My letter to my elected representative

[NiteshadeTA]

Ok. Before we go into anything, Let us NOT have any discussion about the content of my letter or how I should have worded it. It has been written, and sent, so there is no point in discussing it.

My letter to Andrea Horwath:

-----------Sent November 7th, 2007----------

Hello Andrea,

I am pleased to see my vote went to good use, and helped put you into office.

I write you in regards to the new additions to the Highway Traffic Act.

First and foremost, I agree that street racing, stunting and the like are problems that need to be addressed. I do not however agree with what has been done by the provincial government by allowing this act to be amended so it violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

That's right, the Charter of Rights and Freedom's is violated every single time a person's vehicle is impounded under these new street racing and stunting amendments.

How?
Simple.
Here is a link to the charter: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/

8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

How do we determine if this is an unreasonable search or seizure? Well in drunk driving cases a scientific process is used to determine the guilt, then the seizure of the vehicle. A breathalyzer is given. In others, damage to property or person etc. is the deciding factor.

In the new street racing laws, a police officer's OPINION is the deciding factor. This is a person that (contrary to popular belief) is not perfect. They do indeed do bad things. They do indeed lie for personal gain etc. Police are human and do make mistakes, and are often charged for criminal offences. This is a person who may or may not even have a college education. They are human, not machines.

If a police officer were to take away your house, without a judge, or Justice of the Peace authorizing it, would it be legal? Fair? Just? Certainly not as a police officer should never be given this power or discretion. What makes your $30,000 automobile any different?

But losing your vehicle isn't the be-all and end-all of it. The owner of the vehicle (whether or not they were driving it or not) will have to pay towing, and impound charges, for which these are usually grossly inflated by the towing companies. So there is financial damages to it too.

I've made my point. So, a police officer is NOT qualified to make this decision and to be that deciding factor. A Judge or Justice of the Peace however, is qualified.

Secondly,

11. Any person charged with an offence has the right
d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal;

Are you presumed innocent with these new laws?
No. There is no other answer. Your vehicle is seized, and your licensed suspended without a trial. You are very much indeed considered guilty, and you are in fact penalized before your trial.
Again, let us reference to other cases. In nearly all offences, you are entitled to a trial, and then you are given a punishment. But these new provisions do not allow you a trial, instead you are penalized before your trial. As though you were guilty.

Perhaps some lyrics for you. You will recognize the song. They used to sing this in school once.

God keep our land glorious and free!
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.

What happened to a glorious and free Canada? Certainly doesn't seem free any longer. Seems like the average police officer is a roadside judge.

Make this right Andrea.

Make things good again.

Best,
(my name and addy)
----------------------------

Nites

[NiteshadeTA]

Having not received a reply from her, I sent this:

------------Sent November 15th, 2007----------

Hi there Andrea,

I have yet to receive a response with regards to my email below, and I am wondering if I can expect one in the near future?

Thanks,

(my name and address)

[NiteshadeTA]

Their Reply:

------Received November 16th, 2007-------------
Dear Mr. (my name) I regret the delay of our response to your email below. MPP Horwath has asked me to respond on her behalf. She believes your concern regarding the legality of the recent changes to the Highway Traffic Act specific to street-racing would be best clarified and responded to by the Attorney General of Ontario. I have therefore copied the Honourable Attorney General and request that your questions concerning the legality of these changes with regard to our Constitution and Charter be answered. Sincerely, Terry Frisken, Constituency Assistant

[NiteshadeTA]

My response:


-------------Sent November 19, 2007------

Hi there Terry,

Should I remind you that as you my elected representative, your office should be conducting this inquiry on my behalf?

Or perhaps my vote was misplaced...
(my name and address)

[NiteshadeTA]

Discuss.

Nites

[Rob MacLennan]

Not quite written with the slant that I would have used, but well and clearly written. You are correct that your MPP should act as your agent in such matters; it is her duty to present the concerns of her constituents, as the Province's jurisdiction impacts them. Why else have such a representative?

In a recent instance, in which I emailed the Minister of Transportation, she passed my letter on to three other people whose bailiwick included the specified areas. A MINISTER can do so, but it is beneath a simple MPP? Ridiculous.

[AdRath]

I couldn't believe how many conversations I had with Staffers of Different MPPs that didn't even know any of the privisions of Bill 203. I honestly don't think many if any of the MPPs actually read on what they are voting or trying to pass. They must just get a highley edited coles notes from the party leader of what they need to know based on the party interest not their constriuents. I personally would like an easier way to remove MPs and MPPs in office that aren't serving their riding than once every 4 years.

[NiteshadeTA]

Their response today to my email:

Dear Mr. (my name),
In Terry's absence, I would like to assure you that Andrea Horwath and her staff are involved in this issue. In fairness,MPP Horwath wants to give the governing minister an opportunity to consider the issue and respond before she contemplates further action. We await a reply from these initial enquiries.
Sincerely,
Betty Lambeck
Constituency Assistant

[Brian P]

I wonder how many letters they've been getting like that ...

[NiteshadeTA]

Who knows, but I am going to ride this all the way.

