The Judge Superthread- Merged Topics

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Don't worry, the judges will make sure they somehow override the ELECTED lawmakers of our country on this one.
"How dare you tell us we aren't God" :


http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/03/25/prison-credit.html#socialcomments
Convicts to lose double-time credit for pre-trial custody

The federal government will introduce legislation Friday to end the practice of giving convicted felons double-time credit for time spent in pre-trial custody, Justice Minister Rob Nicholson said Wednesday.
The "two-for-one" credit — whereby each day spent in custody was counted as two — was meant to compensate inmates for so-called "dead time" before their cases were dealt with in court.

"The policy has developed over the years where a person gets double credit for the time they served — or in some instances, they get triple credit — and I think there are many people across this country, myself included, who would like to see more truth in sentencing, in the sense that the sentence you get is the sentence that you will serve," Nicholson told reporters in Ottawa.

Doing away with the practice will help unclog the court system, he added.
"I think that individuals will not find it to their advantage, or their solicitors will not find it their advantage, to have continuous delays or adjournments. So I think this will help move the process forward."

The premise of the credit was to take into account conditions in pre-trial custody — prisoners being held in overcrowded jails with no access to rehabilitation or other amenities of long-term prison housing.

Public safety ministers from Canada's four western provinces who gathered in Calgary last week to discuss potential reforms to the Criminal Code called the practice outdated and recommended it be abolished.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

More judicial jackassery:

Court orders Canadian spy agency to reveal secret source

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/090527/canada/canada_justice_attacks

OTTAWA (AFP) - A federal court ordered Canada's spy service on Wednesday to disclose evidence that calls into question the reliability of a key source in the case of an alleged Al-Qaeda sleeper agent.

Judge Simon Noel ruled that information on the informant must be provided to lawyers of Mohamed Harkat who is accused of being a terrorist, even though this would reveal to them the identity of the source.

The existence of the new information came in a top secret letter from government lawyers to Noel earlier this week, court documents indicated.

Disclosures in the letter "raise questions as to the compliance of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) with orders of this court," the judge said in his decision.

He also expressed concern about "possible prevarication by CSIS witnesses called to testify concerning the reliability of the information provided by the human source, and CSIS's compliance with the obligation of utmost good faith" in the case.

The ruling delayed a hearing set to start on Monday to determine the soundness of security concerns that lead to Harkat's arrest. The hearing would be "temporarily adjourned," the judge said.

The CSIS suspects Algerian-born Harkat of having trained in a terrorist camp in Afghanistan and of belonging to an Al-Qaeda sleeper cell. Harkat has denied the allegations.

After he was granted refugee status when he arrived in Canada in 1997, he was arrested in December 2002 at his Ottawa apartment under a legal measure authorizing the expulsion or imprisonment of Canadian residents or immigrants suspected of posing a threat to national security.

He was released in June 2006 under strict bail conditions, which include electronic monitoring.

Thank you "your honour".  Thank you for trying to make life easier for someone known to be trying to destroy our country.  Thank you for undermining the entire confidential informant process which will have repercussions throughout every level and area of any type of enforcement that uses CI's.  Thank you for feeling you are so very more important that the entire enforcement community that you think you can get a guy killed for cooperating with the authorities. 
Thank you, Judge Simon Noel, for bringing Canada one step closer to its own 9/11.

 

[a_majoor]

And now for the highest profile judicial nomination at the present time:

http://strongconservative.blogspot.com/2009/06/equality-before-law.html

Equality Before the Law

US Constitution - 14th Amendment: Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor's statement regarding her "Latina" heritage and the law: "I...accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that--it's an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others. ... Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that wise old men and wise old--and a wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am...not so sure that I agree with the statement. ... I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who wasn't lived that life. ... Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what the difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage."

Sotomayor's statement is revealing. Impartiality under the law is not an "aspiration", it is a Constitutional requirement according to the 14th Amendment.

