The following are contents & references to evidences & exhibit evidences between pages 310 to 326 of Senior Co-Applicant, Ural
Direk’s & Junior Co-Applicant, Kemal Direkoglu’s 34093
file-numbered S.C.C.
“AFFIDAVIT OF URAL DIREK & KEMAL DIREKOGLU – Affirmed March 9th, 2012”:
[1ST NOTE: Certain areas more relevant to the May 2004 Police-Shooting Assassination-Attempt upon Ertug Direkoglu have been bolded & underlined!]
[2ND NOTE: The below-quoted contents are not in their exact positions!]
"
45. According to Mr. Jurjans’ above-quoted statement (just a little further above)
indicating that
Dr. McGoey required an up-front payment of $2,000 if he were to attend
at Trial, it is
deemed that, based on Mr. Jurjans’ above-quoted statement, Dr. McGoey
sought/requested
abovementioned $2,000, also because Dr. McGoey & Dr. West were
aware of the following:
-The Co-Plaintiff, Ural Direk’s former Lawyer, Mr. Jack M.
Futerman of the Defendant Lawfirm, “Futerman and Futerman, Barristers and
Solicitors”, the Defendant Lawfirm, “Futerman and Futerman, Barristers and
Solicitors”, the Defence Lawyer, Mr. John P. Hawker of the Lawfirm, Lipman
Zener Waxman LLP, Lipman Zener Waxman LLP, the Co-Plaintiffs’ Lawyer (at the
time), Mr. George Larry Argiris, of the Defendant Lawfirm, “Argiris and
Associates, Barristers, Solicitors, Notaries”, the Co-Plaintiff’s (at the time)
Lawyer, the Defendant, Martin Jurjans, The Hon. Mr. Justice William P.
Somers (“Somers J.”), the Defence Specialist Doctor, Dr. Fred Langer, the
Defence Specialist Doctor, Dr. Alfred Margulies, & their Co-Conspirators
conspired, under Subsection 465.(1) of the Criminal
Code of Canada, to
,
have conducted against the Co-Plaintiff, Ural Direk, Ural Direk’s three (3)
infant
children,
& Ural Direk’s Family a conspiratorially, under Subsection 465.(1) of the
Criminal Code of Canada, prearranged
set-Civil-Trial before Somers J. & Jury, such
that
the Conspirators would further severely & oppressively deprive the
Co-Plaintiff,
Ural
Direk’s & his Family’s Section 12 charter
right not to be subjected to any cruel or
unusual
treatment, also by providing to Co-Plaintiff, Ural Direk, & his Family
nothing
from
Ural Direk’s & his Family’s entitled-compensation (Ural Direk did not even receive one
[1] cent). Furthermore, Ural Direk & his Family
to-date did not even receive monetary
compensation in
their over 23 year-long Legal-Battle/Legal-Matter.
[NOTE: The Conspirators also conspiratorially, under
Subsection 465.(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada, did not add the
Co-Plaintiff, Ural Direk’s wife, Ismet Direkoglu, & three (3) infant
children claimants under the Family Law
Act (“F.L.A.”) and the Conspirators tore apart & destroyed the
Co-Plaintiff, Ural Direk’s Family. After
the Conspirators tore apart, tortured, & destroyed the Co-Plaintiff, Ural
Direk’s Family, they crucified the Co-Plaintiff, Ural Direk, & his Family,
crucifying of which inter alia included
the Ontarian Police conspiratorially shooting for dead the herein Co-Applicant,
Ertug Direkoglu (Eldest Co-Applicant Son
of the Co-Plaintiff/Co-Applicant, Ural Direk). Also
with respect to abovementioned Police Shooting, contents in different Newspaper
Articles are inconsistent with one another and one of the aforementioned
Newspaper Articles also contains a conspiratorially, under Subsection 465.(1)
of the Criminal Code of Canada,
fraudulent allegation that the Co-Applicant Son, Ertug Direkoglu, hit the
Police Officer with the Car before being shot by such aforementioned Officer
despite the fact that the truth was that the Police Officer went/jumped infront
of the Vehicle driven by Ertug Direkoglu & Co-Applicant Son, Ertug
Direkoglu, was thereafter shot twice (2 times) for dead by the Police Officer
before Ertug Direkoglu’s Car spun out of control & before the Police
Officer was hit by the vehicle that he deliberately went/jumped infront of in
order to shoot the Co-Applicant, Ertug Direkoglu, through the Windshield (which he did), also because of the below-quoted statements:
(Newspaper Article entitled, “Motorist shot
by pursuing police”
in “The Toronto Sun”, dated Wednesday, May 5th, 2004)
“
The man was shot after he allegedly hit an officer with
his black Acura on Rexdale Blvd.
near
Islington Ave. at 4:25 p.m., Special Investigations Unit spokesman Rose Hong
said.
”
CONTRA.
(Newspaper Article
entitled, “Officer justified in shooting, SIU concludes”
in “THE WEEKENDER, Saturday, July 10, 2004”)
“
A motorist (Ertug
Direkoglu) disregarded the command and drove in the
direction of the officer who began firing his gun at
the car before being
stuck (sic – should be “struck”) by it, the SIU said
”
(Newspaper Article entitled, “Cop cleared in
shooting”
in “TORONTO SUN”, dated “Wed, July 7, 2004”)
“
A TORONTO cop who was run
down by a suspected drug dealer was justified in
shooting the man in the arm just before he was hit by
the fugitive’s car, the Special
Investigations Unit ruled yesterday.
