MACKENZIE

NOTE: All that Rodney (lawyer) Mackenzie had to do, was show the three appeal justices that I had the Lawful Authority to utilize the complaints process against Calgary police Detectives.

HISTORY: On the 29th November 2013, I was sentenced by Madam Justice Erb to thirty months incarceration in Drumheller Federal prison. Twenty four months of that was for what Madam Justice Erb decided, was Criminal Harassment of senior Detective, Reid Mercer of the Calgary Police Service. All because I’d appealed a decision by the Professional Standards Section (PSS) regarding that Detective, to the Calgary Police Commission (CPC), and then I’d appealed the CPC decision to the Law Enforcement Review Board of Alberta (LERB).

LET’S BE VERY CLEAR: The judicial process just described, filing a valid complaint with PSS then making a valid appeal to the CPC, then appealing that decision to the LERB, is a lawful process that’s open to all Albertans.

HOWEVER: Madam Justice Erb decided that my use of that process was un-lawful. That there was no merit to my complaints to the PSS or any of my appeals to the CPC and LERB thereafter. That I was just using that process to Criminally Harass senior Detective Reid Mercer.

ALIAS SANDERS: A very highly respected Calgary Appeals lawyer reviewed my conviction and sentencing, then gave an opinion to Legal Aid, that an appeal of my convictions had merit. Sanders is regarded as “the most skilled appeals lawyer of her generation”. This by senior criminal lawyers. She has argued over 200 appeal cases, and has an undefeated record at the Supreme Court of Canada.

UNFORTUNATELY for me. Legal Aid assigned my file to Rodney MacKenzie who turned out to be a scam artist, whose only interest in the file was to milk as much money as he could out of Legal Aid. See page titled CO20180961.

ALBERTA COURT OF APPEAL: On the 9th Day of June Rodney MacKenzie appeared before the 3 justices at the appeal court of Alberta. On the 15th Day of June 2015, in a written decision, Justices O’Ferrall, Veldhuis and Eidsvik made this finding as it relates to Criminal Harassment and judicial and quasi-judicial processes.

{8} Criminal harassment consists of engaging in conduct “without lawful authority” which causes others to fear for their safety: Section 264(1) OF THE Criminal Code, RSC, 1985, c C-46. There is no “lawful authority” for abuses of judicial or quasi-judicial processes.

LAWFUL AUTHORITY: HERE IS WHERE THE RUBBBER HITS THE ROAD.

1. If I am telling the truth, then I had lawful authority.
2. If the police and crown lied, then they had no lawful authority to charge me.

ALL MACKENZIE HAD TO SHOW, WAS THAT I HAD LAWFUL AUTHORITY:

HERE’S WHERE THE RUBBER REALLY HITS THE ROAD:

3. If the police knowingly filed bogus charges, then they knowingly abused the judicial process. Ergo they are guilty of Criminal Harassment themselves, and subject to the same sentences they illegally imposed on me.

TELLING PORKY PIES: Is Cockney Rhyme slang for telling Lies.

NOW YOU KNOW WHY: The cops, the crown and the LSA have been telling lots of porky pies. Those Porky Pies are being spread without any regard as to their truth. Because, telling and re-telling them is the last resort that these corrupt and very crooked Individuals and Agencies have got left, in their waning attempts to deflect any kind of investigation into their corrupt, crooked and criminal wrongdoings.

THE TRUTH: Right now I have eleven published websites, and those websites clearly spell out the who, where, why, what, when and how the crooked Cops and their cohorts abuse and control the Justice system, for their own benefits.

THE TRUTH: The websites show quite clearly who is lying and who is telling the truth. I have the documents to prove they’re lying, and they know that.

THE TRUTH: None of the individuals/organizations named and shamed on my websites, have provided any evidence to disprove what I’ve published. I’ve also yet to receive any cease/desist letters, or Applications to have my sites taken down.

THE DOWNSIDE FOR THEM: To file an Application to the Courts would require them to file Affidavits in Support. Meaning that they would have to swear under oath, that the contents of their Affidavits are true. Meaning that, they would then be, opening themselves up to be cross-examined on their Affidavits. So them, filing Affidavits with the Courts, not such a great idea.

MORE TO FOLLOW: