Charter Submission

Docket No: 060841749-P-1 CAT Appeal LVC AA261961 IN THE COURT OF QUEEN’S BENCH OF ALBERTA JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF EDMONTON BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent - and – KEVIN BRADLEY GERMAN Applicant

NOTICE OF INFRINGEMENT OF CHARTER RIGHTS TAKE NOTICE that the trial which is scheduled to proceed on Docket #060841749-P1 in Provincial Court for 18 December 2006 [or, alternately, Court of Queen’s Bench], the Applicant may be alleging the following Charter rights have been infringed or denied: Charter s. 1 Issues: 1. Rights only subject to such limits as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society, as the Applicant was barred free access to the press (specifically, Ms Simons of the Edmonton Journal) and Freedom of Association for individuals in the Applicant’s discrete social circles. Charter s. 2 Issues: 2. The following fundamental freedoms: a) freedom of conscience and religion as FACS' co-Defendant Dr. Singh was allegedly waiting for the Plaintiff to abandon his religious beliefs (and Duty of Trust and Care to his son, Bernard Joshua German) before AHE would release the patient as "fit to plead" (which could have left the accused innocent, mentally fit, yet arbitrarily detained as "a Prisoner of Faith" for an indeterminate period); b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication as the Plaintiff was charged for "uttering threats" (*8) which were clearly scapegoat charges to mask the co-Defendants'

-2negligence concerns, when matched with the "freedom of expression" in the use of a creative interface for the FACSWeb CD-ROM as the "media of communication" of choice; c) freedom of association in being subject to "House Arrest" and barred access to members in the Applicant's discrete social circles via alternate modes of communication. Charter s. 6.2(b) Issues: 3. The right to pursue the gaining of a livelihood, as: a. the Respondent was attempting to prepare an appeal for the mishandled trial (so as to regain fair employment) and was breached for unintentionally making indirect contact with the co-Defendants in QB Action 0503-19251 (thus standing accused, knowingly, of an alleged offence committed without the element of “mens rea” on the part of the Applicant, which is obviously unreasonable and neither “fair” or “just”); b. the Applicant was subsequently libelled by a Federal Official (namely, Cst Poirier of the St. Albert RCMP) and falsely assessed as “off medications” in clear violation of warnings of pending litigation on-file for FACS File #25909 pre-trial; c. The Respondent was then directed to “take any as directed by FACS” at which point: i. Non-compliance would leave the Respondent in violation of the Court’s direction and therefore leads to professional destruction on the Criminal Code issues; yet ii. Compliance leaves the Respondent in a position where "a history of psychiatric care” also leads to professional destruction on the Aeronautics Act issues. Charter s. 7 Issues: 4. The right to life, liberty and the security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof, except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice, which would demand a properly disclosed defence prepared (by FACS) on the weight of evidence of all materials available to the Courts pre-trial. Charter s. 9 Issues: 5. The right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned, as the Respondent was imprisoned on hearsay testimony once, on an arbitrary decision of the St. Albert School Board once, and on an arbitrary and libellous assertion of FACS that prepared court materials were “vaguely threatening” when this assertion would obviously not stand in a Court of Law. Charter s. 10(b) Issues:

-36. The right to retain and instruct counsel, as the Respondent is clearly on the record from 17 Dec ’01 that discussion of the medical issue “cannot be allowed to happen, at all, period” and this direction was knowingly breached at numerous points. Charter s. 11(d) Issues: 7. The right to be assumed innocent until proven guilty in a fair and public hearing, for the “assault” charge itself, the Morinville hearing which followed, the handling of the libellous “threats” charges which are referenced in the transcript for the Emergency Protection Order but not yet proven, Prof. Bland’s (contested) “review” of March 2004, the Emergency Protection Order Hearing which has led to this Charter s. 13 Challenge (where Judge Goss relied on conflicting and contradictory testimony and the existence of what the co-Defendants asserted as “stuff in the mailbox”), and finally, the Civil Aviation Tribunal appeal currently underway which would be unfairly prejudiced by further imposition of judicial will without full and fair disclose intended to protect the interests of the accused. Charter s. 12 Issues: 8. The right not to be subject to cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, as the Respondent is prepared of offer to the Courts a “Human Rights Abuses Empowerment Flowchart” anchored in the events of para. 2; the very existence of which is legally unsupportable on Canadian soil (or anywhere else on the globe). Charter s. 15 Issues: 9. The right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law for the Applicant and the applicant’s child Bernard Joshua Garman as a victim of an abusive dynamic that was knowingly enabled and condoned by co-Defendant Dr. Woods via breaches of confidence and libellous assertions at the direct cost the Applicant’s – and the applicants’ children’s’ – direct and indirect interests. Charter s. 6(b) Issues: 10. The right to pursue the gaining of a livelihood (on the attempt to distribute malpractice disclosure on the contested "diagnosis" in the form of a multi-media CDROM called "FACSWeb III; The Return of the Jaded"), when subsequently again libeled by Federal Official (namely, co-Defendant Ms Barr as a representative of the Cadet Instructor Cadre and Capital Heath Authority) as having distributed inappropriate photographs of the co-Defendant with the disclosure; thus unfairly discrediting the credibility of the Plaintiff. Charter s. 24 Issues: 11. Additionally, the defence will be seeking a remedy pursuant to s. 24 (1) and s.24 (2) of the Charter as ongoing litigation (QB Action 0503-19251) and full review of the

-4facts of the case from 17 December 2001 to-date under the attention of the Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada with the Applicant acting as “Expert Witness” and “Case Presentation Officer”, speaking for Transport Canada’s specific concerns as regards the privileges previously held (but intermediately suspended under the attention of Crown Representatives since the events of 18 Dec ’01 to-date) under License Validation Certificate AA261961. DATED at the City of Edmonton, in the Province of Alberta, this 25th day of July, A.D. 2006. Kevin Bradley German Plaintiff, QB Action 0503-19251 TO: AND TO:

Clerk of the Court Agent of the Attorney General of Alberta

-5Docket No:

060841749-P-1 CAT Appeal LVC AA261961

IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF ALBERTA JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF EDMONTON BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent, - and – KEVIN BRADLEY GERMAN Applicant.

NOTICE OF INFRINGEMENT OF CHARTER RIGHTS

KEVIN BRADLEY GERMAN CPO - AA261961 Appeal 10116 105 Ave Edmonton, Alberta T5H 0K2 Telephone (780) 439 0235 Fax (780) 439 0235 Applicant (Plaintiff, QB Action 0503-19251)