”]
Reference: Above-quoted statement “They refused
to attend the trial, however, in the case of Dr. West through his office
indicating that he was unavailable and in the case of Dr. McGoey requiring an up-front payment of $2,000.00 if he were to
attend.” at Supra Exhibit 15
Reference: Other S.C.C. Record & etc.
Reference: 2 Newspaper Articles regarding Police
Shooting Ertug Direkoglu, Supra Exhibit 18
Reference: (Re. Police Shooting Ertug Direkoglu) Supra
Exhibit 22
Police conspiratorially
Shooting Ertug Direkoglu twice to Assassinate
&
Threats &
Intimidations obstruct Participations
&
Seeking of
remedies also pursuant to Subsection 24.(1) of Charter
46. The below are in furtherance to the statements regarding the Police
Shooting of the
Co-Applicant, Ertug Direkoglu, in the above Sector entitled as follows:
-Repetitive, continuous, replete, &
vexatious fraudulently statements to fraudulently conceal joint criminal
conspiracy
47. Toronto Police Service’s Detective, Mr. Daniel Hutchings, & his Co-
47. Toronto Police Service’s Detective, Mr. Daniel Hutchings, & his Co-
Conspirators had
conducted on the Co-Applicant, Ertug Direkoglu, an Assassination-
Attempt, under
the Criminal Code of Canada, also for
the purposes of further
obstructing,
through obstruction of justice under
Section 139 of the Criminal Code of
Canada, the
Co-Applicant, Ertug Direkoglu, from assisting the Co-Applicants, Ural
Direk &
Kemal Direkoglu, in proceeding their Legal-Matters part of their now over 23
year-long
Legal-Matter/Legal-Battle, also for the purposes of further fraudulently
shrouding,
through fraudulent concealment under Section 341 of the Criminal Code of
Canada, the over 23 year-long material Conspiracy
committed against the Co-Plaintiff, Ural
Direk, & his Family,
also because of the following:
With respect to the May 4th, 2004
Shootings of the Co-Applicant, Ertug Direkoglu, by Toronto Police Service’s
Detective, Mr. Daniel Hutchings, Ertug Direkoglu had verbally indicated to his
Father & Brother, respectively Co-Applicants, Ural Direk & Kemal
Direkoglu, the following:
-While
the Co-Applicant, Ertug Direkoglu, was driving his car, he was
ambushed by vehicles with
men brandishing firearms at him and their
vehicles had boxed his Car
in
-The
Co-Applicant, Ertug Direkoglu, were not in Police Cruisers and they
were in civilian attire, and
Ertug Direkoglu was unaware that the men were
Police Officers
-The
Co-Applicant, Ertug Direkoglu, had feared they were going to kill him
-The
Vehicles had the Co-Applicant, Ertug Direkoglu’s vehicle boxed in
and while the Co-Applicant,
Ertug Direkoglu, commenced trying to escape
being shot, a man
came/jumped infront of the vehicle pointing his Firearm
at the Co-Applicant, Ertug
Direkoglu’s head and just before the man
discharged his Firearm,
Ertug Direkoglu lifted his arm over his forehead
and the man discharged his
Firearm shooting Ertug Direkoglu twice in the
arm.
-After he was shot by the
man (now known as T.P.S.’s Detective, Mr.
Daniel
Hutchings), the Co-Applicant, Ertug Direkoglu’s Vehicle spun
out of control
-None
of the Police Officers identified themselves as Police Officers during
the May 4th, 2004
Police Shooting Incident
-Had he (Ertug Direkoglu)
not lifted his arm over his head at the right
time, Ertug Direkoglu would
have been shot in the head
The Co-Applicant, Ertug Direkoglu, exhibited the two
(2) different bullet wounds to his arm that he sustained from Detective
Hutchings’ shootings and the Co-Applicants, Ural Direk & Kemal Direkoglu,
witnessed two (2) bullet wounds at his arm which were consistent with the
Co-Applicant, Ertug Direkoglu’s assertion that the man was pointing his Firearm
at the Co-Applicant, Ertug Direkoglu’s head.
Furthermore, the Picture of the bullet holes at the front windshield of
the car driven by Ertug Direkoglu is also consistent with the Co-Applicant,
Ertug Direkoglu’s assertion that the man was pointing his Firearm at the
Co-Applicant, Ertug Direkoglu’s head
[NOTE: Three (3) Shots were fired by Detective
Hutchings with his Firearm!]
