make full and proper disclosure according to law, so that my client may be able to instruct me and so that he can make full answer and defense.
The rule of law demands nothing less.
Best wishes,
Charles Lugosi
———————————-
Letter 2
—————————-
Dear Jennifer,
We need to graciously agree to disagree with your latest proposal.
It is improper to move this case along to a hearing in the absence of full disclosure.
An agent will be asked to appear on Thursday to ask for an adjournment until January 8, 2019.
The defense needs time to make an originating application to Superior Court for disclosure, and for an appeal by either party.
The specific grounds will be disclosed at a later time.
You may anticipate that in order to make full answer and defense, the defense needs full disclosure, as there is a significant gap in the timeline, investigation, and charge approval. Prejudice is presumed. Carosella.
The defense claims this is a politically motivated prosecution for an improper motive.
The defense claims that the deliberate non-disclosure by the Crown is for an improper motive.
1. There is a public interest in the non-disclosure of the material that was put before the Attorney General and his designate. It is not for the Crown to decide whether or not the material is privileged. The public interest immunity is one for the court to weigh and decide. See Carey v. Ontario, 1986 CarswellOnt 472.
2. The public interest requires an examination of the glaring conflict of interest in this case. It is unprecedented that a plaintiff in a civil class action, the members of the government of Ontario who belong to the Liberal Party, which has the political means and opportunity to initiate criminal proceedings against a civil defendant who defeated the Liberal Party in prior civil proceedings, uses those means to further its oppression of Mr. Whatcott.
3. Not only is the material put before the Attorney General relevant, all communications made between members of the Liberal cabinet is also properly disclosable to the presiding Judge. For example, a hypothetical political directive in cabinet, to launch criminal proceedings under s. 319 of the Criminal Code by former Premier Wynne, would be relevant to any application to bring an application for a stay of proceedings.
4. The public interest also requires an examination whether there may be any elements of a breach of trust in the decision to prosecute Bill Whatcott. Was the public position of Attorney General used to assist, promote or further the private, personal or political interests of the Liberal Party of Ontario, by instituting a 22 month abandoned prosecution in order to get a second chance to “get” Bill Whatcott, who defeated the civil claim? If the answer is yes, then serious consequences may result.
Duty of Crown
The fruits of the investigation that were put before the AG, or known to the AG, are used to ensure that justice is done. There is a duty to disclose to the defense all material that may assist the defense, even if the Crown does not intend to adduce the material at trial.
Duty of Defense
The defense has a duty to bring to the attention of the trial judge at the earliest opportunity deliberate non-disclosure by the Crown that prejudices the accused’s rights to make full answer and defense.
This is why we both need the adjournment, given the unprecedented nature of these unique proceedings.
Institutional Delay
The resulting institutional delay ought not be attributed to either the defense or to the Crown, but to required due process as directed by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Stinchcombe.
There is no intrinsic urgency to this matter. After all, there was a 22 month delay that is unexplained by the material which has been disclosed.
Independent Review Requested
The continued refusal of the Crown to disclose all the circumstances, documents, and communications made with respect to the decision to charge Mr. Whatcott, in the absence of any legal advice given to the AG, cannot as a matter of law be classed as privileged, especially in a jurisdiction like Ontario where charge approval is normally delegated to the police, and not made by the Crown.
A court, which is permitted to examine all the material, may find at the end of the day, that the claim of privilege is a sham and that approval of the charge was improperly laid for the private, personal or political benefit of the individual members of the subclass of plaintiffs from the civil action, the Liberal Parties of Ontario and possibly also Canada. These assumed facts would constitute an abuse of process, and be the basis of a civil claim, as in Henry.
Again I urge you to stay the charge, and have it independently reviewed by an impartial, neutral, non-political third party not now, or ever connected to or associated with any political party or government.
Best wishes,
Charles
——————————————
As for my anti-SOGI/pro-truth operation ministering 5,000 truthful pamphlets to Vancouver neighbourhoods explaining why God does not want Vancouverites to vote for Morgane (actually Ronan) Oger, the transvestite activist, NDP Vice President, School Board candidate, is going well.
You can see my much needed flyer on Ronan’s lack of suitability to be a School Trustee here: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=10723
So far nearly 2000 flyers are out in a variety of neighbourhoods across Vancouver. Yesterday, I leafletted a number of homes and apartments across the west end of Vancouver. One pro-homosexual guy chased me out of his apartment in Kitsalano, but I was able to successfully stuff the last mailbox in the apartment building with my truth flyer before the guy chased me out the front door. I was happy I got every mailbox before the guy kicked me out.
Today, I was leafletting around Commercial Drive, south of East 1st Ave. This neighbourhood was the most hostile I’ve encountered so far. Early into the mission one young man ran after me with my flyer in his hand screaming “This is hate mail” and after shouting Ronan’s gender identity has no effect on his job performance (a not true statement), the guy crumpled my flyer and threw it at my head. I was getting concerned the young man was going to try and hit me as he was following me down the street and was clearly agitated and shouting about “hate speech.” After a few minutes of listening and observing the guy’s tirade I asked him if he thought it was cool that he was defending a guy who ripped off his ex-wife and absconded on a native band’s rent. My belligerent leftist went quiet for a second and it was clear his head was trying to process what I said as he asked “ripped off wife?” I responded by saying “think about it.” The fellow seemed to lose his steam and walked back to his home and I continued leafletting the neighbouhood.
A few minutes after disengaging the one yong leftist, a young native fellow and two white women came running after me and started yelling I was a “hater” and guilty of “hate speech.” I tried to tell them my flyer was true and not hateful, but they just kept shouting “hate speech! hate speech! and drowned me out, making it impossible to have a discussion. People hearing the comotion on the street started opening up their windows and started yelling at me that I was a “bigot,” and seeing as I wasn’t able to talk with my oponents at all, I decided to leave the neighbouhood.
Anyways, I still have 3000 more flyers to go. Please continue to pray for this operation.
Seeing as the courts are dragging me back to Toronto for what seems to me a court date that will accomplish very little, except insure I don’t spend my birthday with my wife, I have decided to use this injustice as an opportunity to promote God’s justice and offer His free gift of salvation through His Son Jesus Christ to University of Toronto’s law students once again.
Join us for the preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ and a strong and Biblical stand against homofascism at the University of Toronto Faculty of Law, the main entrance of the Bora Laskin Library, 78 Queens Park, University of Toronto, October 16, 3:30 – 4:30 pm.
If you would like to help with the airfare, expenses related to being dragged to court in Toronto again, and help us survive until this trial is over (it is very difficult to find stable work when your police clearance tells potential employers you are charged with a “hate crime” and the courts are dragging you to Toronto every couple of weeks) please consider donating to us:
https://gogetfunding.com/christian-pers … tt-family/
In Christ’s Service
Bill Whatcortt
“I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith — that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death.”
Philippians 3:8-10
