Shawn Folkes talks a good game about how the Korys are legal incompetents (admittedly it's hard to disagree) While Shawn himself is a legal wizard;
Shawn Folkes
I'm currently self counseling my 9th or 10th trial. Out of the nine trials I've done so far I have won eight including beating charges for choking out police officers. My present trial has been going on for about a year now and I just finished a lengthy Voir Dire. The charge is threatening to police via Facebook.
But, unsupported, that's just puffery. Anybody can make up unverifiable stories. Is there any way to check Shawn out? Of course there is, one of his many, many criminal convictions gives a list!
[16] The court ordered a Pre-Sentence Report (PSR). It was made exhibit 3 on consent. Ms. Heather Iviney, the probation officer who wrote the report, stated that Mr. Folkes cooperated with her, but I would classify the report as mildly negative.
[17] The Report reveals the following which is germane to sentencing. Mr. Folkes has a criminal record (exhibit 1) that starts in 1984 when he was a youth, and ends in 2010. The PSR contains the record. He has convictions in 1984 (as a youth) and then his adult record begins in 1987 and continues through 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 2001, and 2010. The offences of which he was convicted are break and enter and theft, escape lawful custody, theft, possession of weapons, forcible confinement, aggravated assault, possession of property obtained by crime, mischief, possession of a narcotic, fail to comply with a recognizance and with probation, assault cause bodily harm, obstruct police, unlawfully in a dwelling, and fail to appear in court. His longest sentence was four years for aggravated assault in 1987. He does not have any driving related convictions on his record.
[59] Thirdly, Mr. Folkes does not inform his solicited petitioners that he has a criminal record with 18 adult convictions and five youth court findings of guilt on it.
Oops! I guess none of those were the nine or ten he did himself. Except that the quote comes from one that he self represented;
R. v. Folkes
2010 ONCJ 326
http://canlii.ca/t/2c2c1
This, and a case considered below, are all that I can find but, as the above case shows, Shawn, at age 42 in 2010, had a lifetime of crime behind him. Convicted crime. This is what started the ball rolling in this case;
[3] On September 20, 2007 in the City of Brampton at approximately 11:40 p.m., Mr. Folkes, whose licence was suspended for unpaid fines, was driving home. He hit Mr. Robert Rudderham, who was jaywalking across Bramalea Road. Ms. Thompson, a Crown witness, testified that Mr. Rudderham was stumbling across the road. Mr. Rudderham’s wife testified that on the night in question he went to a bar. Therefore, it is possible that he was inebriated.
But that wasn't the crime, this was;
[9] There was a townhouse complex across the street from where the accident occurred, but Mr. Folkes did not go there to seek help for Mr. Rudderham. Instead, he drove to the parking lot of a medical building about 180 meters away, and parked the car within view of the scene of the accident. He left the keys in the ignition and walked to a Petro Canada gas station where he spoke to Mr. Mukhtar, the attendant, and shortly after to Officer Bruce who pulled into the station looking for the driver who hit Mr. Rudderham, who was reportedly heading in the direction of the gas station.
Resulting in;
[1] These are reasons for sentence for Shawn Cornell Bertrand Folks on the charges of failing to remain at the scene of an accident, contrary to s. 252 (1) (a) of the Criminal Code and of driving while his licence was suspended contrary to s. 53 Highway Traffic Act.
His personal circumstances are pretty bleak. In 2010 he was broke, unemployed, and essentially unemployable;
[21] He completed the second year of an undergraduate program at the University of Toronto in English, history and psychology. He left school to work. He worked at Bell Canada for seven and a half years. Now he has trouble finding employment because of his criminal record. He was recently laid off due to the recession and his financial situation is dire. He currently receives $555.85 a month from social assistance. His rent is $540.00 a month. He is trying to obtain government funds in order to return to school to pursue employment in the renewable energy sector. In the meantime, he is looking for work in this area. He augments his income by working as a personal trainer.
This is what the" personal trainer" comment refers to;
https://www.facebook.com/saiyanshawn
If nothing else Shaw tries to stay in good shape. Not a couch potato lump like Burnaby49. Or at least he was in good shape. Jail is killing him;
Shawn Folkes Lol I'm at the point where a TV dinner is nothing but duel, esp since I eat pretty clean most of the time. Diet ain't my problem.
Affording a full proper diet is.
I'll fix what is for next year, starting with sleeping in MY bed again and not a stinky beat up old couch.
Physio would go a huge way to getting mW to 100%.
I have no idea what I could do. Looking at these videos? Honesty?