Reference: Picture at 1 of the 2 Newspaper Articles
regarding Police Shooting Ertug Direkoglu, Supra Exhibit 18
Reference: Newpaper Article, Supra Exhibit 22
Reference: 2 Newspaper Articles regarding Police
Shooting Ertug Direkoglu, Supra Exhibit 18
The Co-Applicant, Ertug Direkoglu’s verbal
indication to us is predominantly consistent with the The Co-Applicant, Ertug
Direkoglu’s version of the May 4th, 2004 Police Shooting Incident
relayed to Lawyer, Mr. Daniel Boiani, as reflected in Mr. Boiani’s non-issued dateless
draft Statement of Claim prepared for Ertug Direkoglu. Such abovementioned draft Statement of Claim inter alia states the following:
“
6. On or about May 4, 2004, the Plaintiff
was operating a motor vehicle in a lawful
and
prudent manner in the Islington Avenue and Highway 401 area of Toronto,
Ontario,
when,
suddenly, and without warning, his vehicle was set upon and surrounded by an
unknown
number of then unidentified individuals, who approached the Plaintiff, and his
vehicle,
in a threatening and menacing manner, and who were brandishing handguns,
aimed at
the Plaintiff, and his vehicle. As a
result of the actions of the aforementioned
individuals,
the Plaintiff, fearful for his safety, and his life, attempted to flee and
escape
the
aforementioned individuals, when, suddenly, and without warning, one or more of
the
aforementioned
individuals opened fire upon the Plaintiff and his vehicle, shooting the
Plaintiff,
twice, in his right arm, causing him severe personal injury.
7. The Plaintiff states, and the fact is,
that the Plaintiff subsequently discovered
that some
of the aforementioned unidentified individuals were members of the
Defendant,
Board, and that the particular Defendant, Hutchings, was responsible
for
having directly caused the Plaintiff the aforementioned injuries.
…
14. Without restricting the generality of the foregoing, some of
the particulars of this
negligence as to the Defendant, Hutchings, are as
follows:
(a)
he failed to
follow and recognize police procedure for insuring the safety of persons in
custody;
(b)
he failed to call
for, or employ the assistance of, appropirate back up assistance when it was
reasonably necessary to do so in the circumstances;
(c)
he failed to take
all steps necessary and reasonable to insure the safety of the Plaintiff, when
he was in a position where he was unable to protect himself;
(d)
he failed to warn
the Plaintiff of his intention to discharge his firearm;
(e)
he failed to keep
his firearm under control to prevent its accidental discharge;
(f)
he failed to
insure that he identified himself as a police officer to the Plaintiff prior to
discharging his weapon in order to insure that the Plaintiff did not take any
steps which would precipitate the Defendant discharging his firearm.
15. In
the alternative, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant, Hutchings, assaulted
him by shooting the Plaintiff twice,
causing him direct bodily injury, in circumstances
where he knew, or should have known,
that it was unnecessary to the discharge of his
duty to do so.
”
Reference: Draft Statement of Claim, Supra Exhibit 22
After the Co-Plaintiff, Ertug Direkoglu’s Lawyer (at
the time), Mr. Daniel Boiani (of the
Lawfirm, “Monaco Boiani De Marco, Barristers and Solicitors”), commenced bad faith communications
in concert with the Conspirators involved in the Co-Plaintiff, Ural Direk’s,
& his Family’s over 23 year-long Legal-Matter:
-Mr. Boiani
conspiratorially, under Subsection 465.(1) of the Criminal Code of
Canada,
became severely partial
-Mr. Boiani repetitively
conspiratorially, under Subsection 465.(1) of the Criminal
Code of Canada, fraudulently concealed, under Section 341 of the Criminal Code
of Canada, the facts
-Mr. Boiani made
conspiratorially, under Subsection 465.(1) of the Criminal Code
of Canada, fraudulent indications
-even conspiratorially
obstructed, through obstruction of
justice under Section 139
of the Criminal Code of Canada, the Co-Plaintiff, Ertug Direk, from being
financially assisted by
Legal Aid Ontario for his Lawsuit against Detective
Hutchings & the Toronto
Police Services Board (“T.P.S.B.”), Legal Aid Ontario
of which was paying Mr.
Boiani to proceed the Matter representing the Co-
Applicant, Ertug
Direkoglu. In Mr. Boiani’s Letters,
respectively dated:
1.
November 26th, 2004 to Ertug Direkoglu
2.
November 26th, 2004 to Lawyer, Mr. Benjamin Moss, of
Pinkovsky’s Law Office
3.
March 9th, 2005 to Ertug Direkoglu
4.
March 9th, 2005 to Ms. Heather Robertson of Legal Aid
Ontario
Mr. Boiani inter
alia states the following:
(Mr. Boiani’s November 26th,
2004-dated Letter to Ertug Direkoglu)
“
Further to the above matter, I
enclose herein a draft Statement of Claim for your review. The claim has NOT been filed as of yet due to
the lack of sufficient information. I have
requested a copy of your disclosure form (sic – should be “from”) your criminal
lawyer, but he has not given me the courtesy of a reply. I enclose my letter to him accordingly. Please note that you MUST specifically
authorize your criminal lawyer to release the documents, and I ask that you
contact him to instruct him to do so.
I also confirm that although I
initially received information from your then girlfriend, Rawya Kazzouh,
regarding this matter, she subsequently contacted me to advise that she wanted
no further communication from me in this matter, and wanted no further
involvement. I am, therefore, sending
this letter to your last known address.
Thank you, and I look forward to hearing from you.
”
(Mr. Boiani’s November 26th,
2004-dated Letter to Lawyer, Mr. Benjamin
Moss, of Pinkovsky’s Law
Office)
“
Further to my telephone message to
you of a few weeks ago, I confirm that I have been consulted by Mr. Direkoglu
with respect to the above civil matter.
I understand that you are his criminal counsel.
