FORM 1 NOTICE OF APPLICATION Information No.

09458205, 09479105, and 09497005 New Brunswick Provincial Court (Provincial Court Office of Fredericton) BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (respondent) and ANDRE CHARLES MURRAY (applicant) NOTICE OF APPLICATION (New Brunswick Rules of Provincial Court Practice) TAKE NOTICE that an application will be brought at 2:00 p.m. on the 13th day of March, 2013, at Courtroom no_____________, 427 Queen Street, Fredericton, New Brunswick, for an order: Granting this application; subsequently granting the dismissal or quashing of all charges (as the case may be) against the accused; alternatively granting an adjournment, so that Andre Murrays requested investigations may be completed and results, thereof, considered by the Accused so that full answer and defence to charges may be achieved as is guaranteed by Common Law, Jurisprudence, Canadian Case Law and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms; also striking the Defendants biometric information from the criminal database, because it was taken under protest and duress and without proper lawful authority, inter alia; please note: full requested Orders are provided below in a section titled: THE RELIEF SOUGHT IS THE GROUNDS FOR THIS APPLICATION ARE: 1. The Court should grant an Order allowing this Application, to ensure that Justice is done,

and to protect the administration of Justice from being brought into disrepute, moreover, to maintain public confidence in the administration of Justice.

2.

The Applicant points to certain manipulation by Neil Rodgers and Trina Rodgers,

therefore, an abuse of the services of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE has occurred by the deviant behaviour of Neil Rodgers and Trina Rodgers. However, the subject members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE are adults, as such, therefore, must be considered complicit and or hostile to Andre Murray as the only other option would be negligence. Consequently the honorable Court should Order a Third Party investigation (not members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE) to determine if there is substance to the Applicants allegation of the abuse and malicious manipulation of certain members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE and or negligence, as the case may be. 3. In the matter of Neil Rodgers and Trina Rodgers alleging, that they fear Andre Murray; I

verily believe that the herein subject matter of an investigation to determine if there is substance to the Applicants allegation of the abuse and malicious manipulation of certain members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE will indeed reveal that the true victim in this scenario is Andre Murray, furthermore, that the true victimizers are Neil Rodgers and Trina Rodgers, et al., although not Andre Murray 4. The herein above mentioned

subject investigation of Police activities, with respect to conduct, towards Andre Murray, by certain members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, must include an inquiry into the motivating factors, which influenced these subject members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE to participate in the victimizing of an innocent Andre Murray. 5. I Andre Murray verily believe that Neil Rodgers and Trina Rodgers have been

manipulating members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE to do their evil bidding, further, as their own personal harassment and assault team against Andre Murray.This has been accomplished because of Neil Rodgers and Trina Rodgers penchant to make fraudulent misrepresentations regarding, Andre Murray. Consequently, Andre Murray has been arrested, several times, by members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE involving suffering repeated injures on each occasion, incidents, which have been unrelenting in occurrence since year 2005, consequently, creating a significant anxiety and loss of joy of life.

6.

In each and every instance of Neil and Trina Rodgers making false reports to members of

FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, whereby bearing false witness against their neighbour Andre Murray, caused subsequent arrests, which resulted, Andre Murray has, nevertheless, always been released without charges being laid against Andre Murray, that is in every instance except this matter of assault which is now before the Court. 7. Neil Rodgers is self-affirmed, (by affidavit) as a long term Police informant,who further

confirms that he and his wife Trina Rodgers work very closely, with members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, to amongst other things conduct a full time surveillance of the activities and or transient behaviour of Andre Murray, from and to his duplex residence at civic address 29 and 31 Marshall Street, Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada, as the case may be. Confirmation of these claims made by Neil Rodgers regarding his close Police relationships as an Informant working closely with certain members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE since year 2005 or thereabouts, would seriously bring into question a matter of a possible conflict of interest, therefore causing the public interest to question the allegations made against Andre Murray by Neil Rodgers, Trina Rodgers and their son Thomas Rodgers, conduct and or behaviour patterns, which reasonably considering the evidence must be considered an attempt at entrapment and or at the very least an absurd concept, that is very difficult to believe, perhaps nothing more than the consequences of a mentally disturbed Rodgers Family appearing to thrive on the excitement of constant discord with their neighbors, et al. however misguided their intentions are at the very least appears to be nothing less than dysfunctional. 8. Access to the documents and or records as requested by Andre Murray will assist the

applicant to prove, contextually through demonstrable history, that this most recent charge brought against Andre Murray by three members of the Rodgers family is once again false, as all others have been false and that the charge brought against him was made in bad faith as part of a fraudulent misrepresentation for the Rodgers to cause harm to their neighbour Andre Murray thereby entangling Andre Murray within the Courts of justice, which has been ongoing for years. The investigation will, also provide evidence establishing the lack of credibility of the witnesses, who despite providing false evidence in these alleged matters, however are always the only people providing evidence in which these criminal charges are based upon since year 2005.