I hate them. They all auck absolute shit. Friends are either naive or polite because really? I bite ass.
But I KNOW why.
I simply CANT push too hard. When I so I feel the injuries kick in, and some jumps were dead flat because of the disc trauma to my lower back.
If my back was like it used to be up til recently (before I went to jail where the mattresses destroyed my spine) and both legs had time to not just heal but weight train specific for jumping... I think a few more records will fall.
So now I heal and repair. Is gave enough time to put out a good showing at the World's, but you know the dealio with that
What goes around comes around as they say. He was convicted of theft but went into a rant about killing people when this bike was stolen from him. He said it was worth about $6,000;
Shawn Folkes
I have a lead
Theres kids where the theif lives
I dont wanna bring out you know who cuz we ll know what HE will do
Thats the problem. Im sick like that (SICK...as in literally), and after it serious complexes my conscience
Most people...end up copping out...me..
I end up biting pieces of them off
All that martial arts shit eh?
I use it...yep... but hahahaha only in the dirtiest most vicious ways
See...I know how to easily kill...with ONE bite.
Just like I wouldnt ...shit Im sliding again.
We dont need to hear me goin off with my twisted nonsense. I MUST give this up to God to fix...if he so chooses. THIS...would be one hell of a test...wouldnt it.
So yes...I have a lead. I might just go, find where it is...and ask for it back. No violence no cops.
And if they have it and dont give it back well when I kill them THEN it will be justified, and ya cant complain when Ilet bad Shawn out, because NO Shawns deal with po-po. I only reported this to block out any pawn shops
1 · August 18, 2015 at 10:01am
Anyhow, back to sentencing. This is what the two sides wanted;
The Position of the parties
[26] For the fail to remain charge, Ms. Hackett, the Crown, asks for a sentence of between 12 and 15 months, an 18 month driving prohibition and a DNA order. She does not seek a probation order. For the driving while suspended charge she asks for a fine of $2,500.00.
[27] Mr. Folkes seeks a conditional sentence of between 6 to 18 months with the maximum community service work for the fail to remain charge. Regarding the driving while suspended, he just said that he cannot pay the fine that the Crown is requesting.
So the judge, in determining an appropriate sentence, considered mitigating and aggravating circumstances. Mitigating was easy;
Mitigating circumstances
[47] I find that there are no weighty mitigating factors in this case. There are no aspects of the case itself that provide mitigation for Mr. Folkes. There are a few somewhat attenuated mitigating circumstances in his personal life, such as, the volunteer work that Mr. Folkes says he does in his community. With the exception of the letter from Durham Outlook for the Needy St. Vincent Pallotti’s Kitchen, the information that he provided about the extent and duration of this work is unclear.
[48] The PSR relates that Mr. Folkes had a difficult upbringing because he did not get along with his father and he was the only black kid in school. He also spent two years in the care of the Children’s Aid Society. But there is no direct connection between these things and the commission of this offence.
Aggravating, on the other hand;
[50] On the other hand, there are significant aggravating circumstances to consider. The nature of the offence is serious. Mr. Folkes hit Mr. Rudderham and injured him severely, and knowing this, he left him on the side of the road and drove away. Then he concocted a lie to cover this up and told it to Mr. Mukhtar, the gas station attendant, and to Officer Bruce. He continued telling this lie right through the trial. He lied under oath when he said that he did not tell Mr. Mukhtar and Officer Bruce that his car had been stolen. In his submissions to sentence, Mr. Folkes conceded that he thought of himself first instead of thinking of helping Mr. Rudderham.
[51] Mr. Folkes argued that he reacted spontaneously and in a panic when he misled Officer Bruce. I do not accept this. Although he did not have much time to come up with the story about his car having been stolen, Mr. Folkes is an intelligent and articulate person fully capable of manufacturing this story in this short period. I find that this was a calculated and premeditated effort to avoid responsibility for what he did. He had already told the lie to Mr. Mukhtar when he told it to Officer Bruce. There is no spontaneity in that. Therefore, even up to the end Mr. Folkes is trying to excuse himself and avoid responsibility for what he did.
[52] Mr. Folkes has a criminal record. Although it does not have any convictions for driving offences, it still must be considered as evidence that Mr. Folkes has on many occasions not been a law abiding citizen.
[53] Mr. Folkes is not a particularly remorseful person. In the sentencing hearing, he told the court that he wished that he could apologize to Mr. Rudderham, but he has not done so. Ms. Iviney, the author of the PSR said that he minimized “his accountability with regards to the entire accident and did not appear to appreciate the potential impact of driving a vehicle without a valid driver’s license” (Page 6). In his submissions to sentence, Mr. Folkes stated that he was minimizing the suspension itself, not the failing to remain charge.