In order to assist me to prepare
pleadings on behalf of our client, it would be most helpful for us to have a
copy of the disclosure in this matter.
If it is extensive, then a copy of the synopsis setting out the
circumstances of the client’s arrest and the officers involved would be
perfectly sufficient.
I
do not have a Direction from the client at this time, as I have only been
contacted by phone, but I have requested that he contact you to specifically
authorize the above.
Thank
you for your anticipated assistance, and if there are any questions or concerns,
please feel free to contact me.
”
(Mr. Boiani’s March 9th, 2005-dated
Letter to Ertug Direkoglu)
“
Further to the above-noted matter,
please be advised as follows:
Enclosed
herein please find a copy of our supplementary opinion to the Area Director for
Legal Aid, which you will find self-explanatory. As you can see, based upon our review of the
police disclosure provided, it is our view that a civil claim as against the
police will not succeed in this matter.
It is highly unlikely that a court would award you damages, given the
circumstances that led up to your arrest, and given the circumstances that led
to the shooting incident in question.
Given such, it is our responsibility to advise Legal Aid that it would
not be appropriate to expend further public money to pursue this claim on your
behalf.
We
have, nonetheless, provided you with a draft Statement of Claim that can be
filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice as against Detective Constable
Daniel Hutchings, and the Toronto Police Services Board, alleging negligence as
against both parties. It will be your responsibility to take
appropriate steps to pursue this claim, if you wish to do so. You will need to attend, or have a person
attend on your behalf, at the court office at 393 University Avenue, Toronto,
Ontario, in order to file the claim. It
will also be your responsibility
to attend to payment of the necessary fee in order to file the claim with the
court. You will also be responsible to
insure (sic) that a copy of the claim is served both upon the Toronto Police
Services Board, and upon Detective Constable Daniel Hutchings. You will have six months from the date that
the claim is filed with the court in order to serve the claim, and to file
proof of service with the court.
With
the above, we are terminating our services herein. Thank you
”
(Mr. Boiani’s March 9th,
2005-dated Letter to Ms. Heather Robertson of
Legal Aid Ontario)
“
Further to our initial opinion to
you of October 19, 2004, please be advised as follows:
Over the course of the last several
months, we have been in communication with Mr. Direkoglu’s criminal counsel,
Mr. Benjamin Moss. We have attempted, in
our communications, to obtain from Mr. Moss copies of some critical disclosure
documents that would assist us to determine the identity of the arresting
officers, and, as well, obtain a further Synopsis with respect to the details
of this matter.
Unfortunately, Mr. Moss has been
less than forthcoming with respect to the above-noted request, and it was not
until most recently that we ultimately obtained a copy of the detailed Synopsis
from Mr. Direkoglu’s counsel. It should
be noted that Mr. Moss has left his previous firm, and the matter of the
further carriage of Mr. Direkoglu’s matter was not rectified until recently.
In
any event, we have now had an opportunity to review the disclosure documents
provided, and wish to provide you with an updated opinion in regards to this
matter. We wish, in particular, to
elucidate on the facts giving rise to the circumstances in this case.
It would appear that on April 13,
2004, an undercover officer from the Toronto Drug Squad had made arrangements
to purchase one pound of cocaine from two individuals named Allan and Shane
Silverthorn, who are father and son, respectively. These arrangements were followed up by the
Toronto Drug Squad undercover officer on May 3, 2004, when further telephone
calls were placed by the undercover officer to the Silverthorns, and the particulars
of the transaction were finalized, whereby the officer would purchase one pound
of cocaine from the Silverthorns, in exchange for which the Silverthorns would
receive payment of $20,000.00. The
transaction was scheduled to proceed in the early afternoon of May 4, 2004.
The following day, the undercover
officer contacted Shane Siverthorn, who promised that the cocaine would be
obtained and delivered within a matter of hours. Mr. Silverthorn again confirmed the price of
$20,000.00. In the meantime,
surveillance of Mr. Silverthorn’s father, Allan, was being carried out in
London, Ontario, where the elder Mr. Silverthorn resides. After the telephone call, Allan Silverthorn
left his home, and drove to Toronto, and attended his son, Shane’s house, at 200
Dufferin Street, in the Parkdale area of Toronto, Ontario. Thereafter, Allan and Shane Silverthorn left
to meet a third individual, by the name of Angela Calce, in downtown Toronto,
near the intersection of Richmond Street West, and Spadina Avenue. Upon meeting Ms. Calce, Shane Silverthorn attended
with her at an accounting firm’s office nearby, and shortly thereafter, Ms.
