{"id":4624,"date":"2020-10-12T20:40:38","date_gmt":"2020-10-13T00:40:38","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/cafe.nfshost.com\/?p=4624"},"modified":"2020-10-12T20:40:38","modified_gmt":"2020-10-13T00:40:38","slug":"factum-of-dr-james-sears-appeal-against-conviction-sentence-under-sec-319-canadas-hate-law","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cafe.nfshost.com\/?p=4624","title":{"rendered":"Factum of Dr. James Sears, Appeal Against Conviction & Sentence Under Sec. 319 — Canada’s Hate Law"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

ONTARIO<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

(Toronto Region)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

BETWEEN<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Respondent<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

– and –<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

JAMES SEARS<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Appellant<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

APPELLANT’S\nFACTUM
\n
\n<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Dr. James N. Sears<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

6 Kew Beach Avenue<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Upper Floor<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Toronto, ON<\/p>\n\n\n\n

M4L 1B7
\n
\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Email: leader@NCparty.ca<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Tel: 416.488.6142
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

APPELLANT’S FACTUM – TABLE\nOF CONTENTS<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

PART I:\n STATEMENT OF THE CASE<\/strong><\/a>                                                                                    <\/strong>2<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

PART II:\n SUMMARY OF THE FACTS<\/strong><\/a>                                                                                  11<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

A. CROWN\u2019S\n EVIDENCE<\/a>                                                                                                     12<\/p>\n\n\n\n

i. Expert<\/a>\n Evidence of Derek Penslar                                                                                   12<\/p>\n\n\n\n

ii. Expert<\/a>\n Evidence of Janine Benedet                                                                               13<\/p>\n\n\n\n

iii. Robert<\/a>\n James Interrupts Penslar’s Testimony                                                                14<\/p>\n\n\n\n

iv. Evidence<\/a>\n of Detective Bisla                                                                                          15<\/p>\n\n\n\n

B. DEFENCE\n EVIDENCE<\/a>                                                                                                     15<\/p>\n\n\n\n

C.\n SUBMISSIONS BY CROWN COUNSEL<\/a>                                                                       15<\/p>\n\n\n\n

D. SUBMISSIONS BY DEFENCE COUNSEL                                                                    15<\/p>\n\n\n\n

E. TRIAL\n JUDGE\u2019S COMMENTS<\/a>                                                                                        15<\/p>\n\n\n\n

F. TRIAL\n JUDGE\u2019S DECISION<\/a>                                                                                            18<\/p>\n\n\n\n

PART III –\n ISSUES AND THE LAW<\/strong><\/a>                                                                                        18<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

A. THE LAW<\/a>                                                                                                                           18<\/p>\n\n\n\n

i.<\/a>\n Promotion of Hatred                                                                                                        19<\/p>\n\n\n\n

ii.\n Unreasonable Verdict<\/a>                                                                                                     19<\/p>\n\n\n\n

iii.\n Insufficient Reasons<\/a>                                                                                                      19<\/p>\n\n\n\n

iv. <\/a>Misapprehension\n of Evidence                                                                                        20<\/p>\n\n\n\n

B. ANALYSIS<\/a>                                                                                                                         21<\/p>\n\n\n\n

C. SUMMARY<\/a>                                                                                                                        29<\/p>\n\n\n\n

PART IV –\n ORDER REQUESTED<\/strong><\/a>                                                                                           29<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

PART V –\n TIME ESTIMATES<\/strong><\/a>                                                                                                  30<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

SCHEDULE A:\n AUTHORITIES CITED<\/strong><\/a>                                                                                 30<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

SCHEDULE B:\n LEGISLATION CITED<\/strong><\/a>                                                                                 30<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