Slavery and segregation are the most egregious sins of the United States. Their existence was completely inconsistent with the very words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence which recognized that "all men are created equal". The framers saw this truth as self evident, a truly powerful recognition. But America fell short of it's values. All nations and all individuals do. We live in an imperfect world and are imperfect creations.

Yet despite this, heroes like Martin Luther King had faith that America would one day live up to its values and her true self, that a future lay ahead where his children would not be judged by the colour of their sin, but by the content of their character.

It seems undeniable that if Samuel Alito or John Roberts had said "I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a black/Latino/Italian/Chinese woman who wasn't lived that life." And rightly so. Why then is Ms. Sotomayor being held to a different standard than a white man would be? Is this equality under the law? Is this the future that King dreamed of?

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

I really don't have any commentary to go with this except maybe it might show the folks on this site how hard it really is to keep someone in jail. We complain all the time about things like Cpl. Wilcox being free while his appeal is heard but look at the repeatrepeatrepeat offenders they let go KNOWING they are going back to do the same thing over again.

Just for your info.......

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Crime/2009/12/15/12158456-sun.html
62 convictions, but crack dealer is free on bail
Cops grit their teeth as dealers getting out next day on no-deposit surety
By MARK BONOKOSKI

TORONTO -- If I were a justice of the peace, he'd be in jail.

But I'm not, and he isn't.

With 62 convictions already on his rap sheet, many of them drug-related, this 32-year-old man recently appeared in bail court at Old City Hall and was released on a $1,000 surety -- no deposit, and therefore no financial pain -- and given the liberty of house arrest after being charged, yet again, for trafficking in crack cocaine.
And he was given this break by a JP despite also being on bail on other charges, as well as being on probation for one of those previous 62 convictions.

No wonder the cops get frustrated.
Tracked down through public court documents, this alleged drug dealer was found at his apartment above a strip-mall dollar store in the Dupont-Lansdowne area of the city's west end, but was unwilling to talk about how -- or why -- the JP decided he was worthy of even limited freedom.

Sixty-two convictions, yet no denial of bail?
It would take some explaining.
Some two weeks ago, the Toronto Police issued a press release on Project Sunshine, a joint effort by the drug squad and 14 Division undercover officers, which zeroed in on drug dealers working the hot-spot corners in the city's west end.

'OPPORTUNITY' BUYS

During the five-week project, undercover cops made 80 "opportunity" buys, purchasing a total of $100,000 in drugs that were being sold as openly as scalpers flogging Leaf tickets outside the ACC, and came up with 60 accused who, once their rap sheets were tallied, had already racked up 955 previous convictions.
Yet more than half are already back on the streets.

The cops had obviously done their job.
But the courts?
During the bail process, a 23-year-old man, not an "addict dealer" and with no criminal record, and who was charged with three counts of trafficking in crack cocaine, was granted bail -- on a $500 surety, but with no deposit.

This, perhaps, is understandable considering the fact he is relatively young and had no priors.
But how does one explain a JP giving an even better deal -- bail with no surety whatsoever -- to a 38-year-old woman with 13 prior criminal convictions who was charged with three counts of trafficking in crack cocaine, and three counts of being in possession of the proceeds of crime, namely her stash of drug cash?

STILL ON BAIL

Or giving bail -- on a $1,000 surety, but again with no deposit -- to a 43-year-old male with 12 previous criminal convictions, and who was still on bail on other charges when he was arrested during Project Sunshine for once again trafficking in crack cocaine ?
How does his failure to comply with one bail translate into being given bail yet again?

Insp. Joanna Beaven heads up the detective units at 14 Division, and Det. Sgt. Brian Kelly its vice squad.
"What's most frustrating is dealing with members of the community who know a drug dealer has been arrested, and then see him out on the street the next day," says Beaven.
"All we can tell them is that we are doing our jobs, and that there is nothing we can do when it comes to the court doing its job."

"Frustrating from an enforcement perspective, yes, but you cannot give up. You have to keep the pressure on," says Kelly, noting that intelligence gathered during Project Sunshine enabled the force's drug squad to take down a number of mid-level suppliers and dealers.

