2011 Copy of Original Notice of Claim v. the Crown filed by the Lord of Law the Right Honorable Major Keyvan Nourhaghighi Under the Proceedings Against Crown Act in the Province Ontario, Canada. This is Sample of Ample Notices During 20 Years!

Canadian Counter-Dictionary, and Human Rights' Violations in Canada
A   B  C  D  E  F  G  H I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z

Sample of Ample Notice of Claims Since 1990

 Notice of Claim filed by Major Nourhaghighi
Under Section 5 and 7 of Proceedings Against the Crown Act
Notices of Claim filed in 2012
Notices of Claim filed in 2011
Notices of Claim filed in 2010
Notices of Claim filed in 2009
Notices of Claim filed in 2008
Notices of Claim filed in 2007
Notice of Claim filed in 2006
Notices of Claim filed in 2005
Notices of Claim filed in 2004
Notices of Claim filed in 2003
Notices of Claim filed in 2002
Notices of Claim filed in 2001

Notices of Claim filed in 2000

Notices of Claim filed in 1999
Notices of Claim filed in 1998
Notices of Claim filed in 1997

Author: Major Keyvan Nourhaghighi Ontario
Separatist Tortured by the Canadian Police

DOWN WITH THE QUEEN
Canadian Hate Canada
Canadian Hate American 
Major Nourhaghighi's Proof by Google Trendv

مرگ بر ملکه فاسد انگلیس و قضات دزدش زنده باد آزادی تمام استانهای کانادا

Corrupt U of T Lawyer Steven Moate Defendant
for Child Pornography and Students Prostitution 

See Noted Below
وکیل واساتید دانشگاه تورنتو که از دانشجویان ۱۶ ساله در حال روابط جنسی فیلمبرداری میکردند و یا در رختکن و حمام دختران لخت را با دوربین مخفی ضبط  میکردند و میفروختند دستگیر و محکوم شدند

A Copy from Original Notice of Claim Dated 13 December 2011
The Stamp on the right Corner Is a Proof that the Claim
is Legally Served and accepted by the Lawyers of the
 Government of Province of Ontario  
On December 16, 2011

Plaintiff's  Note 1 :
In this Lawsuit the Government of Canada is accused of conspiracy with the University of Toronto ("U of T") in training a group of criminals software engineers  as a professional Hackers to break all websites, including the USA Government Official sites such as Confidential Visa Approval Sites.  The parties involved in this felony under the Computer Crime Law are mostly the Jewish Professors, Lawyers and Deans of U of T like the Defendants Ira Jacobs, who is an Israeli Trained Military Spy who acted against NATO, or corrupt Lawyer Steven Moate, U of T Lawyer defendant for number of serious felonies like Child Pornography and Students' Prostitution, conspiracy in Drug and smuggling in U of T Campus.  

Justice Lynette Stethem has found the U of T President Office Defendants Moate, Jacobs, Olivia te al Guilty as Major Nourhaghighi charged and Sentenced them to impersonation
The U of T appealed the Learned Judge Decision which is still  Pending
U of T has paid huge Bribe to not set the file for Hearing 

U of T Staff Defendant Doris Olivia (Reference Paragraph 2) 

U of T Corrupt Jewish Dean Defendant Ira Jacobs (Reference Paragraph 2) 

Seated , L -R : Prof. Cheryl Regehr (Vice- Provost, Academic Programs ), Ms . Heather Bastien ( Project Manager ) , Grand Chief Konrad Sioui . Standing , L -R: Chid Porn Defendant Steve Moate ( Legal Counsel , U of T); Teacher. Meric Gertler ( Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Science) ; Teacher. Amy Mullin ( Dean of the University of Toronto Mississauga) ; Mr. R. Rolland Sioui (Elder ) , René Gros-Louis ( Chief) , Oney Maher (Elder ), Daniel Proteau ( elder ) , Gaetan Sioui ( Chief) , Yvon Gros Louis (Elder ), Prof. Susan Pfeiffer ( Department of Anthropology ) , Luc Lainé (project manager ), David Donnelly ( Donnelly Law ) .