 <\/h1>\n\n\n\n

PART I: STATEMENT OF THE\nCASE<\/h1>\n\n\n\n
  1. The Appellant was charged with\ntwo counts of \u201cwilful promotion of hatred\u201d, one for Jews and one for women, for\nbeing Editor-In-Chief of 19 editions of Aboriginal-owned, anti-Marxist,\nsatirical community newspaper \u201cYour Ward News\u201d, from May 2015 to Fall 2017. The\ncharge included two editions that pre-dated The Appellant\u2019s work at YWN (March\n2015 & April 2015).<\/li>
  2. On August 15, 2018, The\nAppellant consented to adding the 3 newest editions of YWN to the information\n(total 22) in response to the AG consenting to extend charges to Summer 2018.<\/li>
  3. On August 29, 2018, a \u201cprior\ndiscreditable conduct\u201d hearing was held before Justice Blouin. On September 19,\n2018, he issued a curt, declarative email ruling most of the Crown\u2019s materials admissible,\nincluding 1. Website, blog & Twitter (though The Appellant\u2019s authorship was\nunconfirmed) and 2. A document alluding to two 1992 convictions for sexual\nassault (even though The Crown and The Appellant\u2019s counsel, Mr. Dean Embry,\nknew CPIC was clear).<\/li>
  4. From the outset The Appellant\nand Mr. Embry agreed their defence would be robust, with several expert &\nfact witnesses and a meticulous evocation of Section 319(3) (a) (b) (c) <\/em>defences. Subsequently Embry, through several\nemails, phone calls & brief chats outside the courtroom during recesses, gaslighted\nand strong-armed The Appellant into agreeing to not call a case.<\/li>
  5. A trial was held in the Ontario\nCourt of Justice, Justice Blouin presiding. On December 4, 2018, The Crown\nrested their case. Mr. Embry informed The Appellant that The Crown withdrew\nexculpatory videos from evidence, including a crucial August 21, 2017 interview\ntitled \u201cThe Art of Trolling with Dr.\nJames Sears\u201d<\/strong> (embedded on the YWN website almost 3 months before charges\nwere laid) that contradicts the mens rea<\/em>.\nThe YWN website stayed in evidence to capture the electronic editions of YWN,\nbut that video was selectively-excluded from website evidence.<\/li>
  6. The Appellant tried to convince\nMr. Embry to reconsider not calling a case because the exculpatory video was no\nlonger in evidence. He refused. The Appellant advised Mr. Embry to argue in his\nclosing arguments that this video was a de\nfacto<\/em> extension of the paper, as it was embedded in the YWN website; and\nalso because The Appellant directed readers to view it in his \u201cMessage From Our\nEditor-In-Chief\u201d in the Fall 2017 Edition of YWN. Embry refused. <\/li>
  7. Counter to what was agreed\nupon, rather than robustly invoking Section\n319(3)<\/em> defences for each YWN excerpt in The Crown\u2019s case, Mr. Embry refused\nto do more than merely gloss over Section\n319(3)<\/em> in his closing arguments, claiming The Crown would approach their\ncase \u201cgenerally\u201d and not create a laundry list of cherry-picked offensive excerpts\nfrom YWN.<\/li>
  8. Embry received The Crown\u2019s\nclosing arguments, including a laundry list of cherry-picked excerpts.\nBlindsided, on December 12, 2018 he requested more time to prepare arguments,\nwas granted an extension, but ignored The Appellant\u2019s repeated demands to robustly\napply Section 319(3)<\/em> defences and clearly\nevoke exculpatory passages for each cherry-picked one.<\/li>
  9. During January 16, 2019 closing\narguments, Justice Blouin learned The Crown withdrew exculpatory videos from\nevidence, thought it was a mistake and expressed surprise. On January 24, 2019,\nThe Appellant was convicted on both counts and His Honour released written\nreasons. <\/li>
  10. On April 26, 2019 The Appellant\nrequested one hour for his allocution. Justice Blouin was annoyed, fidgety and\nverbally agitated. He ordered a recess so Mr. Embry could constrain The\nAppellant. Upon return, The Appellant, flustered and disorganized after being\ndressed down, delivered a fragment of his allocution. The Appellant said he\nwould speak with Embry about filing further materials. Justice Blouin asked Embry\nif those materials would be filed, and without even consulting The Appellant or\nseeing the materials, Embry said it was \u201cvery unlikely\u201d. <\/li>
  11. During The Appellant\u2019s\ntruncated allocution, which took place BEFORE<\/strong>\nsubmissions were closed, he was able to make reference to most of the violations\nof his constitutional rights, exclusion of the key exculpatory video from\nevidence, and various other legal arguments. So The Appellant was in the door\nwith notice of those materials before it was closed by Justice Blouin.<\/li>
