Biased Involvement of Constable David Beck, of the FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, in False Accusations against Innocent Andre Murray

The following is an excerpt from a Brief, highlighting Biased Investigation by Constable David Beck:

Constable David Beck

1.                  On October 23, 2009, members of Fredericton Police Force: Constable D. Beck, Constable A. Yerxa and Constable C. Haines, were in attendance at 31 Marshall Street, Fredericton, New Brunswick, at approximately 11:30 AM. did participate in a wrongful act, furthermore, that the here within above mentioned Police Officers did participate, to varying degrees did act unlawfully, as accomplices, in the unlawful and illegal Criminal Code Break and Enter, then conducted a illegal room to room search of the subject private residential premises and home of residential tenant André Murray at 31 Marshall Street, Fredericton, New Brunswick.

2.                  Residential tenant André Murray did demand identification from all Police in attendance. Constable D. Beck, Constable A. Yerxa and Constable C. Haines, all refused to identify themselves, even though, or perhaps because of the illegal Break and Enter action they had just participated in, nevertheless continued to claim they did not have to identify themselves.

3.                  An October 20, 2010, complaint regarding the conduct of Constable Ali Yerxa and Constable David Beck, October 23, 2009, is attached as “I”, to Affidavit of Andre Murray Dated February 26, 2013.

4.                  André Murray while maintaining the peace, was arrested at approximately 4:20 p.m. Friday, October 7, 2011, the procedure, that, which Constable David Beck used was a dangerously harmful football styled tackle, of Andre Murray from behind and without warning thereby knocking Andre Murray from off of his bicycle and onto the ground, at or near 525 Aberdeen Street, Fredericton N.B. by members of the Fredericton Police Force.

5.                  André Murray having been knocked to the ground while riding his bicycle on the paved area of Aberdeen Street, Fredericton, N.B. by members of the Fredericton Police Force – first Constable David Beck, assisted by Constable L. Comuzzi who jumped onto Andre Murray’s body once Andre Murray hit the ground. Andre Murray was subsequently handcuffed and searched after which Andre Murray was provided a document, which was verbally identified by Constable David Beck as a “ticket”, despite the word “ticket” was nowhere to be to be found anywhere on the document’s face, however, a payment schedule indicated a requirement of 50, which is ambiguous, however though, the earlier reference to 50 was later clarified in the Defendant’s Summons as $50.00 dollars, for riding on the sidewalk with a bicycle, FREDERICTON MUNICIPALITY BY-LAW INFRACTIONS/G 219324. I André Murray, in due diligence and in good faith conditionally accepted the “ticket”, upon proof of claim, that the “ticket” applied to me, and that I André Murray was obligated to accept the benefits, offered thereof, nevertheless, only, upon proof of claim am I obligated to act upon the service offered as found listed, therewithin the “ticket”. No signature was requested of Andre Murray, nor did Andre Murray become signatory to this offer.

6.                  The arresting members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE,  who are known to tackle Andre Murray by surprise from off his bicycle are Tackle: Constable David Beck (now a DEFENDANT) and Assistant secondary Tackle: Constable L. Comuzzi.  

7.                  October 28, 2011, Chief of Police Barry MacKnight, (now a DEFENDANT) did, in response, write a letter, Notifying me, André Murray of his decision to summarily dismiss my complaint, FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE  File number, (FPF File – 11- 23456) regarding  André Murray’s  complaint, against FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, regarding October 7, 2011, an incident involving Constable David Beck and Constable L. Comuzzi. A copy of this letter is attached as Exhibit “A” to Affidavit of Andre Murray dated February 26, 2013.

8.                  Please Note: that only 3 weeks transpired between the herein above mentioned incident complained of (Oct 7, 2011) and the subsequent dismissal by Chief of Police Barry MacKnight of the Complaint (October 28, 2011), this must have set a new record for turn-over, of an investigation of a Complaint regarding Police Conduct. The Balance of probabilities would be that this was a superficial investigation, was not an efficient one.