Calce and Shane Silverthorn exited the premises, with Mr. Silverthorn holding a
modest sized box. All three parties then
left the area, and Ms. Calce was dropped off at a location nearby, and the
Silverthorns proceeded to a location in Etobicoke to meet a fourth individual,
our client, Ertug Direkoglu. They
attended at Westown Shopping Centre, located on the southeast corner of
Islington Avenue and Dixon Road, which shopping centre is immediately next to
Dixington Crescent, where Mr. Direkoglu was living with his family. When the Silverthorns arrived at the shopping
centre, they attended at a coffee shop, and apparently telephoned Mr. Direkoglu
from that location. Within a few
minutes, Mr. Direkoglu arrived, and parked his vehicle, a black Acura, next to
the Silverthorns’ vehicle. Mr. Direkoglu
was observed to enter the vehicle with the Silverthorns, whereafter they all
drove away, but only around the shopping centre, and around the block,
apparently for the purposes of determining whether they were being
followed. The parties returned to the
plaza, changed vehicles into Mr. Direkoglu’s vehicle, drove around for some
period of time again, apparently to determine if they were being followed or
watched, and, from there, departed to a location in south Etobicoke, near the
intersection of Lakeshore Boulevard West and Kipling Avenue. The location turned out to be a hydroponics
shop. Upon attending there, the
Silverthorns waited in Mr. Direkoglu’s vehicle, while Mr. Direkoglu entered the
shop, and exited fifteen minutes later, with a plastic bag apparently
containing a package. Thereafter, the
parties left and returned to Westown Shoppins Centre. Once there, the parties separated into their
respective vehicles, and left, apparently, going in separate directions. However, as it turned out, both Mr.
Direkoglu, and the Silverthorns, attended at Mr. Direkoglu’s residence, being
50 Dixington Crescent, in Etobicoke.
After attending there, approximately twenty minutes later, the
Silverthorns exited, and left the premises, only to be followed by undercover
surveillance officers. Within twenty
minutes, Mr. Direkoglu exited his apartment, carrying two plastic bags, and
left in his vehicle. He, also, was
followed.
Within
five minutes of leaveing his apartment, Mr. Direkoglu was arrested in the
incident that was previously related to you in our initial opinion letter. However, based upon the disclosure
information, I have been provided with additional details as to the
circumstances of the arrest. According
to the disclosure information, at 4:10 p.m., a surveillance team was following
Mr. Direkoglu northbound on Islington Avenue, with the intention of arresting
him under the charges of conspiracy to traffic in cocaine, and trafficking in
cocaine. At 4:16 p.m., the officers
followed Mr. Direkoglu to the northbound lanes of Islington Avenue, at Rexdale
Blvd. Once there, Mr. Direkoglu’s
vehicle was boxed in on three sides, from the front, on the passenger side, and
from the rear. Adjacent to the driver’s
side was a centre median, which prevented the officers form blocking Mr.
Direkoglu from that side. Officers began
to exit their vehicles, and approached Mr. Direkoglu’s vehicle in order to make
the arrest. A Detective Constable
Hutchings approached Mr. Direkoglu’s vehicle from the front left side on the
adjacent centre median, looking directly at Mr. Direkoglu, and issued the
police challenge: ‘Police, don’t
move’. Mr. Direkoglu apparently made
direct eye contact with the officer and then turned the motor vehicle onto the
median, and accelerated directly towards Detective Constable Hutchings. Mr. Direkoglu used the vehicle to strike
Constable Hutchings, propelling the constable up and onto the hood of the
vehicle. Mr. Direkoglu continued to
accelerate away, with Mr. Hutchings on the hood of the vehicle. Detective Hutchings, obviously fearing for
his life, drew and discharged his service pistol into the windshield, striking
Mr. Direkoglu, before he was further propelled off the vehicle, violently
striking the pavement. The officer
suffered several minor injuries. Mr.
Direkoglu continued to accelerate away from the scene, travelling northbound in
the southbound lanes of Islington Avenue, and ultimately collided head on with
a civilian vehicle that was travelling southbound in the southbound lanes of
Islington Avenue. Nothwithstanding the
collision, Mr. Direkoglu continued to attempt to flee the scene, but was
ultimately boxed in, successfully, by police.
He attempted to exit his vehicle and flee the scene, and was physically
apprehended, and, after a brief struggle, was ultimately arrested and
detained.
It
should also be noted that, subsequent to Mr. Direkoglu’s arrest, at approximately
4:30 p.m., the Silverthorns were seen to arrive at Shane Silverthorn’s home, in
Parkdale, and were seen to exit the vehicle, carrying the box that had been
retrieved with Ms. Calce, and, as well, with the bag that had been secured by
Mr. Direkoglu from the hydroponics shop on Lakeshore Boulevard West. As a result of a search and arrest warrant at
5:30 p.m., police entered the premises of Mr. Silverthorn, arresting both of
the Silverthorns, and seized the items previously referred to. It should be noted that the box that was
retrieved from the accounting office in downtown Toronto contained 21/2 ounces
of marijuana. The bag that had been
retrieved by Mr. Direkoglu from the hydroponics shop on Lakeshore Boulevard
West was found to contain approximately 13 ounces of cocaine. Other drugs were found in the premises,
including approximately 50 ‘hits’ of extacy, and 30 tablets of Percodan. Meanwhile, we should also note that when Mr.
Direkoglu was arrested, he was found to have approximately two pounds of
marijuana in his car. These were
contained in the two plastic bags that he had earlier retrieved from his
apartment on Dixington Crescent.
Based
upon the above disclosure, we are now able to elucidate further with respect to
the issues that initially presented themselves in this fact scenario. It appears to be readily apparent from the
disclosure that the police clearly identified themselves at the time of Mr.
Direkoglu’s arrest and that Mr. Direkoglu had attempted to escape arrest by the
subsequent actions that he took. It is
also readily apparent that Mr. Direkoglu was not fired upon prior to
making his escape, but was only fired upon by one officer, being Detective
Constable Hutchings, who had been struck and injured by Mr. Direkoglu’s vehicle
during Mr. Direkoglu’s attempt to escape.