  12. On April 27, 2019, Warren &\nLisa Kinsella, the key complainants, uploaded a podcast boasting Detective\nBisla was their \u201cfriend\u201d. Bisla assembled police reports to present to the AG to\nobtain consent for charges. The reports and victim\/community impact statements\ngathered by her also factored into His Honour\u2019s verdict and sentencing. The Appellant\nsent the podcast to Mr. Embry, instructing him to inform Justice Blouin so Bisla\ncould be examined on it. He refused. <\/li>
  13. On May 10, 2019, The Appellant instructed\nMr. Embry to submit two constitutional challenges. The first directly challenged\nSection 319(2)<\/em> based on new research in\nBehavioural Neuropsychology. The second was related to a violation of The Appellant\u2019s\n11(f) right to a jury trial based on the recent Peers<\/em> decision from the Alberta Court of Appeal, upheld by the\nSupreme Court. These constitutional challenges were briefly discussed with Embry\nseveral months earlier. Embry refused. The Appellant asked that they appear\nbefore His Honour ASAP to dismiss him.<\/li>
  14. On May 27, 2019, Mr. Embry\u2019s\nfirst available date, The Appellant dismissed him and told Justice Blouin about\nconstitutional challenges, further sentencing materials and other motions Embry\nrefused to submit. Sentencing was put off from May 31 to July 15, 2019, to\nmatch the Co-Appellant\u2019s next date. His Honour told The Appellant to submit further\nmaterials by June 15, 2019. The Appellant waived his 11(b) rights only\nfor the 45 day delay in sentencing. <\/li>
  15. During the May 27, 2019 court\nappearance, The Appellant also informed the court of the Kinsellas\u2019 podcast.\nWithin hours it was deleted (first podcast the Kinsellas ever deleted). Only\nThe Appellant, The Crown, Justice Blouin and court staff were in that courtroom.\nThe Appellant suspects The Crown directed the Kinsellas to eliminate the\nproblematic podcast.<\/li>
  16. On June 17, 2019 (June 15 was a\nSaturday), The Appellant submitted a 79 page omnibus document of unperfected\nsubmissions and motion requests (violations of his constitutional rights, the\nbasis for his claim of \u201cineffective representation\u201d, reasons for asking His\nHonour to re-open sentencing submissions, and various other motions) with\npreliminary case law cited to back it up. It clearly stated that none of\nthe motions had yet been perfected and upon Justice Blouin agreeing to re-open\nsubmissions, perfected materials would be submitted to the court forthwith. <\/li>
  17. On June 27, 2019, The Crown\nemailed a response to The Appellant\u2019s omnibus document to Justice Blouin & Co-Appellant\u2019s\ncounsel, but did not cc The Appellant, who was emailed after the fact. The Crown\nclaimed it was an \u201coversight\u201d. The Appellant emailed the Crown reiterating that\nhis submissions were unperfected and requesting that The Crown appear with him\nbefore Justice Blouin forthwith in order to set a timetable. The request was\nignored. <\/li>
  18. On July 15, 2019, The Appellant\nappeared before a visibly-frustrated, rushed-sounding Justice Blouin. Clearly\nannoyed, he curtly ruled he would only hear the ineffective representation motion,\nsummarily dismissed all the other motions (including the request to re-open\nsentencing submissions) and asked for details on the expert & fact\nwitnesses Mr. Embry refused to put forth, ruling they would be treated as\n\u201cfresh evidence\u201d (he released sparse written reasons). He said he was\n\u201cretiring\u201d at the end of August 2019. (he likely was trying to clear his\ncases before then)<\/li>
  19. On July 15, 2019, at The\nCo-Appellant\u2019s sentencing hearing Justice Blouin spontaneously suggested mediation\nto mitigate his sentence (His Honour is a well-known advocate of mediation, has\nsat on mediation committees and been interviewed by media about mediation, even\nfor the worst of violent offenders). Then he aggressively offered to assist The\nCrown and Co-Appellant\u2019s counsel in finding a mediator, but never once extended\nthe same offer to The Appellant!<\/li>
