136.(1)Subject to subsections (2) and (3), no person shall, (a) take or attempt to take a photograph, motion picture, audio recording or other record capable of producing visual or aural representations by electronic means or otherwise, (i) at a court hearing, (ii) of any person entering or leaving the room in which a court hearing is to be or has been convened, or (iii) of any person in the building in which a court hearing is to be or has been convened where there is reasonable ground for believing that the person is there for the purpose of attending or leaving the hearing; (b) publish, broadcast, reproduce or otherwise disseminate a photograph, motion picture, audio recording or record taken in contravention of clause (a); or (c) broadcast or reproduce an audio recording made as described in clause (2) (b). R.S.O

..HOWEVER, there is no definition given for PERSON in this Act; so i assume the one from the Legislation Act 2006 applies: �person� includes a corporation; http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_06l21_e.htm#BK104

UNLAWFULLY TAKE? They're saying he STOLE something?

Wow! i kinda like that one a whole bunch!

Still waiting on the name of the INJURED PARTY!

I was nice last time ...this time im going in with attitude!

So... Just so I have this straight... You allegedly TOOK something with a "device". Somehow this INJURES someone because it's "UNLAWFUL"... I really think it's time to kill the lot of them and hope their rplacements at least TRY to make sense

and apparently i failed to appear at the same time...lets not forget that little detail!

Appear? Had you previously VANISHED?

read in court as "fail to properly identify"

The warrant reads "fail to appear"

Explain that you have no idea what constitutes "appear"! :D

I fail to except bullshit!

O'Neil Brooke You guys get it but are willfully ignorant. They are operating in statute law where injury is not required.

Dennis FrmAccounts Your in a private setting, is why your being slapped with a statute & a charge, a reading of the transcript might possibly show your inaudible means your not being heard... or talking to the hand,.Study civil procedure or get an attorney to re-present you.

Accept...not except. I get you Dean, but using correct wording HERE AND NOW will save you alot of fuckery later, esp if youre gonna dance with judges about definitions. Start with making sure you write precisely what you mean bro. Who is the "person"? Where is the harmed party? How did you fail to "appear"...not with just what Scott said...if you were "there"? At worst you failed to identify yourself...in a way they wanted. I cant find the code for that one. I mean, do people have to produce I.d. at court? And yeah....what did you "take" physically? Who sis you deprive of what? Ia a court a private place or a public one of the People? Did you infringe someones copyright? And id tell them to fuck off with their disclosure..."accept" nothing!

I still cant get past they used the term 'UNLAWFULLY,' as opposed to what i would've expected them to use, 'ILLEGALY.' UNLAWFULLY implies to me that they are acting under common LAW, yet, they cite a LEGAL Act-and-statute. There's a MAXIM-of-LAW somewhere in the back of Black's 9th that effectively says: "Those who contradict themselves must NOT be heard." Even the Sergeant in 'TV Man and Police' knows: "Lawful is common law, and Legal are acts-and-statutes."

They are simply making shit up now.

ACT! acts and statutes are not law. show me the law that specifies they are, and onfact why then so otherwise titled.

yah, what scott said.

� Statutum affirmativum non derogat communi legi. An affirmative statute does NOT take away from the common law. � Quae legi communi derogant stricte interpretantur. Things that derogate (or detract) from the common law are construed STRICTLY. � Quaelibet jurisdictio cancellos suos habet. Every jurisdiction has its BOUNDARIES

"UNLAWFULLY TAKE? They're saying he STOLE something?"..... it would seem that Dean has had a False Claim made against him. If he has to go to court over this i think it would be under False Pretences.

CROWN CHARGES, Dictionary of Canadian Law 4th-edition: all charges, fees, assessment levies and dues in respect of Crown timber, costs, expenses and penalties imposed under this Act or the regulations or payable to the Crown by VIRTUE OF ANY CONTRACT. Uhhh...where's the contract you made that said you AGREED not to audio-tape your court-appearance??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84TM19NZYlw

to take, to copy, are contradictory terms.

"The warrant reads "fail to appear"".... how could you have recorded anything if you werent THERE? :/