9.                  November 21, 2011, I Andre Murray as Plaintiff, filed a Statement of Claim Form 16C,  File number F/C/201/11 on which is named both Constable A Yerxa and Constable D. Beck, as Defendants responsible for tortious actions regarding, their contributions to an unlawful and illegal eviction of Plaintiff Andre Murray, from 29 and 31 Marshall Street, Fredericton New Brunswick. 

10.              April 16, 2012, when Andre Murray was serving a copy of a Notice of Action and Statement of Claim, File Number F/C/45/11 upon Constable David Beck, wherein David Beck is named as DEFENDANT. On this herein above mentioned April 16, 2012, appointment with DEFENDANT Constable David Beck, to meet in the lobby of Fredericton Police Station at 311 Queen Street, Fredericton, N.B. Andre Murray, was immediately following Process Service of herein subject Court Documents upon DEFENDANT Constable David Beck , consequentially immediately thereafter, and while still standing with DEFENDANT Constable David Beck, Andre Murray was arrested by both Detective Stephen Cliff and DEFENDANT Constable David Beck  because they ambiguously claimed to “have grounds” for arrest -  FURTHERMORE Detective Stephen Cliff and DEFENDANT Constable David Beck  DID NOT HAVE A ARREST WARRANT; however. Despite the absence of an Arrest Warrant. Andre Murray was arrested, therefore, without reasonable and probable grounds. Please see a November 21, 2011, Statement of Claim Form 16C, (page 1 and 2 only) File number F/C/201/11 on which is named Constable D. Beck, et al (and others), a copy of this Affidavit is attached as Exhibit “E” to Affidavit of Andre Murray dated February 26, 2013.

11.              The Court must further consider that, this criminal charge of Breach of an Undertaking has been raised as an issue apparently only by Constable David Beck. This is pursuant to a Biased Investigation, conducted by David Beck. The only evidence for the alleged breach of an undertaking comes from the FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE CROWN PROSECUTOR'S REPORT Occurrence Number: 2012-12177 Dated July 5, 2012, written by Constable David Beck, Badge Number: 377 on page 3 and 4:

·         "On 20 June 2012, Cst Beck was aware that Andre Charles Murray (hereafter referred to as the accused) was required to notify the FPF of his current address by the 19th of June 2012."

·         "At 1512 hrs, 20 June 2012, Cst Beck contacted the Provincial Court Office (room 105) and inquired if any change to the accused's address was on record."

·         "The address on record is 31 Marshall Street, Fredericton, NB."

·         "31 Marshall Street is the former address of the accused who was evicted from this residence weeks prior and is still the address on record with the Police."

·         “At about 1820 hrs, 20 June 2012, Cst Beck checked with the FPF Station Officer (Cst Cane) to see if any change of address had been reported by the accused and none has been advised. The FPF in-house computer system (RMS) still showed the address of 31 Marshall Street, Fredericton, NB. Cst Beck checked the FPF Station Officer copy of the Undertaking that was breached and no amendment was noted”.

·         "While obtaining information for the C216 (ICA Form), Cst Beck asked the accused what his current address was to which the accused stated it was the same (31 Marshall St). Cst Beck advised the accused that this was not his address anymore to which he responded it was as this is where all his belongings are still located”.

12.              The Particulars of the herein mentioned biased investigation of Constable David Beck, therefore Claims that Andre Murray was obligated to provide a new address by June 19, 2012, which is not the case. June 19, 2012, was merely the next scheduled Court Hearing Date. The Court did not Order Andre Murray to get a new address; the Court has no jurisdiction to order such a thing.

13.              Constable David Beck boldly claims, that it was indeed him, who unilaterally pursued the investigation regarding the Charge of Breach of undertaking, however, no superior Officer is noted as requesting this investigation, nor does Constable David Beck Claim that he was charged somehow, for any reason whatsoever, with this subject duty. It appears that Constable David Beck had a personal interest in the matter and pursued it unilaterally.

