如何寫伸訴信 真實例子
回答有關Information and Privacy Commisioner的信
Re: Answer of Inquiry -- Appeal number
Dear Mr. Name,
I am in receipt of your correspondence pertaining to the Notice of Inquiry dated Feb 3 2005.
I understand my appeal is now in the inquiry stage and that the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) provides that parties involved in an inquiry are entitled to make representations to your office, and that it is the practice of the agency to invite the parties to submit their representations in writing which I am herein. Representation includes on the facts and issues in this appeal, as well as any other relevant information.
Before I get into those comments and facts, I wish to mention my original requests. I would like to emphasis that my original requests for the information to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Unit of Toronto Police Service was filled on May 28, 2004 (not June 23, 2004). And we have a little difference and misunderstanding about the request items. Those requests are:
1. Full and complete Criminal and City by-law offence records since Jan. 30, 2004 to May 28, 2004;
2. Full and complete record that I, Name, call 911 or 416-808-4200 since Jan 30, 2000 to May 28, 2004.
3. Full and complete record that I, Name, was complained since Jan. 30, 2004 to May 28, 2004;
4. The statistical result of Toronto Metro Police react to 911 call (How long it will take for the police to come to the scene after 911 call?)
We have major difference on the request 4. This request is not for the time of police response to my 911 calls but for the general statistical result of Toronto Police response time to all 911 calls which involved crime. The events report normal result of request 2 should include the time of receiving 911 calls, the time police starting action and the time of police arrival scene, the outcome of the actions. There is no need to specify the time schedule request for my calls. However the request 4 can result in:
? The average response time for all 911 calls involved crime;
? The average response times for 911 calls involved crime for different situation categorized by emergency degree.
I need this information to do comparison for my family member’s and my 911 calls involved the crime since police statistically show their bias and discrimination on my and my family member’s 911 call, such as that my daughter called 911 for rape threaten during last August and police showed up 6 hours later in the morning 3am, and in another case during last April police showed up 2 hours later after 911 call when the local youth were caught by myself and my neighbor for damaging my property, the excuse was that they could not find the location.
Regarding to the original request 3, I later added “I do not need the name(s) of the complainer(s)” in order to avoid police excuse that the information related to personal information. But police has no excuse to hide names for those who violated the Criminal Code 140 of Public Mischief since they are criminal suspects such as Stephen (Steven in police Notes) --- etc..
Now, since the request has not been fulfilled and robberies and some illegal actions happened during the appeal and adjudication procedure I hope the end date of request items 1, 2, and 3 should be changed to “up to date”, which means the information should include the from Jan. 30, 2000 to the end date of this adjudication procedure.
In respect to my comments, and support for my requests, I mention the flowing.
With respect to Record 1: I/CAD Address History Report and Record 2: I/CAD Event Details Report the police claim that certain portions of the records are not responsive to the request, and rely on the application of the exemptions set out in section 14(1)(f) in conjunction with 14(3)(b) and section 38(b) of the Act to deny my access to the several portions of those records, I have 7 issues ( Issues ) to let you consider about:
1. My wife, Name, father-in-law Name, mother-in-law Name and my son Name had also requested the disclosure to unit on May 31, 2004 and they have not gotten any answer yet, further, my daughter Name who also called 911 for the emergency situation for my business and her age is less than 18 and in my guarantee, there are no excuses for police to deny my access to the requested information, for they are my family members and involved in my business.
2. At about 9:40AM on 27th day May 2004, Name of ** Division superintendent called me and claimed that I have sold fireworks without license, and this claim in police computer system is totally false and there is no such law or city-by, I have no idea how and when this information come into police computer system. Please read my letter attached to Name dated June 7, 2004.
3. In conjunction with Issue 2, I have to mention that Name of ** Division PACT administrator on Oct. 24, 2003 pressured my wife and my daughter to sign a document to release a local criminal suspect who robbed my store and assaulted my wife without any punishment (on July 22, 2003), and said if you went out this door without signing this document you would feel very very unhappy.
4. On May 21, 2004 two plain cloth ** division officers came to my store and unlawfully searched my store with the excuse that someone reported that I have sold fireworks to minors, they did not find reported fireworks and just walked away and I also have whole day video and audio record tape as proof, this action later was believed misconduct by Toronto Police Service Board. Police has no excuse to hide names of the report(s) since he/they already violate Criminal Code 140 (1) (a) – Public Mischief.
5. On May 6, 2003, Stephen (Steven in police notes) --- whose family live around this neighborhood gave false statement that I went to out of back door and used a rifle to point at two junior students, which resulted in my false arrest and false charge for point firearm at person, and meanwhile two junior students witness from police side gave a totally different statement (from court disclosure) saying that I did not point gun to anybody and there is no people around. Stephen ---- has already violated Criminal Code 140(1) (a) and (c), and police has no excuse to hide any information related to him even he has certain connection with police, since he is criminal suspect.
