APPLICATION BY DAVID ARTHUR JOHNSTON AND DAVID MICHEAL SHEBIB TO CHANGE AN APPEAL BY TRIAL DE NOVO TO A CONVENTIONAL APPEAL,

APPLICATION BY DAVID ARTHUR JOHNSTON AND DAVID MICHEAL SHEBIB TO CHANGE AN APPEAL BY TRIAL DE NOVO TO A CONVENTIONAL APPEAL, DEFACTO

[1] On Wednesday, May 27^th, 2009, David Micheal Shebib and myself, David Arthur Johnston, were granted an appeal, by trial de novo, of convictions of having temporary abodes during a time when they are prohibited (see File No: 145835-1).

[2] I had been applying for a conventional appeal and twice was told the transcripts could be ordered through the courts, as I’ve a ‘vow of poverty’ and cannot afford them.

[3] Before securing the appeal, David Shebib also applied, yet for a trial de novo, and the presiding judge at the hearing aquiessed to Shebib’s application, citing that I would still be able to argue what I had intended for the conventional appeal and would not have to worry about having transcripts ordered.

[4] Shebib’s reasoning for the de novo application was to set about entering new evidence that would show that there was no available day time shelter beds.

[5] On Wednesday, October 14^th, 2009, at an adjournment hearing, the City’s lawyer told us that the City does not contend with the fact that there is no daytime shelter beds, nullifying David’s necessity for the appeal by trial de novo.

[6] It would be appropriate for the Supreme Court to redesignate the appeal away from the trial de novo as there is no longer need for the entering of new evidence, while there continues to be suffient evidence to grant an appeal using the Reasons and the Grounds.

[7] The appeal by trial de novo is scheduled for mid-January 2010, and seemingly is destined to be adjourned perpetually until the Appeal’s Court comes out with its ruling on the City’s appeal of the Adams’ ruling. Redesignating the appeal removes the question of Constituionality that prompted this scheduling as it is about bias, corruption, and a conspiracy to subvert a BC Supreme Court ruling, not, necessarily, about the new amended Bylaw that is near the heart of this matter.

[8] The ruling can then be held in reserve, if need be, until after the City’s appeal.