9.

The Applicant claims that misconduct by the FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, has

occurred, contrary to Police Act, SNB 1977, c P-9.2, section 12(1) Each police officer is charged with responsibility for: (a) maintaining law and order, (b) preventing offences against the law inter alia, in its actions to date regarding this Criminal Investigation and prosecution of Andre Murray. The Court should Order an investigation to determine if there is substance to the alleged misconduct of the FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, in its conduct to date regarding this Criminal Investigation and actions of the various members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE. The most recent Investigation to date has evidentially been biased; FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE had no grounds for arrest of the accused or to compel the accused to sign the original undertaking April 16, 2012. There can be no valid charge of a breach of undertaking, because original undertaking was invalid and signed by the accused under protest and duress. Constable David Beck, (whom Andre Murray has filed two formal complaints and a Civil Law Suit regarding Constable David Becks conduct in 2 other past encounters) has taken it upon himself to personally pursue Andre Murray, Andre Murrays, acquaintances, Andre Murrays roommate, in an effort to prosecute Andre Murray for a Breach of Undertaking. This harassment is biased and unjustified, Constable David Beck is apparently acting out in the manner of a personal vendetta, attempting to create criminal charges, that otherwise would not exist, furthermore, are not in the publics best interest. Any so called evidence created through Constable David Becks so called investigation should be struck from the record, so as not to violate Andre Murrays Charter protected Rights. Reference: Maxim Nemoest supra leges. No one
is above the laws

10.

According to the Criminal Code of Canada, A Hearing should have been scheduled to

determine if there was any substance to the allegations made against the accused Andre Murray by members of the Rodgers family, this process is the only way to justify a restriction of the Accused rights and freedoms, in the form of an Undertaking. Section 810 of the Criminal Code of Canada specifically requires the Information to be laid before any recognizance or undertaking is entered into and the presiding Judge is required to verify the validity and necessity

of such restrictive orders, by having both parties present before the Court, as stated in s. 810(2) and (3)(a-b), of the Criminal Code of Canada, which clearly has not been done, moreover, the Court appears to have not been advised by the Crown Prosecutors Office on these matters, however despite this failure to notice or do something members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE has not followed the requirements of the Criminal Code of Canada with respect to due process being diligently completed. Therefore the accused was coerced into signing the original and subsequent Undertaking and also the Promise to Appear under threat of a lengthy interim incarceration, nevertheless, the Court has thus far refused to schedule a hearing of the Matter of a Undertaking. 11. In the Defendants case, there was no Hearing as required by s. 810 of the Criminal Code

of Canada, for a Court assessment and review of evidence, which might warrant an undertaking. No Summons, was issued to the Defendant. The Defendant was provided no chance to answer or moreover, Andre Murray was not and has not been provided opportunity to provide evidence in his defence. A Court Judge at a Section .810 application hearing, must balance the two competing interests in determining whether to place the defendant on a recognizance. That is, the Judge must balance the right of the defendant to privacy or to be left alone against the right of the applicant to a protective intervention in appropriate circumstances. The prerequisites of the section provide the balance needed by setting out subjective and objective grounds that must be satisfied prior to the issuance of the subject recognizance sought by in this case the members of the Rodgers family. Certainly, the Judge must be cautious in exercising discretion to affect the liberty of the subject, but this caution must be tempered with a view to the protection provided to the applicant, where grounds have clearly demonstrated the need for the recognizance. The Defendant to date has been barred from having a s.810 application hearing, to be heard on the matter, therefore, violating/contravening the most basic natural right to be heard, established common law, and violating Charter protections, that one should be entitled to.

12.

Regarding restraint of Liberty in application of Section 810 of the Criminal Code.