In this regard, it would appear to be patently reasonable for the
officer to have used the force that he did in attempting to bring Mr. Direkoglu
to a stop, given that he had already been assaulted with the vehicle, and given
that Mr. Direkoglu was posing a direct danger to not only the officer, but
other members of the public by virtue of his reckless efforts to escape arrest.
We
would also note that the account given by the Synopsis makes it quite clear
that Mr. Direkoglu had been under surveillance for quite some time prior to the
time of his arres, and that his protestations of innocence to the undersigned
when we were initially provided with his account of the events would seem to be
highly suspect. Needless to say, any
battle of credibility in this matter would likely not fall in Mr. Direkoglu’s
favour.
For
our part, we find it highly likely that any court would find the actions of
Detective Constable Hutchings not only to have been reasonable, but
heroic. He clearly put his own life on
the line in an effort to apprehend Mr. Direkoglu who had been engaged in a
serious criminal offence. It would also
be highly likely that any court would find that Detective Constable Hutchings’
efforts were eminently necessary, given the reckless nature of Mr. Direkoglu’s
actions in attempting to escape, and given his extremely dangerous actions in
striking not only Detective Constable Hutchings, but, as well, colliding with a
completely innocent civilian. We find it
highly unlikely that Mr. Direkoglu’s civil claim would stand even the remotest
chance of success, given the circumstances leading up to his arrest. It would be patently obvious that any court
would find that Mr. Direkoglu was the author of his own misfortune, and by
engaging in the criminal activity that he did, he brought these consequences
upon himself. It is also extremely
likely that no court would find it appropriate to reward Mr. Direkoglu’s
reckless and criminal behaviour by awarding him a civil damages claim. This would appear to be particularly true
given the fact that he is seeking to recover damages against an officer that he
could, very well, have killed, during his efforts to escape.
In
light of the above, we find that the chances of success of Mr. Direkoglu’s
claim in this matter to be virtually nil, and we would not recommend the
expenditure of further Legal Aid public funds towards the pursuit of this
action. We have , nonetheless, drafted a
Statement of Claim on behalf of Mr. Direkoglu, and, while we have not filed it
in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, we propose to forward it to him, so
that he may take whatever steps he deems appropriate, and so that he may expend
his own funds to file and serve the claim, rather than costing Legal Aid that
expense.
We
trust the above is satisfactory, and with the above, we shall be closing our
file, and forwarding our final account to Legal Accounts accordingly. Thank you.
”
Reference: Mr. Boiani’s 4 different Letters, Supra
Exhibit 22
Mr. Boiani’s above-quoted statements in his
abovementioned March 9th, 2005-dated Letter to Ms. Heather Robertson
of Legal Aid Ontario are, also through fraudulent
concealment under Subsection 465.(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada,
replete with conspiratorial, under Subsection 465.(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada, frauds, also
because of the following:
-Mr. Boiani’s, Police
Officers’, & Conspirators statements are replete with
conspiratorial fraud
-Boiani communicated with Co-Applicant,
Ertug Direkoglu’s & Kemal Direkoglu’s former Criminal Lawyer, Mr. Benjamin Moss,
who practiced out of Lawfirms in which Defence Lawyers, Ms. Jenny Cunningham
& Ms. Jennifer Budgell, who conspired, under Subsection 465.(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada, with the the
Co-Applicant’s former Lawyers, Mr. Jack M. Futerman (of the Defendant Lawfirm, Futerman and Futerman,
Barristers and Solicitors) & Mr. Charles Campbell (of the Defendant
Lawfirm, Iler, Campbell, Barristers and Solicitors) Mr. Futerman & Mr.
Campbell of whom conspiratorially, under Subsection 465.(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada, testified against
the Co-Plaintiff, Ural Direk, at the Co-Plaintiff, Ural Direk’s Criminal-Trial
at which the Co-Plaintiff, Ural Direk’s Defence Lawyer (at the time), Ms. Jennifer
Budgell was the Co-Plaintiff, Ural Direk’s Defence Lawyer at the time.
[NOTE: The Co-Applicant,
Kemal Direkoglu’s former Lawyer, Mr. Benjamin Moss, was also well aware of Mr.
Moss’ willful misconducts committed against the Co-Applicant, Kemal Direkoglu,
& his Family, that the Co-Applicant, Kemal Direkoglu, further exposed also
at the Criminal Matter, R v. Kemal
Direkoglu, which went to Trial before Casey J.. (Willful misconducts of other Officials directly
related to abovementioned Matter R. v. Kemal Direkoglu also further exposed by
Kemal Direkoglu!)]