As reported here, some of those mid-level operatives included an 63-year-old man living and working out of a Dufferin St. retirement home, an Augusta Ave. record shop used as a front for drug dealing, and an appliance store that was selling more than dishwashers.
But most of those arrested are out on bail, too -- even those who had already given the finger to the courts.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

They aren't just useless at street level either:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/federal-court-quashes-a-second-security-certificate/article1400563/

Federal Court quashes a second security certificate
Ruling another blow to controversial certificate system

New disclosure obligations set out by the Supreme Court of Canada have played a key part in the collapse of a federal security certificate case against a second terrorism suspect.

In quashing the certificate against the Syrian-born Toronto resident Hassan Almrei, a Federal Court judge said yesterday that the material the Canadian Security Intelligence Service disclosed to the court under the new rules contradicted information from its informants.

In his ruling, Mr. Justice Richard Mosley also said CSIS filed outdated, unreliable information about how al-Qaeda operates.

The ruling is the latest blow to the controversial certificate system, which relies on evidence heard in secret to detain and deport foreign residents.

"This decision proves this process is a flawed process," said Mr. Almrei's lawyer, Lorne Waldman. The new rules have helped, he said, but "I still don't believe it is a fair process."

Mr. Almrei is a former mujahed who went to Afghanistan in the 1990s. His arrest in 2001 was justified, but he's no longer a security threat, Judge Mosley wrote.
In September, Moroccan-born Montreal resident Adil Charkaoui was cleared after the government withdrew its certificate evidence against him rather than subject it to scrutiny.

Mr. Charkaoui was the plaintiff in the 2008 top court ruling known as Charkaoui II, which requires that CSIS retain and disclose all relevant information to the judge in a security certificate case.

That case is expected to be pivotal in the three remaining certificate cases against men suspected of being Islamic terrorists.

Norman Boxall, a lawyer for another certificate suspect, Mohamed Harkat, called the Charkaoui II decision important.

"Like Almrei, there has also been disclosure in Harkat raising serious issues with confidential informants," he said.

Barbara Jackman, who represents certificate suspects Mohamed Mahjoub and Mahmoud Jaballah, said Charkaoui II resulted in greater disclosure than 10 years of previous legal wrangling did.

In an interview with The Canadian Press this weekend, Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan said he would review the embattled certificate system.

"I'm taking a serious look at it, trying to work our way through what the implications of the court decisions are and how we can balance that with our ... national security," he said.

In his ruling, Judge Mosley said there were grounds to be suspicious of Mr. Almrei because he had been to Afghanistan, had arrived in Canada on a bogus passport and gave a forged passport to an Arab Afghan.

"Almrei was at the very least an opportunist willing, for a suitable fee, to violate Canada's laws," the judge said.

But as CSIS was compelled to release more evidence, "surveillance and intercept reports ... contradicted human source reports," Judge Mosley wrote.

Also, CSIS had to tell the court that one informant failed a polygraph test while a second one didn't undergo the lie detector that the agency said he had.

CSIS's credibility was further hurt by closed-door cross-examinations by court-appointed advocates, a role created after another Supreme Court ruling that Mr. Charkaoui, Mr. Almrei and Mr. Harkat won in 2007.

Mr. Waldman said the government made a mistake in using a security certificate rather than charging Mr. Almrei with lesser criminal offences in 2001. He is unlikely to be deported to Syria because of the likelihood that he would be tortured there.

Yeah, we all know that terrorists usually just get bored and give up on the whole jihad thing.  I don't suppose that when a major terrorist strike finally does happen we could be so lucky that it happens at the Supreme Court in Ottawa?  (with no innocent casualties)
I truly believe that is what the judiciary wants.  A body count. 
And now we are stuck with this arsehole because he MIGHT be tortured if we send him back.

 

[George Wallace]

In his ruling, Mr. Justice Richard Mosley also said CSIS filed outdated, unreliable information about how al-Qaeda operates.

I wonder, just how does the Judge know this?