14.              That herein mentioned subject of David Beck’s personal matter may exist because:

·         Andre Murray has filed two separate complaints regarding Constable David Beck’s conduct, one for an incident in October 23, 2009, (where Constable David Beck participated in an illegal and unlawful eviction of Andre Murray, where members of the FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE threatened Andre Murray with bodily harm through a particularly violent arrest if Andre Murray did not leave);
·         Another complaint filed by Andre Murray was regarding an incident, that which occurred October 7, 2011(where Constable David Beck football style tackled Andre Murray off his bicycle, after recognizing Andre Murray, to serve a 50.00 ticket for riding on the sidewalk with a bicycle);
·         Andre Murray has personally served Constable David Beckwith a lawsuit for damages, wherein Andre Murray is the Plaintiff and Constable David Beck is personally named as a Defendant;
·         Andre Murray has had Constable David Beck on the witness stand, in open Court, revealing that FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE and THE CITY OF FREDERICTON have been unlawfully, issuing bylaw tickets, for as long as anyone in that Court could remember, furthermore, without serving a Notice of Prosecution upon the Defendants (which is contrary to the Provincial Offences Procedures Act).  This blunder could open up a class action law suit against THE CITY OF FREDERICTON and FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE.

15.              September 21, 2012, Constable David Beck a member of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE required to 'Take The Stand', for cross examination, for that reason had sworn an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, was asked the following questions by Self Represented Litigant Andre Murray, questions specifically regarding Constable David Beck comprehension of the Provincial Offences Procedure Act, SNB 1987, c P-22.1.

16.              Please Note: this herein above mentioned Court Hearing of September 21, 2012, for cross examination of arresting officer Constable David Beck was a continuation of a Trial regarding bylaw T-4 section 15, whereby Constable David Beck alleges Andre Murray was riding on the sidewalk with a bicycle in violation of a by-law of  THE CITY OF FREDERICTON. This subject cross examination of arresting officer Constable David Beck is only one of two most serious aspects of the challenge to the subject by-law matter. The second most serious aspect is that of Andre Murray's Constitutional Challenge regarding bylaw T-4 section 15, riding on the sidewalk with a bicycle which will amongst other things reveal that Andre Murray has been violated by the actions of Constable David Beck thereby denied his guaranteed protection under The Constitution Act, 1982 which contains the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms .

17.              Following this cross examination of Constable David Beck, increased his personal campaign of harassment against Andre Murray, harassing Andre Murray’s roommate, for that reason Constable David Beck did repeatedly question acquaintances and clients of Andre Murray, demanding that they tell Constable David Beck the whereabouts of Andre Murray. This is herein subject behaviour of Constable David Beck is harassment, apparently designed to get revenge on Andre Murray and manufacture more charges of Breach of Undertaking, if possible.

18.              It looks shamefully bad for FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, when a Police Officer, Namely Constable David Beck, (not a detective) unilaterally launches an investigation of Andre Murray, who has filed 2 complaints, against Constable David Beck, also Court Filed an ‘Originating Process’ in Civil Court thereby suing Constable David Beck .

19.              Cross examination of Constable David Beck under oath by Self Represented Litigant Andre Murray has revealed that FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE and THE CITY OF FREDERICTON have been unlawfully, issuing bylaw tickets, for as long as anyone in the New Brunswick ludiciary could remember. This revelation should open up a class action law suit against THE CITY OF FREDERICTON and FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE.

20.              Unless Constable David Beck has had dozens of complaints regarding his conduct, which would in itself be revealing, it is reasonable to believe Constable David Beck would be able to remember the name of complainant and Plaintiff Andre Murray. The Public will and or should see this situation, as Constable David Beck a Police Officer getting revenge on someone who complained about him. Constable David Beck is misusing and abusing the justice system for personal revenge.

21.              The only way the Court could shed itself of this apprehension of bias, is to strike all the evidence and anything manufactured by Constable David Beck’s, evidentially biased self-indulgent investigation, furthermore quash any documentation, reports or evidence provided by Constable Ali Yerxa and Constable Jeff Lingley which would leave little left, to convict the accused of any of the herein above mentioned allegations.