  20. On July 18, 2019, The Appellant\nforwarded Judicial Assistant Patricia Palmer threatening new voicemails from YWN\u2019s\nformer graphic artist Robert James Orr (schizotypal personality disorder,\nviolent meth head) and an explanation of their significance to sentencing. Obsessed\nwith The Appellant\u2019s wife & child, Orr said if The Appellant was incarcerated\nhe would terrorize his family. The threats were credible as he was arrested for\nuttering death threats while vandalizing The Appellant\u2019s wife\u2019s car twice\nat their home, the second time arrested at gunpoint, armed with a big knife whilst\non bail from the first attack. He had just received absolute discharges on both\ncounts! Palmer refused to inform His Honour so he could make a legal ruling\nuntil The Crown gave her permission! The Crown mischaracterized it as solely\na police matter and blocked the email. Orr was a Crown witness but not\ncalled for obvious reasons (he created most of YWN\u2019s graphics, was de facto<\/em> Editor-In-Chief for the March &\nApril 2015 Editions (the first two in evidence), and would testify that no\nprivate emails in his possession supported the mens rea<\/em>).<\/li>
  21. August 1 & 22, 2019 were dates\nfor the ineffective representation motion. On August 1st<\/sup> Justice\nBlouin became extremely agitated and fidgety; then in a pressured, frustrated\ntone, he lambasted The Appellant & The Crown for not submitting sworn\naffidavits to him. Exasperated, he claimed he demanded them at the July 15th<\/sup>\ndate. However, the transcript clearly\nshows he was confused as affidavits were just generally discussed and there was\nno timetable set. <\/strong><\/li>
  22. Over The Appellant\u2019s repeated denials,\non dates from July 15, 2019 onwards (no room in factum to list them off) an\nenraged Justice Blouin confronted The Appellant on an accusation that Mr. Embry\n\u201cthrew the case\u201d, clearly based on an out-of-context media quote His Honour read.<\/li>
  23. On August 22, 2019, His Honour stunned\nThe Appellant and Crown as he cut off Jamie Klukach mid-word, claimed he could\nrule on the ineffective representation motion merely on The Appellant\u2019s sworn\naffidavit, briefly let The Appellant speak and summarily dismissed the motion. He\nignored The Appellant\u2019s written response to Embry\u2019s affidavit and his repeated demands\nto examine Embry on its veracity and crucial omissions. Then appearing\nrelieved, His Honour quickly delivered a 6 month sentence on each count, consecutively.\n The Appellant thought that day was dedicated\nto the motions hearing, did not expect to be sentenced, and did not put his\naffairs in order. He was cuffed and led out. Reasons for the sentence and\ndismissing the motion were released shortly thereafter. On August 27, 2019,\nafter The Appellant spent 6 consecutive days in \u201cfull lockdown\u201d in the South\nDetention Centre (no showers or phone privileges), the first day in solitary\nconfinement due to a bed shortage, he was released on \u201cbail pending appeal\u201d.<\/li>
  24. The Appellant appeals against both\nconvictions and submits that the trial judge erred by:
    1. providing grossly insufficient\nreasons for either conviction;<\/li><\/ol>
      1. exhibiting a reasonable\napprehension of bias;<\/li><\/ol>
        1. misapplying the presumption of\ninnocence;<\/li><\/ol>
          1. misapplying proper procedures;<\/li><\/ol>
            1. admitting evidence that ought\nto have been excluded;<\/li><\/ol>
              1. ignoring exculpatory evidence\nin the form of a video interview;<\/li><\/ol>
                1. acting unfairly and against the\nprinciples of natural justice by not allowing The Appellant to provide further,\nfulsome sentencing submissions, considering his counsel was dismissed partially\nfor this reason and his scheduled sentencing date was weeks away; <\/li><\/ol>
                  1. displaying a clear\nmisapprehension and unreasonable findings of fact at trial;<\/li><\/ol>
                    1. drawing unreasonable conclusions\nfrom the evidence at trial;<\/li><\/ol>
                      1. contradicting himself in\nregards to requiring expert testimony to reach his verdict;<\/li><\/ol>
                        1. denying The Appellant his Common\nLaw right to fully allocute;<\/li><\/ol>
                          1. failing to consider inferences\navailable from Crown evidence that raised reasonable doubt;<\/li><\/ol>
                            1. failing to note the absence of\nevidence with respect to an essential element of the offence of \u201cpromotion of\nhatred\u201d: proof of \u201cwilful\u201d intent, thereby rendering an unreasonable\nverdict;<\/li><\/ol>
                              1. declaring The Appellant more\nculpable than his Co-Appellant whilst failing to explain why that was so when two\nantedated editions of YWN had already established a clear pattern which his\nCo-Appellant, in his police interview, admitted he had the final say in;<\/li><\/ol>