Without the prerequisite hearing to determine if the recognizance is justified, how can it be said that a balance was reached in due process? The justice who conducts the trial must be satisfied, (presumably at least on a balance of probabilities if not beyond a reasonable doubt), that the

subjective and objective elements have been proven as evidence. Unless both elements have been proven, the justice has no jurisdiction to make the order. The defendant (in this subject matter Andre Murray) has been restricted by an unwarranted undertaking for 11 months, (between April 16, 2012, original arrest and undertaking (signed under protest and duress) to the scheduled Trial of March 13, 2013), without due process. 13. 14. Black's Law Dictionary defines Justice, The fair and proper administration of laws. Black's Law Dictionary, defines fair, as Impartial; just; equitable; disinterested. 2. Free

of bias or prejudice. 15. The conduct of Members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE has to date been anything

but fair and or proper. The conduct of the Complainants, Neil Rodgers, Trina Rodgers, and their son Thomas Neil Rodgers, in their fraudulent misrepresentations to the Court combined with the conduct and biased actions of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, further combined with the dubious actions of the Crown have created a situation where the accused cannot be reasonable believed by the Public interest to be experiencing proper procedure or a fair trial. I Andre Murray verily believe that the continuation of these Proceedings and or Court Procedures will bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

16.

Full disclosure of the requested documents and records are required, so that the applicant

Andre Murray may make full answer and defence to the vexatious charges against him according to section 31 of the Provincial Offences Procedure Act, SNB 1987, c P-22.1, The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Common Law and Jurisprudence. 17. The subject documents and records requested by Andre Murray will assist the applicant

to prove that the charge(s) brought against him are false and that the charge(s) brought against him were made in bad faith, as part of a fraudulent misrepresentation thereby obstrucing the Courts of Justice. The biased participation and actions of Constable David Beck, Constable Ali Yerxa and Constable Jeff Lingley have tainted the proceedings with bias, seeing as the Accused has filed complaints regarding all threes conduct, and most notably two complaints in fact against Constable David Beck, who apparently in retribution took a personal interest in pushing

the charges of Breach of Undertaking against the accused, by personally moving his unilateral investigation forward and personally engaging in conduct designed to harass the Defendant, Andre Murrays acquaintances and his roommate. Reasonable apprehension of bias has tainted these proceedings, including the bogus investigation and if these charges against Andre Murray are not entirely dropped will bring the administration of Justice into disrepute. Please Note: Andre Murray was first unlawfully arrested for these vexatious charges of assault, while serving Civil Court Documents (Court file number FC/201/11), upon Defendant Constable David Beck at the Fredericton Police station, which included a claim for damages against Defendant Constable David Beck for his tortious actions against Andre Murray. 18. The fact that Andre Murray is suing THE CITY OF FREDERICTON in multiple law

suits, and Members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, who despite having the choice of out of about 120 members, chose to have included three separate officers, whos professional conduct have all been formally brought into question, therefore complained about, by Andre Murray, reveals the Bias Members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE has towards the Defendant. The repetitive offensive actions employed against victim Andre Murray by Members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE reveal that the Fredericton Police Force have no intention of even maintaining the appearance of an unbiased investigation procedure or due process. The FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE is apparently getting retribution for the accuseds pursuit of litigation whereby Andre Murray is suing these culprits regarding their past misconduct. This is clearly a violation of the accuseds right to a fair trial and due process, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. 19. The history of continuous frivolous complaints made in bad faith, furthermore, fraudulent

misrepresentations forwarded by Neil Rodgers and Trina Rodgers, which will be proven by the fruits of providing the requested documents relative to these subject investigations, will show a history of conduct which has misused and abused Police resources, and caused Defendant Andre Murray to be a victim of multiple Violent Police encounters, as well may reveal that FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE were well aware of the campaign Neil Rodgers and Trina Rodgers have waged against Andre Murray over many years. This evidence will establish how not credible these witness(s) are (Neil Rodgers and Trina Rodger) and establish that these subject

criminal charges are groundless and just the newest expression of abuse and misuse of the FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE service. 20. The applicant is entitled to full disclosure pursuant to, but not limited to, Sections 7, 10,

11 (d) 15 (1) and 24(1)(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom and sections 603, 605 and 625.1 of the Criminal Code of Canada.. 21. The applicant is entitled to full disclosure pursuant to Common Law, Jurisprudence, the