Did he have the latest al-Qaeda SOPs in his possession?

Perhaps he is a mole?  >

 

[zipperhead_cop]

I wonder, just how does the Judge know this?

Did he have the latest al-Qaeda SOPs in his possession?

Perhaps he is a mole?  >

Because certainly the word of other terrorists is more believable than actual wire taps and surveillance  :

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

A couple of articles from Joe Warmington to show the mockery some Judges make of our society.
http://www.torontosun.com/news/columnists/joe_warmington/2010/01/25/12610601.html
Justice is blind indeed
By JOE WARMINGTON, TORONTO SUN

You don’t have to squint to see the scars on Ryan Watson’s throat.

The nasty remnants of the knife is on display for all to see. What you don’t see are the scars inside.
Meanwhile, the guy responsible could be home in time to enjoy the NHL playoffs. It’s Ontario justice where a man, for a reason not known to anyone, smashed a completely innocent neighbour over the head, stabbed the 32-year-old airline pilot in the neck and all he gets is two-years-less-a-day in jail.
And to think all of this over a simple glass of water!

It started on a hot day last August with the request for the most basic human need.
“I was thirsty too,” said Watson Monday, who “recognized” fellow Port Hope resident Thomas Tollett from a wedding and “invited him in.”
Being neighbourly, Watson retrieved two cold bottles from his fridge. There was no thank you.

“When I turned, all I felt was something being smashed over my head,” said Watson. “It was a piece of ceramic, maybe a candle holder, which shattered into a million pieces.”
He fell and his guest dove on top of him.
“I just remember him stabbing me in the throat — twice,” said Watson, who said he was in a state of shock and writhing in pain.

He started calling out for help but his spouse Courtney was out. Fearing for his life, Watson managed to bite Tollett on the finger and elude his attacker. Yelling “I don’t want to die” — while bleeding profusely — he went to neighbours’ Beverly and Stanley Kostoff, 71 and 79-years-old.
“It was like a horror movie,” said Watson.

And the nightmare was not over. “I shut the door but he broke it down,” he said. “Telling me he is going to kill me he jumped on me and started punching me.”
Tollett also hit his two elderly neighbours over the head with a wooden paddle, before stabbing the woman in the abdomen with a piece that had splintered off, he said.
Thankfully, help arrived in the nick of time. The man was arrested and Watson was rapidly airlifted to St. Michael’s Hospital where he underwent six hours of surgery to save his life.

If you are not already sufficiently outraged, stay tuned. How much time did Tollett get? You figure 25 years? 20? 15? 10? Five?
No, 60-year-old retired teacher and local theatre actor, after pleading guilty to attempted murder, was sentenced Friday in Cobourg Court to serve two-years-less-a-day on top of the six months he has already served. He was also handed three years probation and an order to not come any closer than 300 metres from his victims.

“Unbelievable,” said Tory house leader Bob Runciman, a former solicitor general. “If anyone wonders about the need for limiting judicial discretion, this case should dispel all doubt. At very least, the judge should have required electronic monitoring. Simply giving him a 300 metre prohibition is meaningless.”

“What it really means is three months,” adds Joe Wamback, founder of the Canadian Crime Victim Foundation. “He will have dealt with the repercussions of this faster than Mr. Watson will.”
As QMI Agency reporter Cecilia Nasmith reported “the knife punctured (Watson’s) trachea through the front and out the back, cutting into his esophagus” and he was “hospitalized for 14 days where he could not speak, eat or drink” and “went from a healthy, active man who enjoyed life to a skinny, fearful one who has still not been able to return to work.”

Watson gave an emotional impact statement but the poor elderly couple were too afraid — knowing our lame justice system, a weak crown attorney and seemingly gutless judge would not be there to protect them when this violent piece of scum is let back into their neighbourhood by the Stanley Cup finals or sooner.

Said Justice Rhys Morgan: “We can’t leave this without noting that Mrs. Tollett, in her letter, addresses her concern for Mr. Watson.”
Who the hell cares what she says? Did he not hear what the victim said? Disgraceful.