6. In conjunction with Issue 5 police have arrested, talked to and recorded information on several local kids and youths who stole and damaged my store properties, and their names and relatives are unknown to me. There is possibility that some police officers have certain connection with those kids and youths in certain style which is not above the board. Police do not want to investigate themselves and I have to get the disclosure to do the investigation by myself to dig out those bad guys in our community and police community.
7. Any person who has given false statements, involving my business, or my family as under Issues 2, 4 and 5 for example, have violated criminal code 140 public mischief, and the police have no right to protect their names.
I do not release all facts and proof in order to check whether police later will release all the requested information since the police dishonest history.
With respect to Record 3, the Police claim the application of the exemptions set out at sections 8(1)(a), 14(1)(f) in conjunction with 14(3)(b), 38(a) and 38(b) of the Act to deny access to the several portions of this record. I believe this is a ridiculous and unprofessional decision since there is no such 8(1)(a) section in the Act 2001. Considering about the issue 2 and 3 it is possible that police fabricated me other crime such as “sold firearm without license” etc. I need adjudicator to clarify whether such crime(s) or offence(s) record exist or existed. I advise that issue 2 has become one of the claims in my civil lawsuit against the Police (O.S.C.J. file no. **********) and police side is denying such record exists or existed. For sections 14(1)(f), 14(3)(b) and 38(b), there should be no personal information invasion. If there is one, the one must be criminal suspect(s) or my family members’ information and they should not be keep secret from me since I am part of the case, when the criminal incidence occurs, those victims should have the right to know by who.
In respect to section 38(a), I need adjudicator to justify whether police decision is just, and how can I know if police fabricated me crime(s). I need to know about any information that says I did wrong.
With respect to section 8(1)(l), there is not such law in the Act 2001. If the Police means the disclosure would facilitate the commission of an unlawful act or hamper crime control, it just and only facilitate the commission of unlawful act on the police side – they lie, fabricate evidences and even fabricate law (city by-law).
With respect of the disclosure sent to me on June 26, 2004, the Police in that released information eliminated all records related any case that police had contacted, arrested or recorded information on criminal suspect(s). Also the unit did not confirm whether I have city by-law offence record(s).
Specifically, the result of case on July 22, 2003 will show whether police has conducted a law protector or a criminal protector.
I am looking forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely
Names
回答有關Information and Privacy Commisioner的信
Re: Answer of Inquiry -- Appeal number
Dear Mr. Name,
I am in receipt of your correspondence pertaining to the Notice of Inquiry dated Feb 3 2005.
I understand my appeal is now in the inquiry stage and that the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) provides that parties involved in an inquiry are entitled to make representations to your office, and that it is the practice of the agency to invite the parties to submit their representations in writing which I am herein. Representation includes on the facts and issues in this appeal, as well as any other relevant information.
Before I get into those comments and facts, I wish to mention my original requests. I would like to emphasis that my original requests for the information to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Unit of Toronto Police Service was filled on May 28, 2004 (not June 23, 2004). And we have a little difference and misunderstanding about the request items. Those requests are:
1. Full and complete Criminal and City by-law offence records since Jan. 30, 2004 to May 28, 2004;
2. Full and complete record that I, Name, call 911 or 416-808-4200 since Jan 30, 2000 to May 28, 2004.
3. Full and complete record that I, Name, was complained since Jan. 30, 2004 to May 28, 2004;
4. The statistical result of Toronto Metro Police react to 911 call (How long it will take for the police to come to the scene after 911 call?)
We have major difference on the request 4. This request is not for the time of police response to my 911 calls but for the general statistical result of Toronto Police response time to all 911 calls which involved crime. The events report normal result of request 2 should include the time of receiving 911 calls, the time police starting action and the time of police arrival scene, the outcome of the actions. There is no need to specify the time schedule request for my calls. However the request 4 can result in:
? The average response time for all 911 calls involved crime;
? The average response times for 911 calls involved crime for different situation categorized by emergency degree.
I need this information to do comparison for my family member’s and my 911 calls involved the crime since police statistically show their bias and discrimination on my and my family member’s 911 call, such as that my daughter called 911 for rape threaten during last August and police showed up 6 hours later in the morning 3am, and in another case during last April police showed up 2 hours later after 911 call when the local youth were caught by myself and my neighbor for damaging my property, the excuse was that they could not find the location.
Regarding to the original request 3, I later added “I do not need the name(s) of the complainer(s)” in order to avoid police excuse that the information related to personal information. But police has no excuse to hide names for those who violated the Criminal Code 140 of Public Mischief since they are criminal suspects such as Stephen (Steven in police Notes) --- etc..