Provincial Offences Procedures Act, and the following case authorities that are binding law, that, which the judges of the Provincial Court of are required to follow and apply: 22. The defence has two primary ways to obtain disclosure. The first and most fundamental

is to request disclosure from the Crown through a Stinchcombe application. The Crown must disclose the fruits of the investigation that may be possibly relevant for or against the accused. It is known as first party disclosure. Up and until R. v. McNeil, 2009 SCC 3 (CanLII), [2009] 1 S.C.R. 66 (S.C.C.), the police were considered a separate and distinct entity from the Crown for all purposes. McNeil changed that for the purpose of disclosure and essentially said they are one and the same for that purpose only. Therefore, information or material in the hands of the Police is considered to be in the hands of the Crown and subject to Stinchcombe disclosure. However, the Crown is traditionally, the gatekeeper of that information and they will decide relevance for the purpose of disclosure subject to court review. 23. Production of disciplinary records and criminal investigation files in the possession of the

police that do not fall within the scope of this first party disclosure is governed by the OConnor regime for third party production and the police for this purpose are considered a third party. The OConnor procedure is a two-stage process. In the first stage the defence must establish likely relevance. The second stage concerns privilege and privacy interests of third parties versus the right to make full answer and defence of the accused. 24. Under the Stinchcombe process, privilege and privacy interests are not to be considered,

only relevance. The main issue to be decided here is whether disclosure should be ordered under the Stinchcombe procedure, or if not, then the defence must make an OConnor Application for disclosure.

25.

Disclosure of Police Disciplinary Records: first party disclosure involves the fruits of the

investigation. The Crown and the police have the same obligation. All other records are third party records and subject to an OConnor Application, including records in the hands of the police. Police forces have duties, other than investigation of crime, and may be in possession of records, and documents, that have nothing to do with the fruits of a particular investigation. In regard to those records, they are a third party and are to be treated as such. 26. But what about information, that the police have, that was not gathered through the

criminal investigation, that is relevant to the trial of the accused, that is in the hands of the police, but exists independently of that specific investigation? There is clearly a gap, between the two procedures. The bridging of that gap, when the information is in the hands of the police was addressed by the Supreme Court in R. v. McNeil. 27. CASE LAW: R. v. OConnor, [1995] 4 S.C.R. 411and R. v. McNeil, 2009 SCC 3, [2009]1 S.C.R.66, R. v. Durette, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 469, at p. 499). R. v. Ahluwalia (2000), 138 O.A.C. 154; the leading case with respect to full disclosure is R. v. Stinchcombe [1991] 3 S.C.R. 326: 28. Anyone accused of a criminal charge, has the right to know the case against them, and

put forward a defence. In addition to being a principle of fundamental justice, this right is also protected by the right to a fair trial under section 11(d) of the Charter. Full answer and defence encompasses a number of things, including the right to examine witnesses, and most importantly, the right to full disclosure by the Crown and Police. 29. I. II. The following comments from the Stinchcombe case are relevant to this Application: The Crown has a legal duty, to disclose all relevant information to the defence; The general principle, that information should not be withheld if there is a reasonable possibility, that this will impair the right, of the accused, to make full answer and defence. If the Crown is unable to provide the requested material then the Defendant requests that the charges be dismissed, because to proceed, without the requested evidence, would tend to bring the administration of justice into disrepute, and would be a violation of the right, of the accused, to make full answer and defence.

III.

10

30.

The Charter guarantees, that Canadian citizens, will not be subject to unreasonable

searches and seizure or arbitrary detention or imprisonment. They also have the right to be informed of the reason for arrest or detention, and the right to obtain and instruct counsel without delay. If any of these rights are violated in the conduct of a criminal investigation, the evidence obtained can be excluded at trial, if the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

31.

Where the prosecution relies on the powers of police, constables at common law, often

described as the ancillary police power, to justify police conduct, that, which interferes with individual liberties, a two-pronged case-specific inquiry must be made. First, the prosecution must demonstrate, that the police were acting in the exercise of a lawful duty, when they engaged in the conduct in issue. Second, the prosecution must demonstrate that the impugned conduct amounted to a justifiable use of police powers associated with that duty. On this latter prong of the inquiry the competing individual rights, and societal concerns, must be evaluated in the context of the specific fact situation faced by the police. It is not enough, that impugned police conduct assisted the police in the performance of their duties. Police powers are not co-extensive with their duties. The justifiability of an officer's conduct depends on a number of factors including the duty being performed, the extent to which some interference with individual liberty is necessitated in order to perform that duty, the importance of the performance of that duty to the public good, the liberty interfered with, and the nature and extent of the interference.