                                1. failing to provide The\nAppellant with a reasonable opportunity to submit perfected materials with\nrespect to two constitutional challenges;<\/li><\/ol>
                                  1. summarily dismissing an\nineffective representation motion that needed further investigation and analysis,\nwhilst ignoring The Appellant\u2019s submission that his acquiescence to and support\nof Embry\u2019s inept strategy arose out of him being misled and gaslighted;<\/li><\/ol>
                                    1. acting unfairly & against\nthe principles of natural justice by not allowing The Appellant to examine Mr.\nEmbry on his affidavit to settle the accusation of off-the-record gaslighting;<\/li><\/ol><\/li>
                                    2. The Appellant appeals against\nhis conviction on both counts and submits that he received ineffective\nrepresentation from counsel;<\/li>
                                    3. The Appellant appeals against\nhis conviction on both counts and submits that Justice Blouin should have\npermitted fresh evidence to be heard;<\/li>
                                    4. The Appellant appeals against\nhis conviction on both counts and submits that because in his reasons Justice\nBlouin declared that The Appellant deserved 36 months in custody, far above the\nsummary maximum, His Honour had a public duty (NOT a choice) as\nevidenced by case law provided to him by The Appellant, to fulfil The\nAppellant\u2019s request to set aside his guilty verdict, declare the trial a\npreliminary hearing, and set the matter down for trial at Superior Court;<\/li>
                                    5. The Appellant appeals against\nhis conviction on both counts and submits that he was the victim of an egregious,\nsystematic and cumulative abuse of process that violates the fundamental\nprinciples of justice underlying the community\u2019s sense of fair play and decency\nbecause:<\/li>
                                    6. The Crown\u2019s summary election\nwas disingenuous and merely meant to deny The Appellant the benefit of a jury\ntrial, thereby excluding community input from a case which The Crown itself\nframed as a community-based offense of wide scope and breadth;<\/li>
                                    7. The Crown elected to\nfractionate the charge into two, one for each protected group, in tandem with the\nsummary election, in order to circumvent the summary sentencing limits;<\/li>
                                    8. Realizing that by proceeding\nsummarily the information would only capture 6 months of activity (just the\nSummer 2017 and Fall 2017 Edition), the Crown misrepresented the inaugural information\nas one continuous transaction from March 2015 to Fall 2017;<\/li>
                                    9. Knowing The Appellant\u2019s CPIC\nwas clear, The Crown inappropriately submitted a document alluding to prior\nconvictions solely to sneak in \u201cbad character\u201d evidence; in the alternative, if\nthis Honourable Court feels the onus was on Mr. Embry to have fought to exclude\nit, this fact should be considered in the ineffective representation motion;<\/li>
                                    10. The Crown choosing at the last\nminute to not lead evidence composed of exculpatory videos, after having for\nmonths misled The Defence into thinking the videos were entered into permanent evidence\nby way of the \u201cPrior Discreditable Conduct\u201d package and YWN website, was\nwanton, high-handed and unfair. The videos were the only materials\neliminated from the PDC package and the only key element excluded from\nthe website;<\/li>
                                    11. Judicial Assistant Patricia\nPalmer and Assistant Crown Attorney Erica Whitford censored Justice Blouin\u2019s\nemail in order to ensure that sentencing submissions were not re-opened;<\/li>
                                    12. His comments suggest Justice\nBlouin\u2019s retirement date affected his decisions, causing him to summarily\ndismiss several merit-worthy motions, accompanied by sparse reasons, because he\nhad \u201cheard enough\u201d and could not be bothered to put forth any more effort;<\/li>
                                    13. Two key complainants boasted\nabout a personal relationship with the lead detective, and upon it being exposed,\ndestroyed audio evidence forthwith, making it clear they knew the relationship\nwas inappropriate; Detective Bisla should have been examined on it;<\/li>
