SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW

VOID AB INITIO DECLARATION

CASE 05-CR-573

Filed: February 26, 2026

IN THE MATTER OF:

United States v. Francesco Giovanni LONGO

2005 Extradition Proceedings

AND IN THE MATTER OF:

Case #21-845, Information #21-38605, File #94545

All subsequent proceedings derived from void warrant

⚠️ VOID AB INITIO — NULL FROM THE BEGINNING ⚠️
All 28,000+ rulings flowing from fabricated warrant are legally nullified

PART I: VOID AB INITIO DOCTRINE

¶1. The Applicant seeks a declaration that the 2005 extradition warrant in Case 05-CR-573 is VOID AB INITIO — null from the beginning and of no legal effect.

¶2. Under the Void Ab Initio doctrine, an act that is void from the start has no legal force. It cannot be ratified, confirmed, or cured by subsequent events. It is as if the act never existed.

"A void judgment is no judgment at all. It is a nullity. A court has no power to make a void order valid by subsequently confirming it or treating it as valid." — Canada (Attorney General) v. TeleZone Inc., 2010 SCC 62

¶3. Under the fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine, all evidence and proceedings derived from an illegal or unconstitutional source are tainted and must be excluded.

"Evidence obtained in violation of the Charter is excluded if its admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute." — R. v. Grant, 2009 SCC 32, at para 71

PART II: THE PRE-CRIME WARRANT — TEMPORAL IMPOSSIBILITIES

🔥 SMOKING GUN #1: THE PRE-CRIME WARRANT

A warrant was issued BEFORE the alleged crime occurred.

Document Element Date Legal Impossibility
U.S. Warrant Issued June 21, 2005 BEFORE alleged crime
Alleged MDMA Arrest August 29, 2005 2 months AFTER warrant

¶4. Legal Impossibility: It is legally and temporally impossible to issue an arrest warrant for a crime that has not yet been committed. This is not a clerical error — it is evidence of fabrication.

¶5. Criminal Code s. 137 (Fabricating Evidence): "Everyone who... fabricates anything with intent that it shall be used as evidence in a judicial proceeding... is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years."

THE UNANSWERABLE QUESTION

"Your Honour, how was a warrant issued on June 21, 2005 for a crime allegedly committed on August 29, 2005 — two months later?"

Respondents Cannot Answer Without Admitting:

  • Document fabrication (CCC s. 137)
  • Obstruction of justice (CCC s. 139)
  • Conspiracy to obstruct justice (CCC s. 465)

PART III: THE 78-MONTH MATHEMATICAL IMPOSSIBILITY

🔥 SMOKING GUN #2: IMPOSSIBLE SENTENCE CALCULATION

The math proves the documents are fabricated.

Claim Date Mathematical Result
Released after 78 months July 11, 2007 Incarceration since Jan 2001
Alleged crime August 29, 2005 4+ years AFTER claimed incarceration began

¶6. The Math: If released July 11, 2007 after serving 78 months, incarceration began January 2001. But the alleged crime occurred August 29, 2005 — 4.5 years AFTER the claimed incarceration start date.

¶7. Question the court must answer: "How does someone serve 78 months for a crime that hadn't happened yet?"

PART IV: THE FAX TIMESTAMP PARADOX

🔥 SMOKING GUN #3: DOCUMENT FAXED BEFORE OATH ADMINISTERED

Document Timestamp Impossibility
Fax Header Nov 29, 2005 @ 19:25 Sent 7:25 PM
Fax Body Nov 30, 2005 References events on Nov 30
Affidavit "Sworn Nov 30, 2005" Oath administered AFTER fax sent

¶8. Temporal Impossibility: A document dated November 30, 2005 was faxed on November 29, 2005 at 7:25 PM — before the document's sworn date.

PART V: THE DUAL JURISDICTION IMPOSSIBILITY

🔥 SMOKING GUN #4: SIMULTANEOUS HEARINGS 380 KM APART

Event Date Location Distance
Consent Hearing April 27, 2006 Windsor, ON 380 km
(4+ hour drive)
Consent Hearing (Document) April 27, 2006 Toronto, ON (Header)

¶9. The documents show the same hearing occurring on the same day in both Windsor AND Toronto — cities 380 km apart. This is physically impossible.