[54] This may be so, but the suspension of his driving privileges was not something to be minimized and it shows a lack of appreciation for the seriousness of the conduct which resulted in the suspension, and of the law that mandated the suspension of his driving privileges. Had he heeded the law and not driven he would not have hit Mr. Rudderham. I note that Ms. Iviney’s perception accords with Mr. Folkes’s attitude of trying to avoid responsibility for his actions in this case.
Although this one needs a bit of explanation;
Had he heeded the law and not driven he would not have hit Mr. Rudderham.
The judge was referring to the fact that Shawn's license was suspended so that he could not legally drive. Had he followed the law and not driven while suspended he wouldn't have run Rudderham down.
Anyhow Shawn, like every reforming criminal, was just on the cusp of a new life when, though no fault of his own, shit happened again and screwed him. Judge wasn't buying it
3. Mr. Folkes states that he is “on the cusp of getting my life re-focused, after getting laid off, and possible incarceration will be a HUGE set back…one that will be extremely difficult to overcome.” There was very little, if any evidence of this.
This is how it ended up;
Conclusion
[63] After considering all of the circumstances, the submissions of the Crown and of the defence, and the law cited above, I conclude that the appropriate sentence for the fail to remain offence is 15 months in jail minus the value of his pre-trial detention (48 days), which results in a sentence of 13 months and 12 days. I find that a conditional sentence is not appropriate in these circumstances because it would not adequately satisfy the principles of deterrence, denunciation and retribution for Mr. Folkes’s “grave failure to comport with the standards of humanity and decency.” It would not be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing set out in ss. 718 to 718.2 of the Criminal Code. Given Mr. Folkes’s self-excusing attitude regarding his behaviour, rehabilitation is not a viable concern because it is doubtful that Mr. Folkes thinks that he needs it.
[64] I will impose a driving prohibition pursuant to s. 259 (2) (b) of the Criminal Code for a period of 18 months.
[65] Failing to remain at the scene of an accident is a secondary designated offence. I order that Mr. Folkes give a sample of his DNA pursuant to s.487.051 (3) (b) of the Criminal Code.
[66] There will be a fine of $500.00 for the offence of driving while his licence was suspended contrary to the Highway Traffic Act. Mr. Folkes’s economic circumstances are dire and it would be inappropriate to impose a higher fine. He will have 12 months to pay the fine from the time of his release from jail.
This didn't end the story. There was a follow-up case where Rudderham, the guy Folkes ran over, sued everybody even peripherally involved;
Rudderham v. Folkes
2012 ONCA 603
http://canlii.ca/t/fsqj9
The cited case is an appeal from an unreported case. Unreported for the simple reason that it was dismissed before trial;
[1] The appellant is challenging the summary judgment dismissing the action against the respondent. While the motion judge did not have the benefit of Combined Air Mechanical Services Inc. v. Flesch, 2011 ONCA 764 (CanLII), his reasons made clear that he was able to develop a full appreciation of the appellant’s case against the respondent.
The appellants in the appeal were; Robert Allan Rudderham (jaywalking victim), Jeannette Padilla (victim's wife?), Robert Rudderham and Alexandra Rudderham, minors under the age of eighteen years (victim's children?).
The defendants were; Shawn Folkes, Mary Lloyd (owner of car Shawn was driving), 1707508 Ontario Limited c.o.b. as TJ’s Grill & Bar (where Rudderham was drinking) and Personal Insurance Company of Canada (probably the car insurer).
This tells the story;
[2] As he was entitled to do, the motion judge engaged in a limited weighing of the evidence and concluded he had no doubt that the only clear and detailed evidence that could underpin a trial judge’s fact finding was that of the respondent, and that any inconsistencies with the appellant’s evidence were relatively minor and did not go to any over service by the respondent. He went further and found as well that the appellant had no evidence of over service at all.
[3] In our view on this record, these conclusions were entirely justified. The appeal must be dismissed. Costs to the respondent fixed at $10,000, inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes.
"over service" means serving alcohol to somebody obviously drunk. So Rudderham was suing Folkes for running him down, Mary Lloyd for supplying him with the means to run him down, the insurance company to pay whatever court awards were made against Mary, and the bar for serving him too much booze which, assumedly, had him stumbling across the road in front of Shawn.
I'm assuming that the original lawsuit was dismissed because the evidence showed that the accident was Rudderham's own fault.