32.

First, the Defendant will demonstrate that the police were not acting in the exercise of a

lawful duty, when, they engaged in the conduct in issue, namely the arrest of Andre Murray on April 16, 2012, at the Fredericton Police Station and later in taking the Accused photograph, fingerprints and biometric information to enter same into the criminal database, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada, please note: the charge was not prosecuted as indictable. Second, the Defendant will demonstrate that the subject impugned conduct of Police amounted to an unjustifiable use of police powers associated with that duty. The Bias of the FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE can be demonstrated by the conduct of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE members involved in the accuseds investigation, moreover, history of interaction between the

11

accused and FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE members, further a history of harassing calls between Neil Rodgers and Trina Rodgers to the FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE regarding Andr Murray at his residence civic address 29 and 31 Marshall Street, Fredericton, New Brunswick. 33. Section 11 of the Charter sets out a number of specific guarantees for persons facing a

criminal trial. These include the following:

the right to be presumed to be innocent, until proven guilty according to law, in a fair, and public hearing, by an independent, and impartial court; the right, not to be denied reasonable bail, without just cause;

34.

The Crown did not schedule a Hearing to ascertain the reasonableness of a accuseds

proposed Undertaking in these circumstance, as is mandated by the Criminal Code of Canada, therefore, violating the accused rights, without due process, in this regard the crown failed to adequately safeguard the liberty of the accused.

35.

One of the most important protections, that, an accused person has in Canada, is given by

the Charter. This is the right to full disclosure by the Crown, of all the evidence that the crown prosecutor has. The crown prosecutor has a special obligation within the Canadian justice system to see that the accused is treated fairly. The Supreme Court of Canada has said: "The fruits of the investigation which are in the possession of the counsel for the crown are not the property of the crown for use in securing a conviction but the property of the public to be used to ensure that justice is done". Disclosure of all relevant evidence is necessary, so that the accused can make a full answer and defence to the charges. 36. The admission of the evidence following a biased Investigation would violate the liberty

interests of the accused, in a manner, that is not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice under s. 7, or would violate the guarantee of a fair trial under s. 11(d) of the Charter. The evidence was unfairly obtained or that its admission would be unfair, because it was obtained in a manner that would in this country violate a Charter guarantee. As in other cases involving broad concepts like fairness and principles of fundamental justice, one is not engaged in absolute or immutable requirements; these concepts vary with the context in which they are

12

invoked. We must be mindful that a constitutional rule may be adopted to ensure that our system of obtaining evidence is so devised, as to ensure that a guaranteed right is respected, as a matter of course. 37. Although protected expressly in s.11(d), the presumption of innocence is referable and

integral to the general protection of life, liberty and security of the person contained in s.7 of the Charter. The presumption of innocence protects the fundamental liberty and human dignity of any and every person accused by the state of criminal conduct. The right to be presumed innocent requires that s.11(d) have, at a minimum, the following content: (i) an individual must be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; (ii) it is the State which must bear the burden of proof; and (iii) criminal prosecutions must be carried out in accordance with lawful procedures and fairness: R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103. 38. The results of the requested investigation will establish the Credibility of Witnesses: Neil

Rodgers, and Trina Rodgers, including Thomas Neil Rodgers to be non-existent and Fredericton Police Force were well aware of same, this was simply an opportunity for Members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE to get revenge of the accused, retaliation for suing Members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE for their previous misconduct against the accused Andre Murray. 39. In the context of a preventive provision like Criminal Code: s.810.1, making the

issuance of process on a defendant mandatory or automatic (without due process) violates ss.7 and 9 of the Charter and cannot be justified under s.1of the Charter. An automatic issuance of process, with the potential arrest of the defendant, is excessive and unwarranted. It provides no control on obviously unfounded informations, under which a person may be summonsed, or arrested. Thus, it subjects the ordinary citizen to capricious, or unjustifiable detention. Relying on the Supreme Courts decision in Baron v. Canada,19 a residual discretion is a constitutional requirement. and its exercise by the Court, pursuant to a s. 810 application hearing integral to due process requirements. A recognizance order can only be made if the presiding judge (following a s.810 application hearing ) is satisfied by evidence that the fear is reasonably based. The need for the informants state of belief to be objectively assessed and for the presiding judge to come to an independent conclusion is essential for due process.

