COURT FILE NO.: CV-09-386582
DATE: 20130920
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO
RE: URAL DIREK, Ertug Direkoglu, KEMAL DIREKOGLU, and ELIF DIREKOGLU, Applicants/Respondents
AND:
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO and the Toronto police services board, Respondents/Moving Parties
BEFORE: Stinson J.
COUNSEL:
Ural Direk and Kemal Direkoglu, acting in person
No one appears on behalf of Ertug Direkoglu and Elif Direkoglu
Josh Hunter, for the respondent/moving party Attorney General of Ontario
Ansuya Pachai, for the respondent/moving party the Toronto Police Services Board
HEARD: July 3, 2013
ENDORSEMENT
[1] This endorsement concerns two motions under Rule 21, one by the respondent Attorney General of Ontario (the "AGO”) and one by the respondent the Toronto Police Services Board (the "TPSB”). They were heard together.
[2] The responding parties (the applicants in this proceeding, collectively "the Direks") are all self-represented. Ural Direk ("Ural"), and his son Kemal Direkoglu ("Kemal") appeared on their own behalves on the argument of the motion, as they have throughout this litigation. Their co-applicants, Kemal's brother Ertug Direkoglu ("Ertug") and his sister Elif Direkoglu "Elif" did not appear.
[3] In essence, the moving parties seek to have this application stayed or dismissed on the ground that it is frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the process of the court. A number of other grounds were articulated in the notices of motion served by the moving parties (such as failure to plead all elements of certain causes of action), but in my view, the motions come to be determined on the former ground.
background
[4] This application is one of numerous proceedings in which the Direks are or have been involved in the courts of this province. By their count, the Direks have "over 120 Canadian legal-matters." The present proceeding was commenced in response to an application initiated in early 2009 by the AGO in Court File No. CV-09-371609 (the "AGO Application"). The AGO Application was brought under the Civil Remedies Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 28 seeking the forfeiture of certain property as proceeds or instruments of crime. The property in question is $229,345 in Canadian currency and a 2006 Lincoln Mark LT Truck. According to the evidence filed on the AGO Application, the cash and truck were seized by the police on October 22, 2006 in connection with their investigation of an alleged illegal drug distribution operation involving Ertug. The truck was seized from a hotel parking lot following police surveillance of a hotel room in which Ertug is alleged to have been engaged in drug trafficking. Ertug was arrested and prosecuted. The cash was found and seized during a subsequent search of the Direks’ house, carried out pursuant to a search warrant.
[5] The AGO Application first came before me on November 6, 2009, when the AGO sought an order that the cash and truck be forfeited to the Crown under the Civil Remedies Act. Although neither Ertug nor his co-respondent to the AGO Application, Angela Calce (who were both listed as respondents on the Notice of Application in that proceeding) appeared on that occasion; however, Ural and Kemal did. In advance of that date, Ural and Kemal had commenced and served this application, which is, in effect, a counter-application on behalf of the Direks and Ismet Direkoglu against the AGO and the TPSB, in Court File No. CV-09-386582 (the "Direks' Counter-Application"). The Direks' Counter-Application also came before me on November 6, 2009.
[6] The relief sought in the Direks' Counter-Application is as follows:
(a) an order quashing the AGO application;
(b) "an Order granting leave to the [Direks] to file after the November 6, 2009 hearing voluminous supplemental materials";
(c) "an Order granting a six month incessant initial-continuation of the Friday, November 6, 2009 hearing";
(d) "an Order granting, if required, an additional-continuation of the November 6, 2009 hearing";
(e) "an Order granting an award of $4,000,000,000.00 ($4 Billion Dollars) in monetary compensation to the [Direks]";
(f) "an Order rendering all legislative provisions and Rules of (Common) Law of which the Applicants intend to question on this very Application the constitutional validity and applicability, inclusive of such Canadian Laws specified herein, to be constitutionally inapplicable to the [Direks] over 21 year-long legal matter and constitutionally invalid";
(g) costs.
[7] The grounds set out for the Direks' Counter-Application are lengthy, running to some 17 single spaced pages. I will quote verbatim grounds A, B, and C from their notice of application:
A. The belowmentioned Crimes have been, against the Appellant and his Family, committed as part of an over 21 year-long Canadian Judiciary-Driven Systematic-Crime ("Systematic-Crime"), an over 21 year-long Canadian Judiciary-Driven Gross-Systemic Chain Conspiracy (''Gross-Systemic Chain Conspiracy"), an over 21 year-long Canadian Judiciary-Driven Systematic-Corruption of the State ("Systematic-Corruption of the State"), an over 21 year-long Canadian Judiciary-Driven Systematic-Crimes against Humanity ("Systematic-Crimes against Humanity"), an over 21 year-long Canadian Judiciary-Driven Systemic-Racism ("Systemic-Racism), an over 21 year-long Canadian Judiciary-Driven Systemic-Incitement-of-discriminatory-hatred ("Systemic-Incitement-of- discriminatory-hatred"), an over 21 year-long Canadian Judiciary-Driven Systemic-Favouritism ("Systemic-Favouritism"), an over 21 year-long Canadian Judiciary-Driven Systemic-Obstruction of Justice ("Systemic-Obstruction of Justice"), an over 21 year-long Canadian Judiciary-Driven Systematic-Torture ("Systematic-Torture").
