Please Note: The Defendants, in this matter, THE CITY OF FREDERICTON, ET AL,(and others) seek a most bizarre
behavior that which deviates from that which is understood to be orthodox or normal, deviating from what is considered right and correct: unquestionably a perverted idea of justice. Who's twisted corrupt mind could possibly conceive such a travesty of Justice whereby they could ask for a Court Order, which would require Plaintiff Andre Murray to give "Security For Costs" even before the NEW BRUNSWICK COURT OF APPEAL Hears his APPEAL of a Court of Queen’s Bench Fredericton Trial Division decision Dated May 11, 2012, reported at Murray v. City of Fredericton, 2012 NBQB 169 (CanLII),
.
However such a Rule of Court appears to exist in the Court of Queen's Bench of New Brunswick
as: Rule 58.10 of the Rules of Court THAT WHICH provides that such an order may be made if:
- 58.10 (1), (a) “a motion for such security is made within 15 days from the service on the respondent of the notice of appeal” (b)“the judge is satisfied that such security ought to be provided”.
- 58.10 (2) Unless the Court of Appeal orders otherwise, an appelant who fails to comply with a security for costs shall be deemed to have abandoned his appeal with costs to the respondent.
Nevertheless, the moving party in this 'Motion' the DEFENDANTS THE CITY OF FREDERICTON should have been required to provide proof, that Andre Murray's Application to the Court of Appeal of New Brunswick, would be vexatious and or that it has a very poor chance of success. Judge Judy Clendening dispensed with this obvious requirement that THE CITY OF FREDERICTON should have been required to provide proof, that
Andre Murray's Application to the Court of Appeal of New Brunswick,
would be vexatious, furthermore Madam Justice Judy Clendening dispensed with or simply ignored
that established Jurisprudence dictates that Madam Justice Judy Clendening
must adhere to ‘Superior’ Court warnings, that "Security For Costs"
on APPEAL should be exercised with caution and restraint, furthermore this Court would have to conclude that it is in the interests of justice thatTHE CITY OF FREDERICTON should have been required to provide proof
.
Readers Please Note: the most egregious circumstances as Judge Judy Clendening who has continued to exhibit a Reasonable Apprehension Of Bias throughout a Court hearing when Judy Clendening is the presiding Judge hearing Andre Murray's matters refuses to Recuse (remove) her self
despite many attempts to MOTION Judge Judy Clendening she in fact insisted on Hearing this matter... the very same matter she Judge Judy Clendening herself rendered the subject unfavorable decision which is now being APPEALED.
Has any of the readers watched the Movie Alice in Wonderland? "OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!"
MADAME JUSTICE Judy Clendening's ORAL DECISION ON THE CITY OF FREDERICTON'S MOTION FOR "SECURITY COSTS" BEFORE THE APPEAL IS EVEN HEARD IS REMINISCENT OF THE QUEEN OF HEARTS IN ALICE IN WONDERLAND
"OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!" IS THE ONLY VERNACULAR LEFT OUT IN THIS INSTANTANEOUS (WITHOUT DELIBERATION) ORAL DECISION - PROVIDED HEREIN BELOW IS A LINK TO A COPY .
http://www.scribd.com/doc/115467585/FC-45-11-Judicial-Decision-regarding-The-City-of-Fredericton-s-Motion-for-security-for-costs
September 10, 2012 Pre-hearing Thoughts
September 10, 2012 Post Hearing Pre-Decision Thoughts
September 10, 2012 Post Hearing Pre-Decision Information
September 10, 2012 Post Hearing Post Decision Thoughts
September 10, 2012 Post Hearing Conclusion
2
The Background
1.
During
early afternoon daylight hours on May 7, 2008, Plaintiff Andre Murray was
peacefully traveling by bicycle, when three members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE
did accost Andre Murray, at or near Two Nations Crossing, Fredericton, New
Brunswick, Canada. Plaintiff Andre Murray the Plaintiff was first verbally
assaulted, by Police verbalizing threats of physical violence, subsequently, immediately
thereafter, Andre Murray was physically battered by the 3 subject members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE.
2.
The 3 subject members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE initial assault and battery was followed by an unlawful arrest of Andre Murray wherein they handcuffed then unlawfully
confined Andre Murray within one of the three Police Cars which converged on that location. Please consider that when
any rational person examines these circumstances, and or incident they
would only find official records indicating that the probable cause for the 3 subject members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE to treat Andre
Murray in this vicious manner was because Andre
Murray failed to have a bell on his bicycle, then one hour later the issue/charge was changed, which, then became a warning for not wearing a helmet, with the original ticket fee of $185.00 for no bell on bicycle ticket
being withdrawn.
3.
The
herewithin above mentioned incident involved 2 Marked Police Cars, and one
unmarked Police Car driven by a plain clothes detective who had as a passenger
a woman I recognize as a neighbor of my residential civic address who was
sitting in the passenger seat of the unmarked Police Car, furthermore, who I
have consequentially named as a Defendant Trina Rodgers. Please Note: Above mentioned ‘passenger’
Trina Rodgers is not a member of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE.