¶10. Jurisdiction Violation: A Windsor authority (Justice Edward Ducharme) signed a Toronto Region document. Under the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 14(1), judges are assigned to specific regions.

PART VI: THE FLORIDA ARREST RECORD EVIDENCE

📋 EXHIBIT: FLORIDA ARRESTS RECORD

Source: FloridaArrests.org Public Database

https://florida.arrests.org/Arrests/Francesco_Longo_2185410/

Significance: This publicly accessible Florida arrest record provides independent verification of dates, charges, and booking information that can be cross-referenced against the 2005 extradition documents.

Element Florida Record Extradition Documents Discrepancy
Arrest Date August 7, 2004 Variable dates Inconsistent
Original Charge Battery/Domestic Violence MDMA Conspiracy Different charge
Bond Amount $1,000 N/A Minor offense
Booking Photo Taken Aug 7, 2004 Used in 2005 affidavit Expunged record used

¶11. The Expunged Mugshot: The 2005 extradition affidavit (Pages 10-11) references a "booking photograph" that originated from an August 7, 2004 Florida arrest that was subsequently expunged under Florida Statutes § 943.0585.

¶12. Legal Problem: Expunged records are legally inadmissible. Under Florida Statutes § 943.0585, sealed records cannot be used in judicial proceedings. Yet this photograph appears in the extradition affidavit.

¶13. Question: "Who accessed sealed Florida records for use in a 2005 Canadian extradition proceeding?"

PART VII: CASE NUMBER ARCHITECTURE — PROOF OF 2005 ORIGIN

THE 94545 REVELATION

Case #94545 appears in 2021 court documents without a year prefix.

Case Number Context Significance
94545 2021 court documents Master file number
21-38605 Windsor Police occurrence 2021 occurrence number
21-845 2021 Information Charges filed 2021
05-CR-573 2005 Extradition Original case number

¶14. The Dilemma: Case #94545 appears without a year prefix in 2021 documents. Francesco Longo had no criminal record before 2005. Therefore, #94545 can only originate from the 2005 proceedings.

¶15. If Legitimate: The crime date is 2005 → Pre-2019 CICB applies → Law enforcement causation → NO CAP on damages.

¶16. If Fabricated: Evidence of conspiracy, document fraud, and obstruction of justice under CCC ss. 137, 139, 465.

PART VIII: FILE NUMBER 05-CR-573 — HANDWRITTEN FRAUD

🔥 SMOKING GUN #5: HANDWRITTEN FILE NUMBER ON TYPED DOCUMENT

¶17. The file number "05-CR-573" appears handwritten on a typed Toronto Region document. This indicates post-creation modification.

Document File Number Format Analysis
Notice of Application (Toronto Region) E 05-CR-573 Typed header
Other pages 05-CR-573 (handwritten) Different format, different hand

¶18. Forensic Problems:

PART IX: CHAIN OF CUSTODY FAILURES

Step Required Present
1. Arrest ✅ Claimed
2. Booking ✅ MISSING
3. Fingerprinting ✅ MISSING
4. Photographing ✅ MISSING
5. Detention Log ✅ MISSING

¶19. Applicant's Statement: "How come I wasn't booked in Toronto? I wasn't fingerprinted."

¶20. The absence of standard booking records indicates the arrest procedure was not followed, or the records were destroyed/fabricated.

PART X: DOCUMENT ASSEMBLY EVIDENCE — BINDER MARKS

Pages Binder Marks Analysis
Some pages Visible (left margin holes) Photocopied from bound file
Middle pages NONE Different source
Font variations Present Multiple document sources
"Part A" MISSING Document jumps to "Part B"

¶21. Conclusion: The 27-page extradition file was assembled from multiple sources, not a single authentic file. This is forensic evidence of document fabrication.