22.               The Charter is specific on the point that the Court is obligated to strike out evidence which was collected, in such a fashion as to bring the administration of Justice into disrepute. To preserve public confidence, in the administration of Justice, the appropriate action is to acquit the accused of the offence of Assault, Breach of Undertaking and application for an Undertaking.

24. (1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances. (2) Where, in proceedings under subsection (1), a court concludes that evidence was obtained in a manner that infringed or denied any rights or freedoms guaranteed by this Charter, the evidence shall be excluded if it is established that, having regard to all the circumstances, the admission of it in the proceedings would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

Direct Link to Constable David Beck's Service of Process then directly arrested Video:

Service of Process then directly arrested Video link

No Notice of Prosecution means no conviction on a Bylaw Ticket - see for yourself

September 21, 2012 - Bylaw T-4 Section 16, Notes read to Justice Mary Jane Richards






Provincial Offences Procedure Act, SNB 1987, c P-22.1 http://canlii.ca/t/51vgm

Ticket Procedure

11(1)A ticket shall be served by delivering it to the defendant personally.
11(2)The person who serves the ticket shall ask the defendant to sign a notice of prosecution corresponding to the ticket but, if the defendant fails or refuses to sign, the person serving the ticket shall so certify on the notice of prosecution and the lack of the defendant's signature shall not invalidate the notice of prosecution nor form the basis of an objection to it, to the ticket or to service of the ticket.
11(3)A notice of prosecution shall be in prescribed form and shall
(a)name the defendant, and
(b)so far as concerns the matters set out in paragraphs 10(1)(b) and (c), be in a form substantially similar to that prescribed for a ticket.
1991, c.29, s.4.

12(1)Unless payment of a fixed penalty is made in accordance with section 14 within the time stated in the ticket, the notice of prosecution shall be filed with a judge no later than the date stated in the ticket for the defendant's appearance.
12(2)Proceedings in respect of the offence charged in the ticket commence when the notice of prosecution is filed with the judge.

106(5)No curing of a defect under subsection (4) shall be permitted if
(a)the defect was such as to mislead the defendant,
(b)substantial injustice would be caused to the defendant by curing the defect, and
(c)the injustice that would be caused to the defendant by curing the defect cannot be overcome by the granting of an adjournment.

Provincial Court of N.B. File Number 9381805 THE CITY OF FREDERICTON v. Andre Murray

Read my Court files at:
http://pcnbfn9381805frederictonvandre...

Provincial Court: Hearing Procedure 101 - Basics

My understanding of the general hearing procedure, which is followed during a Provincial Court Hearing, is this:

1.             Preliminary matters are dealt with;

2.             The Moving party is first 'given' and or 'have' the floor, to be heard on or present arguments;

3.             The responding party will then have the opportunity to respond and or rebut to those arguments initially presented by the moving party, thereafter, further present any additional alternative arguments, they may have;

4.             The Moving party "In Closing" will now have the final  opportunity to respond to arguments, that were therebefore presented by the responding party;

I believe it is in my best interest when making presentations to the Court that I provide the Trial Judge, with a Pre-Trial Brief well in advance of the Hearing. That which therefore provides the Court with ample opportunity, to fit in their already busy schedule, the time to read over and digest the arguments and facts I wish to present to the Court. One must remember that Judges are people too, they have lives, other than being Judges, and likely have a full schedule; so the more opportunities which I provide them to review my filled material, the more likely they will have reviewed all the material before my scheduled hearing and the less explaining I will have to do in person.

I have heard the term "high points" often referred to, by Council and the Court alike, thereby, referring to the oral presentations, placed on the record as we are heard by the Court.

 My new understanding of a "Oral presentation" to the Court is to think of it as addressing an audience of one, focusing on delivering a presentation which is concise and succinct, " hitting the high points" and which delivers the power points on one's argument.