B. The Respondents, their Subordinates/Employees, Canadian Lawyers, Canadian Judges, and their Canadian Co-Conspirator (Justice-)Officials, Institutions, and entities had, against the Applicants and their Family, ingloriously and immorally Conspired also:
in violation of Rule I. 09 of the Rules of Civil Procedure
in manners setout within 465.(1) of the Criminal Code
while defeating the purposes of Section 80 of the Courts of Justice Act.
in a manner that violated and violates many of the Applicants and their Family's rights through many Sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, inclusive of the Sections specified herein
in a manner that violated and violates the Human Rights Code
also because:
i. The Respondents, their Subordinates/Employees, Canadian Lawyers, Canadian Judges, the Canadian Justice-System, and their Canadian Co-Conspirator (Justice-)Officials, Institutions, and entities immorally Conspired against the Applicants and their Family, also by,
a. directing aforementioned Conspirators to immorally and pervertedly torture innocent Disabled-Persons and their infant children for over 21 years through abovementioned crimes
b. directing aforementioned Conspirators to embezzle and appropriate the futures of Canadian-Children other than the offspring of Canadian Justice-Officials, and then, provide aforementioned futures to the offspring of Canadian (Justice-)Officials through abovementioned crimes
c. directing aforementioned Conspirators to immorally and pervertedly divide & dissolve the Applicants' over 21 year-long Legal-Matter with respect to abovementioned crimes (which initiated in 1988) into illogical and meaningless pieces, pieces of which do not allow for the Applicants to expose the evidences of a Gross Chain Conspiracy and evidences of a Canadian Judiciary-Driven Systematic-Crime as setout within the DC-08- 0074-ML file-numbered Affidavit of Ural Direk (made Attachment 1 to the Notice of Constitutional Question. dated September 8th, 2009, served together with this very Notice of Application), Affirmed Feb. 19th, 2009.
[8] To some extent, the origins of the Direks' complaints with the Ontario justice system are summarized in the following excerpt from the endorsement of Bellamy J. in her April 30, 2007 decision dismissing Ural's appeal from his 2004 convictions for uttering death threats against two lawyers who had previously acted for him (R. v. Direk, [2007] O.J. 1643 (S.C.J.) at paras. 2-4):
2 The appellant [Ural Direk] claims that for the last eighteen and a half years, there has existed in Ontario a form of state corruption coupled with a massive conspiracy of fraud and a gross conspiracy of silence against him. This has allegedly included mental torture against him and his family, an assassination attempt by the police and a police-led home invasion in which the police intentionally destroyed evidence necessary for this appeal which would have exposed the corruption. The appellant alleges that the "masterminds" and participants in this conspiracy consist of a number of judges of the Court of Appeal, at least two judges of the Superior Court of Justice, numerous lawyers who have acted at various times for the appellant, the Law Society of Upper Canada, at least one physician, the police generally, the officer-in-charge, two court reporters who were compelled by the "masterminds" to issue fraudulent transcripts in relation to this appeal, the Crown attorney who prosecuted him, the lawyer who defended him (who herself was allegedly being controlled by the "masterminds") and the trial judge who found him guilty. Much of what was said about the above individuals, and in particular about one of the lawyers who testified at the trial, would have been considered defamatory had it been said outside the courtroom.
3 The appellant has had an eighteen and a half year history with the legal system, which appears to have started after he was injured in a motor vehicle accident in August 1988. He instituted a law suit and later appealed the trial judge's findings. Ultimately, McMurtry, C.J.O., Osborne and Abella, JJ.A. of the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal on June 3, 1998. The Supreme Court of Canada denied him leave to appeal.
4 He evidently is most unhappy with what he perceives as a grave injustice committed against him by the legal system and has vociferously complained about his concerns to many people, including Queen Elizabeth and the United Nations. He has regularly picketed a number of courthouses and his lawyers' offices in downtown Toronto, and has used a bullhorn to secure the public's attention to his concerns.
[9] The Direks' Counter-Application is the latest legal proceeding in which the Direks have sought a remedy for their complaints regarding alleged corruption in Ontario's justice system.
[...continues exactly as in the original text...]
Stinson J.
Date: September 20, 2013