Now, since the request has not been fulfilled and robberies and some illegal actions happened during the appeal and adjudication procedure I hope the end date of request items 1, 2, and 3 should be changed to “up to date”, which means the information should include the from Jan. 30, 2000 to the end date of this adjudication procedure.
In respect to my comments, and support for my requests, I mention the flowing.
With respect to Record 1: I/CAD Address History Report and Record 2: I/CAD Event Details Report the police claim that certain portions of the records are not responsive to the request, and rely on the application of the exemptions set out in section 14(1)(f) in conjunction with 14(3)(b) and section 38(b) of the Act to deny my access to the several portions of those records, I have 7 issues ( Issues ) to let you consider about:
1. My wife, Name, father-in-law Name, mother-in-law Name and my son Name had also requested the disclosure to unit on May 31, 2004 and they have not gotten any answer yet, further, my daughter Name who also called 911 for the emergency situation for my business and her age is less than 18 and in my guarantee, there are no excuses for police to deny my access to the requested information, for they are my family members and involved in my business.
2. At about 9:40AM on 27th day May 2004, Name of ** Division superintendent called me and claimed that I have sold fireworks without license, and this claim in police computer system is totally false and there is no such law or city-by, I have no idea how and when this information come into police computer system. Please read my letter attached to Name dated June 7, 2004.
3. In conjunction with Issue 2, I have to mention that Name of ** Division PACT administrator on Oct. 24, 2003 pressured my wife and my daughter to sign a document to release a local criminal suspect who robbed my store and assaulted my wife without any punishment (on July 22, 2003), and said if you went out this door without signing this document you would feel very very unhappy.
4. On May 21, 2004 two plain cloth ** division officers came to my store and unlawfully searched my store with the excuse that someone reported that I have sold fireworks to minors, they did not find reported fireworks and just walked away and I also have whole day video and audio record tape as proof, this action later was believed misconduct by Toronto Police Service Board. Police has no excuse to hide names of the report(s) since he/they already violate Criminal Code 140 (1) (a) – Public Mischief.
5. On May 6, 2003, Stephen (Steven in police notes) --- whose family live around this neighborhood gave false statement that I went to out of back door and used a rifle to point at two junior students, which resulted in my false arrest and false charge for point firearm at person, and meanwhile two junior students witness from police side gave a totally different statement (from court disclosure) saying that I did not point gun to anybody and there is no people around. Stephen ---- has already violated Criminal Code 140(1) (a) and (c), and police has no excuse to hide any information related to him even he has certain connection with police, since he is criminal suspect.
6. In conjunction with Issue 5 police have arrested, talked to and recorded information on several local kids and youths who stole and damaged my store properties, and their names and relatives are unknown to me. There is possibility that some police officers have certain connection with those kids and youths in certain style which is not above the board. Police do not want to investigate themselves and I have to get the disclosure to do the investigation by myself to dig out those bad guys in our community and police community.
7. Any person who has given false statements, involving my business, or my family as under Issues 2, 4 and 5 for example, have violated criminal code 140 public mischief, and the police have no right to protect their names.
I do not release all facts and proof in order to check whether police later will release all the requested information since the police dishonest history.
With respect to Record 3, the Police claim the application of the exemptions set out at sections 8(1)(a), 14(1)(f) in conjunction with 14(3)(b), 38(a) and 38(b) of the Act to deny access to the several portions of this record. I believe this is a ridiculous and unprofessional decision since there is no such 8(1)(a) section in the Act 2001. Considering about the issue 2 and 3 it is possible that police fabricated me other crime such as “sold firearm without license” etc. I need adjudicator to clarify whether such crime(s) or offence(s) record exist or existed. I advise that issue 2 has become one of the claims in my civil lawsuit against the Police (O.S.C.J. file no. **********) and police side is denying such record exists or existed. For sections 14(1)(f), 14(3)(b) and 38(b), there should be no personal information invasion. If there is one, the one must be criminal suspect(s) or my family members’ information and they should not be keep secret from me since I am part of the case, when the criminal incidence occurs, those victims should have the right to know by who.
In respect to section 38(a), I need adjudicator to justify whether police decision is just, and how can I know if police fabricated me crime(s). I need to know about any information that says I did wrong.
With respect to section 8(1)(l), there is not such law in the Act 2001. If the Police means the disclosure would facilitate the commission of an unlawful act or hamper crime control, it just and only facilitate the commission of unlawful act on the police side – they lie, fabricate evidences and even fabricate law (city by-law).
With respect of the disclosure sent to me on June 26, 2004, the Police in that released information eliminated all records related any case that police had contacted, arrested or recorded information on criminal suspect(s). Also the unit did not confirm whether I have city by-law offence record(s).
Specifically, the result of case on July 22, 2003 will show whether police has conducted a law protector or a criminal protector.
I am looking forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely
Names
選擇“Disable on www.wenxuecity.com”
選擇“don't run on pages on this domain”