The Court prefers that I not read from a script, or even directly from my  notes, they would like me to look them in the eye and make a brief, concise, succinct, summation of my arguments.

The longer one’s presentation, the more likely the attention of the audience of one (Judge) is going to stray and one may miss their opportunity to convince the Judge of the merits of their cause.

At the scheduled hearing day, the Court has the opportunity to ask any questions, which the Court would like clarification on. If one has prepared sufficiently, then the written arguments by way of submissions and or pre trial Briefs, that the Court should have already read, would be completed by the oral presentation, which sums up the arguments and restates the high points of the arguments.

A Judge, ideally, is  supposed to objectively hear the argument and facts from the parties as they are presented by either party, then decide, after weighing the evidence, which of either side has presented  the most convincing evidence and argument.  To the winner goes the decision.

Each time I appear before the Court, I have the opportunity to improve my presentation and do a better job than the last time.  I have made many mistakes, thus far, but I am learning as I go and hopefully by writing down my experiences I can provide a viewpoint for others, to benefit from, which I was unable to find when I began navigating this path as a Self Represented Litigant.

Re-reading your submissions, at a scheduled hearing may not work in your favor. I prepare my written submissions to be sufficient to win my cause, then use the hearing opportunity to sum up my arguments, and provide the Court with an opportunity to question and or Clarify any uncertain points, this should be increasing ones chances, that the Judge will find in their favour.

Provincial Court of New Brunswick, Canada

Introduction: Provincial Courts
At the bottom of the Canadian Judicial hierarchy are the courts typically described as provincial courts. These courts are generally divided within each province into various divisions defined by the subject matter of their respective jurisdictions; hence, one usually finds a Traffic Division, a Small Claims Division, a Family Division called, a Criminal Division, and so on.

In the Province of New Brunswick, these courts divided into various divisions defined by the subject matter of their respective jurisdictions;

What may be called Criminal Division, in other provinces is called Provincial Court, in the Province of New Brunswick:  The Provincial Court is the entry point for all persons charged with offences under the Criminal Code or other federal or provincial legislation such as Provincial Offences Procedure Act, SNB 1987, c P-22.1,

What may be called Traffic Division in other provinces is called Provincial Court, in the Province of New Brunswick: Provincial Court deals with all Municipal Bylaw matters as well as other ticketing procedures.  

In the Province of New Brunswick: The Provincial Court has jurisdiction to try almost all indictable offences involving adult accused (murder being the main exception), all offences involving youths under the Youth Criminal Justice Act (ages 12 to 18), and all summary conviction offences for both adults and youths. Even in indictable matters where the accused person has an election or choice to be tried in the Court of Queen's Bench by a judge sitting with or without a jury, the Provincial Court may first be required to hold a preliminary inquiry.

In the Province of New Brunswick: Provincial Court judges also receive Informations (the documents which contain charges), issue Search Warrants, Summonses, and Subpoenas, Warrants of Arrest, and conduct Bail Hearings of accused persons who appear before the Court in custody, in addition to conducting regular Court sittings on a daily basis. 

In the Province of New Brunswick: Provincial Court judges also hold weekend “Remand Court” to allow persons who have been arrested by the police to be brought before a judge within 24 hours. 

In the Province of New Brunswick: Provincial Court judges are designated as Youth Criminal Court Judges for the purpose of dealing with young persons between the ages of 12 and 18 years who are charged with offences. 

The Provincial Court also has a Mental Health Court in the City of Saint John. The Mental Health Court in Saint John began as a pilot project under the direction of Judge Alfred Brien.  The model created by Judge Brien and the Mental Health Court Team was adopted as a permanent program of the Saint John Provincial Court on November 14, 2003. The Saint John Mental Health Court is a fine example of the success that can be achieved when the judiciary and various public and private agencies come together to address an issue that pervades much of society and unfortunately finds its way into the “mainstream of courts all too often”. This innovative approach has developed an effective means of dealing with individuals who come into conflict with the law as a result of a mental illness or intellectual disability.