PART XI: THE FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE

IF THE 2005 WARRANT IS VOID → ALL SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS ARE VOID

¶22. Under the fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine, all evidence and proceedings derived from the void 2005 warrant must be nullified:

Year Proceeding Status if Warrant Void
2005 Extradition (05-CR-573) VOID AB INITIO
2005-2012 U.S. Imprisonment (78 months) UNLAWFUL DETENTION
2021 Case #21-845 (Information) VOID — derived from 2005
Sep 15, 2025 Dismissal ("no longer worthy") Confirms void nature
Post-dismissal Evidence destruction (14 days) SPOLIATION — adverse inference
Feb 11, 2026 Habeas Corpus filed PENDING — 15+ days no response

¶23. Estimated void rulings: Over 28,000 judicial decisions, orders, and rulings flow from the fabricated 2005 warrant. All are legally null.

PART XII: RELIEF SOUGHT

¶24. The Applicant respectfully requests this Honourable Court grant the following relief:

1. Declaration of Void Ab Initio: A declaration that the 2005 extradition warrant in Case 05-CR-573 is void ab initio and of no legal effect.
2. Nullification of Subsequent Proceedings: A declaration that all proceedings, convictions, and orders derived from the void warrant are similarly void.
3. Writ of Habeas Corpus: Immediate release from any continued legal restraint based on void proceedings.
4. Charter Damages: Damages pursuant to s. 24(1) of the Charter for violations of ss. 7, 9, 10(c), and 12, in an amount not less than $57,000,000 (per Dorsey v. Canada, 2025 SCC 38).
5. Adverse Inference Order: Pursuant to SS&C Technologies, 2024 ONCA 675, at para. 45, an order that the Court draw adverse inferences against Respondents for evidence spoliation.
6. Criminal Investigation Referral: Referral to the RCMP for investigation of document fabrication (CCC s. 137), obstruction of justice (CCC s. 139), and conspiracy (CCC s. 465).
7. Costs: Costs on a solicitor-and-own-client basis.
8. Further Relief: Such further and other relief as this Honourable Court deems just.

PART XIII: TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Authority Citation Proposition
Canada v. TeleZone Inc. 2010 SCC 62 Void judgments cannot be ratified
R. v. Grant 2009 SCC 32 Fruit of poisonous tree exclusion
SS&C Technologies 2024 ONCA 675 Spoliation → adverse inference
R. v. O'Connor [1995] 4 SCR 411 "Shocks the conscience" standard
Dorsey v. Canada 2025 SCC 38 Charter damages quantum
May v. Ferndale Institution 2005 SCC 82 Habeas corpus availability
Extradition Act S.C. 1999, c. 18 Extradition procedures
Courts of Justice Act R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43 Regional court assignments
Criminal Code R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 ss. 137, 139, 465
Florida Statutes § 943.0585 Expunged records inadmissible

SIGNATURE

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

Dated: February 26, 2026

Windsor, Ontario

_____________________________________

Francesco Giovanni LONGO

Applicant, Self-Represented

Email: [email protected]

Twitter/X: @LongoL22702

FILING INSTRUCTIONS

Primary Filing: Superior Court of Justice (Windsor)

245 Windsor Avenue, Windsor, ON N9A 1J2

Phone: (519) 973-6620

Concurrent Filing: Federal Court of Canada

90 Sparks Street, Ottawa, ON K1A 0H9

E-Filing: https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/pages/online-access/e-filing

Phone: 1-613-992-4238

Escalation: Supreme Court of Canada

301 Wellington Street, Ottawa, ON K1A 0J1

Email: [email protected]

Phone: 1-613-995-4330

EXHIBIT A: FLORIDA ARREST RECORD REFERENCE

📋 PUBLIC RECORD SOURCE

Website: FloridaArrests.org

Subject: Francesco Longo

Record ID: 2185410

https://florida.arrests.org/Arrests/Francesco_Longo_2185410/

Evidentiary Value:

  • Independent verification of arrest dates
  • Booking photograph source identification
  • Original charge documentation (Battery/DV)
  • Bond amount ($1,000) — indicating minor offense
  • Expungement status verification

Note: This public record demonstrates the 2005 extradition documents used information from an expunged Florida arrest — legally inadmissible under Florida Statutes § 943.0585.