13

40.

Without following proper procedure, the defendant has been subjected to Section

1(a),1(b), 2(a), 2e, 2(f), 7 and 9 Charter violations. Please remember The Charter should protect the individuals liberty by guaranteeing, the right not to be deprived thereof, except by due process of law. A defendant has the right to equality before the law and the protection of the law and should not be subject to arbitrary arrest, detention, or imprisonment. The Charter sufficiently guarantees that a person is not deprived of the right to a fair hearing in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice, for the determination of his rights and obligations; furthermore, shall not deprive a person charged with a criminal offence of the right, to be presumed innocent until proved guilty, according to law, in a fair, and public hearing, by an independent and impartial tribunal, and or the right not to be deprived of reasonable bail, without just cause. The defendant has been arrested twice, spent two days in jail, and has been restricted by an unwarranted undertaking for 11 months, (used by Members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE to vindictively add more charges) without just cause. In all cases, regarding these herein mentioned matters, the defendants rights have been trampled and injustice has overcome the justice system. 41. The Provincial Offences Procedure Act, SNB 1987, c P-22.1 section 5(1) allows only that

A police officer who has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that a person has committed an offence may serve that person with an appearance notice in prescribed form before an information is laid in respect of that offence. FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE should therefore, have only have served an appearance Notice on the Defendant. When the Court considers if the FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE had the power to arrest accused Andre Murray, April 16, 2012, despite the fact no Information had been laid, regarding the Charge of assault, furthermore, no information had been laid regarding the s. 810 application, The Court would conclude that the FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE did not have to arrest accused Andre Murray, April 16, 2012, furthermore, that arrest was, in violation of due process and Charter protected rights of the Defendant. 42. To preserve the appearance of integrity of the justice system, the Court should Order the

finger print, biometric and photographic records, which were forcefully and unlawfully taken from Andre Murray by Members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, further, that these

14

subject materials be withdrawn from the System and relative records destroyed. FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE had no lawful authority to demand same of the accused, because the charge of breach of Under taking Section 145(3)(b), is a hybrid offence and does not qualify under Identification of Criminals Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. I-1) section 2.(1), as a condition whereby FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE would have had lawful authority to do so, 43. When the Court considers the charter implication of vagueness and asks the question, was

the initial undertaking given to a Police Officer, (under protest and duress) April 19, 2012, void for vagueness? The Court would conclude, that, yes it was, and is, therefore, of no force or effect. 44. The Court should declare that every undertaking signed by the Defendant (under protest

and duress) from April 19, 2012 onward, is void and of no force or effect, and any consequence of a perceived and or alleged breach of same is withdrawn, so that proper service of the administration of Justice is accomplished. 45. The Court should declare every warrant, or order, made in the process of these

Information No. 09458205, 09479105, and 09497005 as void and are of no force and effect.

46.

The Court should withdraw the plea of not guilty, made by the initial Court, which was

entered under protest and objected to by the Defendant and dismiss all the charges against Andre Murray in their entirety, because irreparable prejudice would be caused to the integrity of the judicial system if the prosecution were continued. 47. The New Brunswick Provincial Court Rules are intended to provide for the just

determination of every criminal and quasi-criminal proceeding, and shall be liberally construed to secure simplicity and uniformity in procedure, fairness in administration, the elimination of unjustifiable expense and the avoidance of delay. Where an accused is not represented by counsel, anything that these rules require or permit counsel to do shall not be mandatory for the unrepresented accused. A failure to comply with the New Brunswick Provincial Court Rules is an irregularity and does not render a proceeding or a step, document or order in a proceeding a nullity, and the court: may grant all necessary amendments or other relief in accordance with

15

sub-rule 2.02, on such terms as are just, to secure the just determination of the real matters in dispute or, where it is necessary in the interests of justice, the Court may set aside the proceeding or a step, document or order in the proceeding in whole or in part. Furthermore, The Court may, in the interests of justice, dispense with compliance with any rule at any time or substitute a process that would produce an equally just result, pursuant to The New Brunswick Provincial Court Rules 1.01 (1), 1.01 (2), 2.01(a), 2.01(b) and 2.02.