Nites

[spankayf]

Good for you .... much better letter than mine

[NiteshadeTA]

Having not received a response I sent this today:

It has been one day shy of three weeks since your reply on November 19th, 2007.
It has been one day shy of a month since my initial email on November 7th 2007.

I am still wondering why my provincial government feels it acceptable to violate my rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedom's.

Nites

[djltoronto]

Indeed... keep up the good work.

[TorontoRider]

This is the sort of respectful, patient and persistent follow up that we need about this law. If representatives got thousands of these, they would be obliged to take strong action. I'm using the very good letter text to my own representative to keep the ball rolling - thanks for this post.

[l33t Rider]

Who knows, but I am going to ride this all the way.

Nites

Yes! Ride it like you would ride a two wheeled vehicle that you had just stolen!

In regards to this Bill... my friend is a lawyer who happens to be representing a client who was nailed by this. Even he is confused as to how to approach it as the Bill is full of holes. His case is one of the many "first" cases to test this Bill in a court of law. He believes that the charges aren't likely to stick due to the holes, but his main concern was how he was going to get back the money in tow charges and impound fees and such. He says there is no process to return money that was improperly fined.

Guilty or innocent, either way, having to go through this mess is painful enough.

[Fingolfin]

My response:


-------------Sent November 19, 2007------

Hi there Terry,

Should I remind you that as you my elected representative, your office should be conducting this inquiry on my behalf?

Or perhaps my vote was misplaced...
(my name and address)

good response... i like i like

[Brian P]

Yes! Ride it like you would ride a two wheeled vehicle that you had just stolen!

In regards to this Bill... my friend is a lawyer who happens to be representing a client who was nailed by this. Even he is confused as to how to approach it as the Bill is full of holes. His case is one of the many "first" cases to test this Bill in a court of law. He believes that the charges aren't likely to stick due to the holes, but his main concern was how he was going to get back the money in tow charges and impound fees and such. He says there is no process to return money that was improperly fined.

Guilty or innocent, either way, having to go through this mess is painful enough.

It is possible to file civil suits against individual police officers if "negligence" or "malicious prosecution" can be shown. If the officer followed department protocol to the letter, but department protocol was itself promoting "negligence" or "malicious prosecution", then things could get a whole lot more interesting.

Without naming specifics, in certain other professions, if there is a complaint against oneself of being "negligent", it is difficult to defend against it because another party can almost always find some other expert in the field who has an opinion different from that of the defendent and more stringent. "Should have done this", "should have foreseen that", etc., which are all fine in 100% hindsight. I have a funny feeling that some savvy lawyers may have a field day with this one, as far as some of the vehicle seizures on more sketchy or indirect evidence are concerned.

There is also the whole constitutional aspect of this thing, but it's not simple. It seems that the Crown doing things to you which cause you to incur unavoidable costs that they deem to be "expenses" (towing, impound) but the money doesn't go to the Crown itself, doesn't carry the same constitutional weight as a "fine", which is money directly to the Crown. There is a constitutional prohibition against "unlawful" search and seizure, but what is "unlawful" when the law defines when seizure is to occur ... but what happens if one is later found not guilty in court, then does that mean the seizure was "unlawful" because the alleged offence never occurred? Can of worms.

The people charged with this need to band together to fight this thing, and they need to pay a GOOD constitutional lawyer to do it. I'm afraid that ANY changes are going to be a long time coming, and we are probably going to be stuck with some aspects of it for good.

Years back, the courts should never have allowed the concept of "administrative" seizures or suspensions of ANYthing for ANY reason. I realize that for drunk drivers (where the proof of being drunk is based on a SCIENTIFIC test, not the "opinion" of a single police officer) perhaps this is warranted, but it should have gone NO further. Unfortunately, that was the thin edge of the wedge, which has now been pushed in much further.

P.S. My own opinion is that any person at-fault in a collision where someone is killed should get a mandatory $10,000 fine, and any person is at-fault in a collision where someone else is injured should get the $2,000 fine, license suspended until paid in full in either case, and THAT'S IT. No fussing about whether someone was "street racing" or "stunting". Doesn't matter if the collision was because of that, or because of yapping on the cell phone. You crash - you hurt someone - you pay. DONE. You're responsible enough to NOT CRASH - No problem.

[NiteshadeTA]

I have to agree with Brian's post pretty thoroughly - save for the bit about the hurt people, at fault, you pay bit. Honestly accidents do happen.... But this isnt the thread for this topic, so let's keep it about letters to mpp's for passing this bill.

Remember gang. Our elected members voted this puppy in. It's time they answer the tough question for the vote they made. As yo ucan tell they are trying to pass the buck so they don't have to - but keep riding them. Someone has to fess up and say they screwed up. Put them on the spot and hold them accountable.

Brad

[Angus Argyle]

NiteshadeTA,

Can I get your permission to plagiarize your letters to send to my own representative??? You know, on the shoulders of giants and such.

Thanks,

Angus....

[NiteshadeTA]

Knock your socks off. Just don't use my name or address, and go for it.

I also don't accept any liability whatsoever for your usage of it, or any trouble you get yourself into
Nites