-Mr. Boiani conspiratorially, under Subsection
465.(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada,
fraudulently concealed, under Section 341 of the Criminal Code of Canada, the fact that the Co-Applicant, Ertug
Direkoglu, was Shot twice (2 times) on May 4th, 2004 by T.P.S.’s
Detective, Mr. Daniel Hutchings
-Mr. Boiani conspiratorially, under Subsection
465.(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada,
fraudulently concealed, under Section 341 of the Criminal Code of Canada, the fact that the Co-Applicant, Ertug
Direkoglu, was Shot before his vehicle struck T.P.S.’s Detective, Mr. Daniel
Hutchings
-Mr. Boiani had, also through fraudulent concealment under Section 341 of the Criminal Code of Canada,
conspiratorially, under Subsection 465.(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada, fraudulently indicated that T.P.S.’s
Detective, Mr. Daniel Hutchings’ shooting of the Co-Applicant, Ertug Direkoglu
was reasonable & heroic
-Mr. Boiani had, also through fraudulent concealment under Section 341 of the Criminal Code of Canada,
conspiratorially, under Subsection 465.(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada, fraudulently & pervertedly indicated
that T.P.S.’s Detective, Mr. Daniel Hutchings’ is a hero for Shooting the Co-Applicant,
Ertug Direkoglu
-Mr. Boiani had, also through fraudulent concealment under Section 341 of the Criminal Code of Canada,
conspiratorially, under Subsection 465.(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada, fraudulently indicated that illegal drugs were
on May 4th, 2004 found in the Co-Applicant, Ertug Direkoglu’s Acura
Motor-Vehicle.
-Mr. Boiani had, also through fraudulent concealment under Section 341 of the Criminal Code of Canada,
conspiratorially, under Subsection 465.(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada, fraudulently indicated that T.P.S.’s
Detective, Mr. Daniel Hutchings, shot the Co-Applicant, Ertug Direkoglu, after
Ertug Direkoglu hit Hutchings with his car & collided with another
completely innocent civilian
-Mr. Boiani had, also through fraudulent concealment under Section 341 of the Criminal Code of Canada,
conspiratorially, under Subsection 465.(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada, fraudulently indicated that the
Co-Applicant, Ertug Direkoglu, had, on May 4th, 2004, resisted
arrest after being shot by Detective Daniel Hutchings
-Mr. Boiani
indicates the Co-Applicant, Ertug Direkoglu committed a serious criminal
offence, but, what Mr. Boiani provided a Letter to Legal Aid Ontario’s Ms.
Heather Robertson, Letter of which is replete with conspiratorially, under
Subsection 465.(1) of the Criminal Code
of Canada, fraudulent statements that are not limited to the ones exposes
herein. Mr. Boiani’s Letter to Legal Aid
Ontario’s Ms. Heather Robertson further manifests that Mr. Boiani conspired,
under Subsection 465.(1) of the Criminal
Code of Canada, with Conspirators to further fraudulently conceal, under
Section 341 of the Criminal Code of
Canada, the fact that the Conspirators conducted an Assassination-Attempt
on the Co-Applicant, Ertug Direkoglu
-Mr. Boiani’s severely partial, bias, &
fraudulent statements (against his own
Client, being the Co-Applicant, Ertug Direkoglu) after his communication with the Conspirators
further manifests that the Conspirators directed T.P.S.’s Police to Assassinate
the Co-Applicant, Ertug Direkoglu
[NOTE: The Co-Applicant, Ertug Direkoglu’s Lawyer
(at the time), Mr. Daniel Boiani’s other abovementioned Letter(s)/Statements
prior to the Conspirators communicating with Mr. Boiani about the Co-Applicant,
Ertug Direkoglu, & his Family, were not partial, bias, & fraudulent.]
Reference: Picture at 1 of the 2 Newspaper Articles
regarding Police Shooting Ertug Direkoglu, Supra Exhibit 18
Reference: 2 Newspaper Articles regarding Police
Shooting Ertug Direkoglu, Supra Exhibit 18
Reference: Supra Exhibit 22
After Conspirators tore apart & destroyed the
Co-Applicant, Ural Direk’s children & Family, the Conspirators also forced the
Co-Applicant, Ertug Direkoglu, to, under
duress, plead guilty when Ertug Direkoglu was innocent, also by conducting
against the Co-Applicant, Ertug Direkoglu intimidation & threat tactics,
inclusive of threats to incarcerate Ertug Direkoglu for inordinately long periods
of time in violation of the Co-Applicant, Ertug Direkoglu’s Section 9 charter rights not to be arbitrarily
detained or imprisoned, as guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms!
Reference: Section 7 of Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms
Reference: Materials in over 23 year-long Legal-Matter
Also as a result of the T.P.S.’s Detective, Mr.
Daniel Hutchings’ abovementioned May 4th, 2004 Shootings of the
Co-Applicant, Ertug Direkoglu, there were violations of the Co-Applicant, Ertug
Direkoglu’s Section 7 charter rights
to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived
thereof, as guaranteed under the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms!
Reference: Section 7 of Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms
Also due to death-threats, threats, &
intimidation-tactics committed also to conspiratorially, under Subsection
465.(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada,
obstruct, through obstrucion of justice
under Section 139 of the Criminal Code of
Canada, the Co-Applicants, Ertug Direkoglu & [E.D. - Initials of female], from
participating in their own Legal-Matters/Court-Matters in the over 23 year-long
Legal-Matter/Legal-Battle, the Co-Applicants, Ertug Direkoglu & [E.D. - Initials of female]. The Conspirators threatened
death upon the Co-Applicant, Ertug Direkoglu, & his Family if he assists us.
Also as a result of the:
1.
Submissions & references in this very Sector, as well the evidences
2.