Notice of Claim Dated July 13, 2011
AND
Proof of Service to the Lawyers of the Federal Government of Canada

Proof of Service to the Lawyers of the Federal Government of Canada

Plaintiff's Note 3:

Under the Canadian Law, all claims related to Children, including " Child Pornography"  must be marked Confidential and be delivered in sealed package and Only a Judge is allowed to open the document during Trial.

What is Child Pornography?

Child Pornography is a criminal offense and is defined as any visual depiction involving the use of a minor, or one appearing to be a minor, engaging in sexually explicit conduct. Visual depictions include photographs, film, video, pictures or computer-generated images or pictures, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means. Child pornography has become particularly problematic with the rise of the Internet and its ability to both transmit data far and wide and provide a level of anonymity to its users and the victims depicted in images of child pornography.

Types of Depictions

Any depiction of a child engaged in sexually explicit conduct may be considered child pornography. This can include photographs, digital images, computer-generated images, drawings, videos, or animations, among others. This also applies if the person in the depiction is actually an adult but appears to be a minor. Moreover, altering an image or video so that it appears to depict a minor may also be child pornography (for example, editing the face of a minor onto the nude body of an adult in an image or video).

Defined Terms for Child Pornography

A "minor" is any person under the age of eighteen years.

"Sexually explicit conduct" means actual, graphic or simulated sexual intercourse, including anal and oral; bestiality; masturbation; sadistic or masochistic abuse; or lewd exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of the minor.

Prohibited Acts

Obviously, producing child pornography is illegal. However, it is also illegal to knowingly possess, distribute, receive, or possess with intent to distribute, any form of child pornography. Each act may receive a different criminal penalty. Inadvertent access is usually not illegal, such as accidentally clicking on a link that directs one's web browser to such a depiction. However, repeated visits may demonstrate a pattern of behavior sufficient for a conviction.

Exceptions

There is an exception to typical definitions of child pornography. If it can be proven that the depiction has serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value, it may be exempted from child pornography laws. The definition of a pornographic image can be subjective and many courts refer to the case of U.S. v. Dost to determine whether an image meets the criteria for pornography. That case created the "Dost Test" in order to better determine whether a visual depiction of a minor constitutes a "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area." The Dost Test has six criteria, not all of which must be present, nor are other criteria necessarily excluded from the test. Those criteria are:

1. Whether the focal point of the visual depiction is on the child's genitalia or pubic area.

2. Whether the setting of the visual depiction is sexually suggestive, (i.e., in a place or pose generally associated with sexual activity).

3. Whether the child is depicted in an unnatural pose or inappropriate attire given the age of the child.

4. Whether the child is fully or partially clothed/nude.

5. Whether the visual depiction suggests sexual coyness or a willingness to engage in sexual activity.

6. Whether the visual depiction is intended or designed to elicit a sexual response in the viewer.

Sources of Law

It is both a federal and a state crime to knowingly possess, manufacture, distribute, or "access with intent to view" child pornography. The federal law prohibiting child pornography is 18 U.S.C. Chapter 110, Sexual Exploitation and Other Abuse of Children. In addition, the Child Online Protection Act and the Children’s Internet Protection Act also outlaw child pornography and cover media such as websites and other online forms of child pornography. Additionally, every state has its own laws regarding both child pornography and statutory rape (i.e., sexual activities with a minor).

Child pornographers can be prosecuted by the FBI, the Department of Justice, the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, U.S. Customs, the U.S. Attorney General, state attorneys general, state and local law enforcement, and local prosecutors. Largely, who has jurisdiction and who will be responsible for prosecuting depends on the way in which the pornography was accessed or distributed. If across state lines, such as by the internet or through the mail, federal authorities may be involved, though local authorities can also prosecute for these crimes on their own. Child pornography convictions can result in up to 15 years in federal prison as well as registration by the convicted as a sex offender.

To consult State Legislation regarding child pornography laws and regulations please see the Criminal Code by State page.

You can also find additional resources related to child pornography below on this page, or you can consult with an attorney in your area by visiting our Law Firms page.