Hockey players giving an elbow on the ice seem to get tougher sentences. Sickeningly, the judge talked of Tollett as a “loving husband and father, a good provider to his family” and “someone who enjoyed the respect of colleagues, his standing in the community as a teacher who holds two degrees and was enjoying retirement.”

But would Judge Morgan invite Thomas Tollett into his chambers for a glass of water without court security? Tollett will be free to roam as he pleases in no time and we don’t even know what he looks like.
As for why this happened, unproven theories included narcissism, possible early dementia and anger management. The best excuse came from defence lawyer Gary McNeely who suggested his client suffered with held- over frustration from being called Mr. Toilet while in high school.

He also pointed out how his client missed out on his birthday party and on getting to do a part in a play.
Who cares what the guy they once called Toilet missed out on? It’s our justice system that is in the toilet while Watson and the Kostoff’s came pretty close to missing out on the rest of their lives.

“I was lucky,” said Watson, who is determined to move on.
He gets back in the cockpit next month and can’t wait. “Air Canada has been unbelievably supportive and I am so fortunate to have a dream job to go back to.”

If ever asked for water again, the kind and generous Ryan says he would do exactly what he did on Aug. 20, 2009: Offer the person some.

joe.warmington@sunmedia.ca


and,


http://www.torontosun.com/news/columnists/joe_warmington/2010/01/26/12624886.html
News Columnists / Joe Warmington
This system is crazy

For those of you upset in your emails, keep in mind this was the same judge who sentenced a guy to not have a girlfriend for three years.

So, perhaps in Mr. Justice Rhys Morgan’s mind, handing out a two-years-less a day for a dastardly sneak knife attack on an Air Canada pilot, and an elderly couple, in Port Hope is his idea of tough justice.
Truth is no one has any idea what he was thinking in either case. We are not allowed to know and just have to trust this judge is capable. My question, since people’s lives are at stake, is how are we sure? And who checks on that?

Thomas Tollett, 60, was convicted of attempted murder for the ruthless, sneaky ambush of 32-year-old Ryan Watson, who had simply obliged his request for a glass of cold water on a hot day.
Watson was stabbed twice in the throat and came so close to dying that paramedics and doctors are still stunned he is going back to work next month.
And yet Tollett could be out of the slammer as early as this spring because of this weak sentence.

But Morgan has rendered some crazy sentences before — the most famous being the one in June of 2007 in which the Peterborough Examiner’s headline “Man banned from having a girlfriend” told the whole story.

As reporter Galen Eagle wrote: “Mr. Justice Rhys Morgan told a 24-year-old, characterized as having a dependent personality disorder, yesterday he could not have a girlfriend for the next three years.”
The evidence showed Cranley “entered his girlfriend’s room, cut her phone cord with wire cutters and began slapping and punching her” before picking up a “butcher knife, stabbed himself in the chest and punctured his aorta.”

He had served 146 days in pre-trail custody, which upon conviction for six charges the judge said was enough. “You cannot form a romantic relationship of an intimate nature with a female person,” Morgan told the stunned court when explaining his goofy girlfriend-prohibition order. “That is the only way I can see the protection of the public is in place until you get the counselling you need.”

The judge got that one wrong and 18 months later Cranley shockingly didn’t abide by the stern no-girlfriend order and was charged again in a similar attack on a female where he screamed: “If you call the cops, I will kill every person you care about!”
Morgan gave him 21 months this time but with pre-trial time served, it was considerably less. There was still one year left on his girlfriend ban.

Was Justice Morgan right? Was Justice Bruce Durno right last week to let a Toronto 18 terrorist just serve one more day despite being part of a plot to blow up Parliament and behead the prime minister?
Who gets to decide? The system watches that we don’t talk and drive while on the cellphone. Who watches the judges?

Somebody has to say it since it seems that in many major crimes, a suspect is either out on bail and breaching those conditions or out on probation or parole from a previous conviction. This means somebody made a mistake in letting them free!
Any consequences for that? Any accountability?