Provincial ("inferior") Courts

The Provincial Courts in Canada are local trial "inferior" or "lower" courts of limited jurisdiction established in each of the provinces and territories of Canada.


These courts typically hear criminal, civil or “small claims”, family, traffic, and bylaw cases. Unlike the superior courts of Canada, the jurisdiction of the Provincial Courts is limited to those matters which are permitted by statute. . These courts are created by provincial statute and only have the jurisdiction granted by statute. They have no inherent jurisdiction.


Appeals of Provincial Court decisions are usually heard by the superior court of the province, in New Brunswick this is Court of Queen's Bench of New Brunswick Trial Division. These courts typically evolved from older magistrate, municipal, or local courts. Many of these former courts were as likely to have lay magistrates or justices of the peace presiding as they were to have a judge who had formal legal training, in New Brunswick the Province phased out the position of Justice of the Peace, now we only have Justices.

Statutory courts

The Supreme Court of Canada, the federal courts, the various appellate courts from the provinces and territories, and the numerous low-level provincial courts are statutory courts whose decision-making power is granted by either the federal parliament or a provincial legislature.


The word "statutory" refers to the fact that these courts' powers are derived from a statute and is defined and limited by the terms of the statute. A statutory court cannot try cases in areas of law that are not mentioned or suggested in the statute. In this sense, statutory courts are similar to non-judicial adjudicative bodies such as administrative tribunals, boards, and commissions, which are created and given limited power by legislation. The practical implication of this is that a statutory court cannot provide a type of legal remedy or relief that is not expressly or implicitly referred to in its enabling or empowering statute.

Jurisdiction of the Courts

In Wind Power Inc. v. Saskatchewan Power Corp., 1998 CanLII 14061 (SK QB) Justice GEATROS J. stated the following at paragraph 12:

[12]     I have a further observation in the matter of inherent jurisdiction.  This is a Superior Court having a specific characteristic that is stated by Furlong C.J. in Bursey v. Bursey (1966), 58 D.L.R. (2d) 451 (Nfld. S.C.) to be as follows, at p. 455:

  That characteristic is the manner in which plenary powers of a superior Court
may be cut down or limited.  The matter was considered just 300 years ago in
Peacock v. Bell and Kendal (1667), 1 Wms. Saund. 73 at p. 74, 85 E.R. 84, when, as it is reported, it was held:

     And the rule for jurisdiction is, that nothing shall be intended to be
     out of the jurisdiction of a Superior Court, but that which specially
     appears to be so; and on the contrary, nothing shall be intended
     to be within the jurisdiction of an Inferior Court but that which is
     expressly so alleged.

It would appear that this dictum has remained undisturbed by time as I find it
is repeated in substantially the same words in 9 Hals., 3rd ed., p. 349, as
follows:

      Prima facie, no matter is deemed to be beyond the jurisdiction of a
     superior court unless it is expressly shown to be so, while nothing is
     within the jurisdiction of an inferior court unless it is expressly
     shown on the face of the proceedings that the particular matter is within
     the cognisance of the particular court.

It is important to note nothing is within the jurisdiction of an inferior court unless it is expressly shown on the face of the proceedings (and expressly stated in the Courts founding statute) that the particular matter is within the cognisance of the particular court.

The decisions of this Court in Attorney General of Canada v. Law Society of British Columbia, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 307, Canada Labour Relations Board v. Paul L'Anglais Inc., supra, and Northern Telecom Canada Ltd. v. Communication Workers of Canada, supra, have approved the exercise of constitutional decision-making by tribunals in the exercise of their mandate but only when expressly permitted.