4.
Any
rational person should agree that cyclists who are treated in the manner
by the FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE as has been outlined herein above, furthermore,
which has included being physically tackled and slammed face first into
the truck of a police car, consequence of the cyclist not wearing a helmet and
or not having a bell on the bicycle, however this herein above mentioned brutal
treatment is unacceptable.
5.
Andre Murray was assaulted by members of the
Fredericton Police Force after merely shoveling out his driveway. March 5, 2009, Plaintiff Andre Murray was
assaulted, battered, pepper sprayed, arrested, inter alia then released without
charge, because Andre Murray was simply shoveling snow from the his driveway,
and unfortunately, Andre Murray has neighbors who utilize the Fredericton
Police Force as a weapon against him, providing fraudulent misrepresentations
which the Fredericton Police Force then act upon.
6.
The Cause of these subject incidents, as
well as many others, is neighbors, named as Defendants Neil Rodgers and Trina
Rodgers, who have repeatedly provided fraudulent misrepresentation to the
Fredericton Police Force, claiming the Andre Murray is a wanted criminal, or
there is another wanted criminal conveniently on the property, or anything else
that crosses their minds to claim, requiring Police intervention.
7.
Plaintiff Andre Murray has been damaged,
by the actions of the named Defendants, for the various clearly named, and
explained tortious actions of the various Defendants, all –playing their part
in the events
8.
On
March 4, 2011 Plaintiff filed Notice of Action and Statement of Claim Attached
9.
On
September 8, 2011 Plaintiff Amended Notice of Action and Statement of Claim
Attached
10.
Statements
of Defense were filed by the Moving partied except Constable Debbie Stafford
between October 31 and November 7, 2011.
11.
On
January 19, 2012 four motions were heard by the Court including one brought by
the Plaintiff, two by the Moving parties, and one by Neil Rodgers and Trina
Rodgers.
12.
May
11, 2012 the Court rendered a written decision regarding the January 19, 2012
hearings, it ordered that the Statement of Claim and Amended Statement of Claim
be struck for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action as against the
Defendants. Cost were awarded to the Moving Parties in the amount of $7,500.
And $3,000 was awarded to Neil Rodgers and Trina Rodgers.
13.
Before,
rendering the decision being appealed, Madame Justice Judy Clendening was aware
of and refused to hear a Motion filed by the Plaintiff, that Madame Justice Judy
Clendening recuse herself from any further matters concerning the Plaintiff.
Madame Justice Judy Clendening has demonstrated on many occasions reasonable
apprehension of bias towards the Plaintiff. The degree of dislike Madame Justice Judy Clendening
exhibits towards the Plaintiff is such that she visibly scowls at the Plaintiff
whenever she sees the Plaintiff in passing in the hallways and anywhere else.
Appeal filing
14.
June
11, 2012 the Plaintiff filed NOTICE OF APPEAL, regarding the erroneous decision
Court of Queen’s Bench Fredericton Trial Division on May 11, 2012 reported as
Murray v. City of Fredericton, 2012 NBQB 169 (CanLII),
<http://canlii.ca/t/frd01>.
15.
The
Notice of Appeal Filed by the Plaintiff is Full of merit, and is in no way
frivolous or vexatious.
16.
There
is a strong likelihood the Plaintiff’s Appeal will succeed.
Court file FC-45-11 September 10, 2012 Motion Documents
FC-45-11 NOTICE OF MOTION (FORM 37A) -The City of Fredericton's and other (Defendants) Motion for security of Costs scheduled September 10, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/105598137/FC-45-11-NOTICE-OF-MOTION-FORM-37A-The-City-of-Fredericton-s-and-other-Defendants-Motion-for-security-of-Costs-scheduled-September-10-2012#page=1
The City of Fredericton's and other (Defendants) Brief on Law to be used for a Motion for security of Costs scheduled September 10, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/105597852/FC-45-11-The-City-of-Fredericton-s-Brief-Regarding-Motion-for-security-of-Costs#page=1
The City of Fredericton's an others (Defendants) Affidavit to be used for a Motion for security of Costs scheduled September 10, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/105259435/The-City-of-Fredericton-s-Affidavit-to-be-used-for-a-Motion-for-security-of-Costs-scheduled-September-10-2012#page=1
Andre Murray (Plaintiff) Brief to be used for a Motion for security of Costs scheduled September 10, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/105598780/FC-45-11-Sept-6-12-Andre-Murray-Plaintiff-Brief-to-be-used-for-a-Motion-for-security-of-Costs-scheduled-September-10-2012#page=1
Andre Murray (Plaintiff) Affidavit response to be used for a Motion for security of Costs scheduled September 10, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/105598537/FC-45-11-September-6-2012-Andre-Murray-Plaintiff-Affidavit-response-to-be-used-for-a-Motion-for-security-of-Costs-scheduled-September-10-2012#page=1
Madame Justice Judy Clendening's Oral decision on Motion of Security for Costs:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/115467585/FC-45-11-Judicial-Decision-regarding-The-City-of-Fredericton-s-Motion-for-security-for-costs