On sentencing there seems to be routine two-for-one time granted for time served in a provincial jail as if this is a rewards program. There are no reward points for the victims.
Tory MP Brent Rathgeber, who sits on the House of Commons Standing Committees on Justice and Public Safety, said once the government gets a majority of Conservative senators in the Red Chamber they will be able to pass strong laws which include mandatory minimum sentences.

Hopefully, they will raise the girlfriend ban to five years instead of three.
Of course, even though the case made a Jay Leno monologue it’s not really funny. In my view, Morgan’s two rulings are a joke in a justice system which is supposed to protect real-life victims. I pray no one else gets hurt because of his bad decisions of the past or any potential ones in the future.

Anyone concerned?
Anybody in the Attorney General’s office concerned about any of this — ensuring a judge is doing his or her job properly?

It’s time to take this justice system back from the lawyers who in many cases have clearly made a mess of it. It’s not their system. It’s ours.
Maybe it’s also time for a conversation about having elected judges, and even Crowns, or perhaps we should consider having more than just lawyers sitting on the bench. Why can’t a former chief of police or beat cop, parole officer, correctional officer, warden or social worker learn legal procedure and be a good judge?

Is it any crazier than ordering someone not to have a girlfriend for three years?

 

[zipperhead_cop]

Wow.  Two years less for attempt murder and aggravated assault (and probably a few more things).  That is starting to scrape the bottom of pathetic sentences. 

I didn't see in the article, did the guy plead guilty?  If so, that sentence might have been as a result of a plea deal.  The onus is still on the judge to reject such deals, but more and more I'm seeing a lot more of culpability in the crowns for these things.  The prosecutorial apathy down here is fairly flagrant at the best of times.  I don't imagine it's much better in the GTA. 

 

[Silverfire]

This is ridiculous.  Like Zipperhead said, Attempted murder is "Imprisonment for life, with a minimum term of 4 years where a firearm was used in the commission of the offence" and Aggravated Assault is "Imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years."  His sentence is a joke.  Canada should follow the States and use consecutive sentencing instead of concurrent; and they should have the Boondock Saints.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

Here's an awesome one, for under the heading of "not allowing the administration of justice to fall into disrepute":


Windsor judge frees likely pedophile

Man may have been under 18 at time of alleged crimes
By Sarah Sacheli, The Windsor StarApril 30, 2010  WINDSOR, Ont.
— A Windsor judge depicted him as the neighbourhood monster, laying in wait for the younger boys, devising ways to get them alone to sexually assault them.

The judge said Thursday he is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the man, now 50, committed each and every pedophilic act of which he is accused. But the judge was not convinced the man was an adult when he committed his crimes in rural Sandwich West Township in the 1970s, meaning he should properly be tried in youth court rather than before a Superior Court judge.

"This proceeding is a nullity," said Justice Bruce Thomas, concluding after six days of trial he did not have jurisdiction to hear the case.

"I find no joy in the balance of this judgment," Thomas said, after expressing in the strongest of terms that he believed all of the testimony of the victims and none of what the accused man said.

The trial ended just as unusually as it began. On the opening day April 20, the Crown withdrew 10 of the 12 charges against the man believing he was under the age of 18 when the alleged incidents occurred. The Crown still called all the alleged victims to testify, to bolster the testimony of the sole remaining complainant and establish a pattern of criminal behaviour by the accused man.

But while the victims' testimony was replete with details of how they were violated, the men could not be certain of the year, much less the month, in which they were assaulted.

"While I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the incidents took place ... I do not come to the same conclusion as to when it occurred," the judge said.

Assistant Crown attorney Bruce Coates said his office will discuss whether to charge the man again under young offender legislation. "Technically, he can be charged again, but whether it is in the public interest to do so has to be weighed," Coates said.

"I don't know at this point what the best course will be."

One complainant, who believes he was about 11 years old when he was held face down and raped by the accused, said he would "definitely" testify again. He urged the Crown to pursue the charges in youth court, to at least get the man listed on the national sex offender registry.