                                    14. Justice Blouin refusing to hear\nfurther sentencing submissions was patently unfair since 1. He knew The\nAppellant dismissed his counsel primarily for refusing to tender these\nsubmissions 2. The Appellant informed His Honour of them before submissions\nwere closed (while wrapping up his allocution) 3. His Honour knew these\nsubmissions were in lieu of a full allocution; 4. Sentencing was several weeks\naway;<\/li>
                                    15. The Appellant appeals against both\nsentences and submits that the trial judge erred by:
                                      1. failing to allow The Appellant\nto tender further, fulsome sentencing submissions;<\/li><\/ol>
                                        1. misapplying Section 718(2)(a)(i)<\/em>, as Parliament\nnever meant it to redundify Section 319<\/em>;<\/li><\/ol>
                                          1. overemphasizing the # of problematic\npassages from YWN per timeframe in contrast to the # per timeframe\nin other cases cited by the court, by not considering the sheer volume of materials\nfrom which and time period over which YWN passages were cherry-picked; <\/li><\/ol>
                                            1. underemphasizing that the\ngravity of supposed \u201chate\u201d in every single cherry-picked YWN passage was by far\non the lowest end of the scale in contrast to every case cited;<\/li><\/ol>
                                              1. failing to consider The\nAppellant\u2019s lack of previous convictions for crimes of a \u201chateful\u201d nature, in\nstark contrast to most other cases cited by the court;<\/li><\/ol>
                                                1. failing to consider that The\nAppellant posed ZERO RISK<\/strong> if\nhis sentence was served in the community, as he voluntarily sealed the\ncriminalized editions of YWN from public view immediately after Justice\nBlouin\u2019s unexpected verdict;<\/li><\/ol>
                                                  1. failing to consider that due to\novercrowding and guard shortages, it is not in the public interest or fair to\nother prisoners in relation to resource management, to incarcerate non-violent,\nlow risk \u201cThought Criminals\u201d who are no threat to the public;<\/li><\/ol>
                                                    1. failing to consider that The\nAppellant had a right to be treated at least equally to his more culpable Co-Appellant,\nby not having applied phantom Gladue<\/em>\nprovisions to him in order to avoid a judicial apartheid (plus Sears looks\nmore Aboriginal than St. Germaine, lol);<\/li><\/ol>
                                                      1. Spontaneously &\nenthusiastically suggesting the more culpable Co-Appellant could potentially\nmitigate his sentence through mediation with his \u201cvictims\u201d then aggressively &\njoyfully offering to assist The Crown & Co-Appellant\u2019s counsel in finding a\nmediator, whilst not offering such mediation to The Appellant.<\/li><\/ol>
                                                        1. imposing a custodial sentence AS IF<\/strong> The Appellant posed a\npublic threat, whilst ignoring The Crown\u2019s repeated demands to ban YWN, ban The\nAppellant from making public statements denigrating women or Jews, sentence him\nto a long probation, etc., because His Honour trusted The Appellant did NOT<\/strong> pose a public threat;<\/li><\/ol><\/li>
                                                        2. The Appellant appeals against\nhis conviction and his sentence on both counts based on any arguments common to\nhim and his Co-Appellant as put forth by his Co-Appellant\u2019s counsel.<\/li>
                                                        3. The Appellant appeals against\nhis conviction and his sentence on both counts based on all arguments made and\nauthorities cited in The Appellant\u2019s:
                                                          1. 79 page omnibus document of\nunperfected submissions;<\/li><\/ol>
                                                            1. 29 page rebuttal to The Crown\u2019s\nresponse to the omnibus document;<\/li><\/ol>
                                                              1. 15 page response to the\naffidavit of Dean Embry.<\/li><\/ol><\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n

                                                                PART II: SUMMARY OF THE FACTS<\/h1>\n\n\n\n