    It is inherent in system such as that established under the Constitution Act, that the courts will be the authority in the community to control the limits of the respective sovereignties of the two plenary governments, as well as to police agencies within each of these spheres to ensure their operations remain within their statutory boundaries.  Both duties of course fall upon the courts when acting within their own proper jurisdiction.  The superior courts of have general jurisdiction in the provinces, but the same principles apply to courts of subordinate jurisdiction when they are acting within their limited jurisdiction as described by their constituting statute.  Such courts must, in the application of the laws of the land whether they be federal or provincial statutes, determine, where the issue arises, the constitutional integrity of the measure in question.  Such a court of limited jurisdiction must, of course, be responding to a cause properly before it under its statute.

The point I wish to make is, if Jurisdiction has not been established upon which the honourable Court may hear the matters, further since the Honorable Court must reasonably must reasonably be operating upon it’s oath of office further since the supreme Court of Canada has rules that no judge may act outside his jurisdiction, and since I am not granting jurisdiction nor consenting to jurisdiction I say for this court to establish it’s own jurisdiction will only cause it self to be liable under commercial liability.

My understanding is when a Court acts outside its jurisdiction it opens itself up to personal and commercial liability, a position normally protected against, by “The principle of judicial immunity”, which usually ensures that a judge can make decisions without the threat of prosecution for acts done or words spoken in the course of his judicial functions. That is unless the Court steps outside his jurisdiction.

Lower Courts are the most susceptible to stepping outside there Jurisdiction, it is worth repeating that nothing is within the jurisdiction of an inferior court unless it is expressly shown on the face of the proceedings (and expressly stated in the Courts founding statute) that the particular matter is within the cognisance of the particular court.

The lower Court must stay within its jurisdiction or be held liable for those actions, both personally and commercially.

                                                         

 For further infomation please read:

  Canada's Judicial System: Explained

 

 

I demand Proof of Claim that I must perform

I demand 'PROOF of CLAIM' that I must perform.

1.         I André Murray verily believe that no agent for  have  provided proof of claim that the alleged claims apply to the myself André Murray, nor that myself André Murray am obligated to accept the benefits offered.

2.         I André Murray verily believe THE CITY OF FREDERICTON has failed to provide proof of claim to myself, therefore there is no dispute between the parties, simply put, an offer was made and an offer was in good faith conditionally accepted, there the matter stands.

3.         I André Murray verily believe, since THE CITY OF FREDERICTON has failed to substantiate their claims against the André Murray through negotiation and discussion, further, there since it is a fact there lacks an injured party, THE CITY OF FREDERICTON has no locus standi in this matter before the Court.

4.         I André Murray verily believe, that jurisprudence has established, that a Provincial Court has no jurisdiction unless jurisdiction can be proven to exist, as opposed to a superior Court, where jurisprudence has established that jurisdiction is assumed to exist unless the contrary is shown.

5.         The Provincial Court of New Brunswick is a court of special, limited, or statutory jurisdiction, whose record must show the existence of jurisdiction in any given case to give its ruling presumptive validity.

6.         I André Murray verily believe, that if there is not dispute between Parties, the Court lacks a lis inter partes to judge, therefore the Court has no jurisdiction to act.

7.         I Andre Murray am an adult man;

8.         I Andre Murray claim common law jurisdiction;

9.         I Andre Murray do not consent and I waive all the benefits;

10.       I Andre Murray do not consent to the Court making any legal determinations against me;

11.       I Andre Murray do not consent to represent the person known as the defendant, be associated by joinder, or accept liabilities for same;

12.       I Andre Murray do not consent the Court’s jurisdictional claims against me;

13.       I Andre Murray do not consent to the Court contracting with the me;

14.       I Andre Murray do not and did not consent to the Courts Jurisdiction;

15.       I Andre Murray do not and did not consent to abide by The City of Fredericton Bylaws;

16.       I Andre Murray do not and did not consent to attorn to the jurisdiction of any Court;

17.       I Andre Murray do not and did not consent to any Court hearing  bylaw  matters any further than considering the jurisdictional issues herein presented;

Conclusion

I André Murray verily believe The Provincial Court of New Brunswick lacks:

•           personal jurisdiction of the Court over the Defendant;

•           Subject matter Jurisdiction and;

•           jurisdiction over the particular case.