He wrote LaSalle police an anonymous letter in 2006, sparking an investigation that led to charges a year later. He came forward with his name in 2007 and offered up the names of the other boys in the rural neighbourhood where he grew up. The accused man had abused them all.

In an interview after Thursday's ruling, the man described his childhood as "a nightmare." It should have been idyllic for a young boy -- being allowed outside all day to roam the fields and woods, spearfishing in ditches swollen with spring run-off. A farmer nearby would let the boys feed and water his horses and they could play hide and seek in the bales of hay.

But the teenager in the neighbourhood was always lurking. At first he'd suck them in by offering to show them the best hiding spots or better fishing holes. Once they were wise to his ways, he'd ambush them when they were alone, forcing himself on them. One time he brought along a pink skipping rope and tied his victim's wrists before raping him.

"I will be blunt," the judge said as he described the accused man's denials as "a flag flapping in a shifting wind."

First, the man said he could have never committed the crimes because he was so badly burned in a fire at the age of six that he couldn't lift his arms. But in contradictory testimony he said he fished with spears and rods as a teenager, and trained in high school to become a welder.

The man also denied ever seeing any of his accusers playing outside as children.

Defence lawyer Dan Scott's submissions to the court focused on the man's age at the time of the alleged crimes rather than whether the crimes were actually committed. "The court had to be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the offender was an adult ... It's a unique case."


Read more: http://www.windsorstar.com/news/Judge+frees+likely+pedophile/2969213/story.html#ixzz0meYHLfeY

 

[mariomike]

I think this is relevant to the topic.
"Man. judge in nude photo scandal steps aside":
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2010/09/01/man-judge-steps-aside.html

National Post:
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/09/02/alice-woolley-the-problem-with-judges-and-kinky-sex/

The story has gone international:
( Mature content warning )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qccPcFpUf00&feature=player_embedded

 

[The Bread Guy]

Justice Joseph W. Quinn seems unimpressed with parties in divorce case - from his judgement (45 pg. PDF):

Paging Dr. Freud.  Paging Dr. Freud.  This is yet another case that reveals the ineffectiveness of Family Court in a bitter custody/access dispute, where the parties require therapeutic intervention rather than legal attention.  Here, a husband and wife have been marinating in a mutual hatred so intense as to surely amount to a personality disorder requiring treatment .... Catherine and Larry were married on October 7, 1995.  If only the wedding guests, who tinkled their wine glasses as encouragement for the traditional bussing of the bride and groom, could see the couple now (I am prepared to certify a class action for the return of all wedding gifts) .... Larry gave evidence that, less than one month later, Catherine, "Tried to run me over with her van" (This is always a telltale sign that a husband and wife are drifting apart)....

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Is it any wonder those in law enforcement think MOST judges need a good boot to the head?

http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/article/1028781--newmarket-judge-sets-a-dozen-accused-free-after-crown-is-late?bn=1

Newmarket judge sets a dozen accused free after Crown is late
Peter EdwardsStaff Reporter

The Attorney General’s office is scrambling to file appeals after a Newmarket judge abruptly freed a dozen accused criminals because he felt a Crown attorney was tardy.

“The Ministry is taking steps to have a court review the dismissals as soon as possible in order to have these matters back before the court quickly,” the Attorney General’s spokesperson Brendan Crawley said on Friday.
“We’re looking at each individual case to determine the quickest route to get the matters back before the court,” Crawley said.

His comments came after Superior Court Judge Howard Chisvin told a dozen accused criminals — including some who had already plead guilty to crimes — that they could walk free from court because an assistant Crown attorney was late returning from a break.
The judge waited just 1 minute and 27 seconds before jettisoning the dozen cases.
The accused included a man deemed to be a violent schizophrenic, a spouse charged in a domestic abuse case, a disbarred lawyer charged with fraud and a robbery suspect. Some of the dozen prisoners set free included accused who had already plead guilty and who were awaiting sentencing.