IN SUPPORT OF THIS APPLICATION THE APPLICANT RELIES UPON THE FOLLOWING: 1. The Affidavit of Shane Henry Dated: February 20, 2013; 2. The Affidavit of Andre Murray Dated: February 26, 2013; THE RELIEF SOUGHT IS: 48. An Order allowing the application and granting the following:

49.

An Order that all related FORM 2 information in this file, against the applicant, ANDRE

MURRAY be quashed and or all charges dismissed under sections 1(a),1(b), 2(a), 2e, 2(f),7, 8, 9, 10 (a) (b) (c), 11(a) (d),(g), (12) 15(1) (2) 24 (1) (2), and 28, 32 of the Canadian Charter of Rightsand Freedoms, and ss. 603, 605, 625.1 of the Criminal Code of Canada on the ground that the continuation of the proceedings is an abuse of process because the proceedings are brought: a. Arbitrarily and for an oblique and improper purpose, b. On the basis of false, contrived and fabricated evidence, and c. In a manner calculated to deny the accused the right to a fair trial.

50.

Any evidence obtained through Constable David Becks personal vendetta

investigation, should be struck from the record, so as not to violate Andre Murrays Charter protected Rights.

16

51.

An order that FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE or the Crown Prosecutors Office produce copies of the following: (a) Copy of pre-charge review and which crown prosecutor signed the charge sheet; (b) Copy of the post-charge review; and (c) Copy of the entire Complaint file FPF 11-23456 against: Constable David Beck et al., regarding Physical assault of Andre Murray October 7, 2011, also Complaint file 2010-23628 attendance and participation unlawful eviction and uttering threats October 23, 2009. (d) Copy of the entire Complaint file 2010-23628 against: Constable Ali Yerxa et al., regarding unlawful eviction and Uttering Threats October 23, 2009. (e) Copy of the entire Complaint file FPF11-19229 against: Jeff Lingley et al., regarding a home invasion and assault the 8th day of March 2011.

52.

An order that FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE or the Crown Prosecutors office

produce copies of disciplinary records and criminal investigation files in the possession of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE regarding: A. Constable David Beck, B. Constable Ali Yerxa and C. Constable Jeff Lingley.

53.

Order a third party investigation (not by members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE

because they may be complicit or integrally involved) to determine if there is substance to Andre Murrays claim of abuse and malicious manipulation of Members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE services by Neil Rodgers and Trina Rodgers and thereby used against the accused Andre Murray. The Investigation shall reveal: i. the excessive volume of `non productive` complaint telephone calls regarding the Applicant and activities observed at the Applicants residence 29 31 Marshall Street over the 7 year period from 2005-2012.

ii.

the number of non event responses by Members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE to Investigate the Applicant and or Applicants residence civic address: 29 and or 31 Marshall Street, Fredericton, New Brunswick, over the 7 year period from 2005-2012

17

iii.

the source of the telephone reports and complaints to FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE regarding the Applicant and or Applicants residence of 29 31 Marshall Street over the 6 year period from 2005-2012, which have resulted in the Accused being arrested and released without charge.

iv.

the unfounded substance of the telephone reports and complaints to FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE regarding the Applicant and or Applicants residence of 29 31 Marshall Street over the 7 year period from 2005-2012.

v.

the identity of the telephone reports/caller, so that it may be determined, why the complaints are without substance, nevertheless caused suffering of the innocent Applicant by relentless stalking and or surveillance or the Applicants residence of 29 31 Marshall Street occurring regularly over the 7 year period from 2005-2012.

54.

Order full disclosure of same investigation to the Applicant, that the Applicant may make

full answer (if still necessary) and defence to these frivolous and vexatious Criminal charges, subsequently, acquire a Cease and desist Order for the protection of his body and sole. 55. An order that the trial herein be adjourned for three (3) months to permit the production

of the Investigation report and requested documents and to allow for a reasonable period of time for the applicant to conduct necessary examination of the documents and records produced by appropriate Investigators. 56. To preserve the appearance of integrity of the justice system, Order the finger print,

biometric and photographic records, which were taken unlawfully by FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE from the Defendant, are withdrawn from the System and records destroyed. 57. The Court declares that FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE had no powers of arrest, April

16, 2012, when arresting Andre Murray. 58. The Court declares that the undertaking to a Police Officer Dated: April 16, 2012, signed

by the accused, under protest and duress, is void and of no force or effect.