The abovementioned T.P.S.’s Detective, Mr. Daniel Hutchings’ Police
Shootings of the Co-Applicant, Ertug Direkoglu, on May 4th, 2004
3.
the Co-Applicant, Ertug Direkoglu’s & his Family’s further
injuries, damages, & losses as a result of the abovementioned Police
Shootings of May 4th, 2004
4.
Unlawful, unjustified, conspiratorially, inordinately lengthy
incarcerations of the Co-Applicant, Ertug Direkoglu, also in order to further
torture & obstruct, through obstruction
of justice under Section 139 of the Criminal
Code of Canada, the Co-Applicant, Ertug Direkoglu, from having proceed his
Lawsuit against Detective Hutchings & Toronto Police Services Board and his
other Legal-Matters/Court-Matters against Conspirators
5.
Co-Applicant, Ertug Direkoglu’s Lawyer (at the time), Mr. Daniel
Boiani, conspiratorially, under Subsection 465.(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada, abandoning the Co-Applicant, Ertug
Direkoglu, during Ertug Direkoglu’s times of great need & support
6.
Repetitive threats & intimidations against the Co-Applicant, Ertug
Direkoglu, & his Family, also in order to further torture & obstruct,
through obstruction of justice under
Section 139 of the Criminal Code of
Canada, the Co-Applicant, Ertug Direkoglu, from having proceed his Lawsuit
against Detective Hutchings & Toronto Police Services Board and his other
Legal-Matters/Court-Matters against Conspirators
, the Applicants/Plaintiffs politely request &
seek a remedy & monetary remedy also pursuant to Subection 24.(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,
which provides the following:
“
Anyone
whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed ny 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.
”
Reference: Subsection 24.(1) of the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms
The Conspirators even conspired, under Subsection
465.(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada,
to act in concert with & underhandedly direct people & entities with
which the Co-Applicants, Ural Direk & Kemal Direkoglu, had relations and
people & entities related to the Applicants, Ural Direk & Kemal
Direkoglu, to underhandedly attack the Co-Applicants, Ural Direk & Kemal
Direkoglu, in different ways, even after delivering (submitting) our Motion,
being the Motion for, inter alia,
Reconsideration near the end of August 2011.
The Conspirators isolated the Co-Applicants, Ural
Direk & Kemal Direkoglu, from their Family-Members, Relatives, Acqaintances,
& other people with which the Co-Applicants, Ural Direk & Kemal
Direkoglu, held relations with.
The Co-Applicants, Ural Direk & Kemal Direkoglu,
need these to also be on the Record for readers & people to better
understand or understand a little more about how the Co-Applicants, Ural Direk
& Kemal Direkoglu, & their Family are being crucified.
"
Reference: Pgs. 310 to 326 of Senior Co-Applicant, Ural Direk’s & Junior Co-Applicant, Kemal Direkoglu’s 34093 file-numbered S.C.C. “AFFIDAVIT OF URAL DIREK & KEMAL DIREKOGLU – Affirmed March 9th, 2012”:
THE FOLLOWING PICTURE WITH CONTENT CAPTION IS FROM THE FILIPINO BALITA NEWSPAPER OF MAY 2006 EDITION:
[2ND NOTE: Ural Direk (in Grey with Bull-Horn & glasses) & Kemal Direkoglu (in black with black hat holding large red poster) are leading the March in the Justice For Jeffrey Rally held in downtown Toronto (picture is at the heart of downtown Toronto) and inter alia against Police Brutalities & Police shootings of unarmed civilians of the Minority Population!]
[3RD NOTE: Clicking on this below-url brings you to a non-sideways version of the picture & content caption you see below!]
[4TH NOTE: Click on below picture (with contents) to enlarge!]
Protest+March+re.+death+of+Philipino+Youth%2C+Jeffrey+Reodica%2C+from+being+shot+by+Police.jpg
- Special Investigat
ions Unit ("SIU") cleared the Police & the Police continued on working as Police after Reodica's May 2004 death. No Officer was tried and charged for Reodica's May 2004 death, just like no Police Officer was charged & tried in the May 2004 shooting of Ertug Direkoglu, let alone being tried & charged for abovementioned May 2004 Assassination-Attempt on Ertug Direkoglu.
"In 2004, eight people were shot by Toronto Police, and six of them died from their wounds. The SIU investigated each shooting, but found all of them to be justified.". Had Ertug Direkoglu not lifted his arm over his head at the right time, Ertug Direkoglu would have been shot in the head and, in circumstances, would have been killed, which in turn, would have increased the six (6) out of eight (8) to seven (7) out of eight (8) people killed by Toronto Police in 2004. Together with the bravery & determinat
[2ND NOTE: Click on below pages to enlarge them!]
"In 1988, Toronto Police were under scrutiny for the fatal shooting of a schizophre
On May 4, 1992, tension between Toronto Police and the city's Black community reached its peak. After the fourth police killing of a young Black man, in as many years, a peaceful protest on Yonge Street later turned into a riot.[11] 30 people were arrested and 37 police officers were injured in the riot.
A mandatory Coroner's Inquest took place in the police killing of 17-year-ol
In response to the recommenda
In 2004, eight people were shot by Toronto Police, and six of them died from their wounds. The SIU investigat
No comments:
Post a Comment