Chisvin made the startling move in a morning sitting of his court on Thursday. Transcripts show that court recessed at 11.23 a.m. and when the judge returned at 11.46 a.m., the Crown wasn’t in court and he was paged on the courthouse intercom.
“Tell them they have 30 seconds,” Chisvin instructed his clerk.
However, less than a minute later, Chisvin told court that it wasn’t his clerk’s job to phone the Crown office.
“It’s not her function . . . to call the Crown’s office,” he announced.

At 11:47.48 — 1 minute and 27 seconds after court resumed — the judge announced: “All right, all provincial matters are dismissed for want of prosecution.”
At 11:53.44, Crown attorney Brian McCallion appeared in court, only to be told that it was too late.
“Mr. McCallion, all provincial matters have been dealt with by want of prosecution,” the judge told him. “There was no Crown in here for some 10 minutes and you were paged and paged and paged.”

McCallion apologized and began to talk about the prisoner’s psychiatric report he had been studying.
“That might be,” the judge replied. “Court comes when court is back. You were paged. You were paged in the hallway, the Crown’s office was called, no Crown. They’re dismissed for want of prosecution.”

Chisvin was then late himself for the afternoon sitting of his courtroom, according to a courthouse source.
“There’s a certain irony there,” a courthouse source said.

Another courthouse source said that McCallion was late returning from the recess because he was studying a psychiatric report on a violent offender in the Crown attorney’s office, where the courthouse intercom system cannot be heard.

It’s not the first time Chisvin has raised eyebrows with his decisions.
In October 2007, he threw out domestic assault charges against a man who was facing four charges of assault, three threatening charges and two mischief charges.

Chisvin said it wasn’t acceptable that Davood Zarinchang wasn’t given a bail hearing until 24 days after his arrest.
“Individuals have been allowed to languish in custody awaiting show-cause hearings,” Chisvin said at the time. “The serious nature of this matter can only be remedied by the most significant remedy available — that being a stay of the charges.”

Chisvin then ordered the Crown to pay his legal costs as a punishment for its “lackadaisical attitude.”
Chisvin said that the Ministry of the Attorney General bears sole responsibility for the “serious and flagrant . . . disaster that was afoot” in the Zarinchang case.

Within three months, Zarinchang was back in court in a separate case, facing two counts of attempted murder for a shooting. He was sentenced to a seven-year prison term.
In 2007, Chisvin made was referred to in Newmarket court as the “Monica Lewinsky ruling.” It referred to the White House intern who performed a sexual act on then-president Bill Clinton.

Chisvin dismissed two bawdy house charges against Valeri Ponomarev, the manager of Studio 176 in Vaughan, ruling that: “The payment of money was for a full-body massage. The act of masturbation was optional, at no additional fee. I wonder, and am left in doubt as to whether or not the community might consider the act of masturbation in all situations to be sexual.”

Then Chisvin noted the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal as he continued: “One only needs to look to the conduct of a certain president of the United States and . . . the activity that he participated in to wonder whether or not the act of masturbation is indeed, in all circumstances, a sexual act.”

 

[aesop081]

Justice Joseph W. Quinn seems unimpressed with parties in divorce case - from his judgement (45 pg. PDF):

The footnotes alone are making this worth reading.

 

[The Bread Guy]

The footnotes alone are making this worth reading.

Ohhhh yeah - that's where I got my latest tag line.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

WE need to start electing judges. This function can no longer be the pervue of the sitting government's wants & wishes. They are, obviously, not capable of superior thought, when it comes to appointing those that are supposed to, or what they daily cost to heart, home and hearth.

 

[the 48th regulator]

WE need to start electing judges. This function can no longer be the pervue of the sitting government's wants & wishes. They are, obviously, not capable of superior thought, when it comes to appointing those that are supposed to, or what they daily cost to heart, home and hearth.

Bang on.

Why is it that the Jury is made up of "Peers" however, our judges are promoted lawyers......Lawyers....Might as well get Elvis impersonators as the the exclusive prerequisite (No apologetic feelings to Collingwood residence) .

dileas

tess