Freedom Convoy protests [Split from All things 2019-nCoV]

[QV]

You’ve never show caused someone on a mischief before and seen them held? Ok then.

Mischief, like many criminal offences, covers a wide range of behaviour. That‘a why it’s a hybrid offense, with up to ten years of prosecuted by indictment. In her case, she was a very active party in encouraging mischief on a scale covering many city blocks and negatively affecting thousands of people. She continued the offense when the illegality of it was made clear, and she counseled others to. That’s relatively higher end. I’ve had people held in custody for quite a bit less.

Like any bail hearing, there are primary (court attendance) secondary (protection of the public and preventing continuation) and tertiary (confidence in the justice system) grounds considered by the court. Lich was detained on the secondary and tertiary grounds. The crown’s case is very strong, and throughout her offending she showed contempt for the law and attempts to see it enforced, and she encouraged and counseled others to as well. Continued offending is absolutely a valid concern.

One of the key tools to mitigate this and to allow for a bail plan is to provide a surety who will pledge themselves and often put up considerable sums to control the accused’s behaviour on release. In Lich’s case, her surety was crap, and her bail hearing was a dumpster fire. I don’t know if her lawyer sucked or was simply poorly instructed, but Lich failed to offer to court enough confidence that she would not reoffend and would abide by release conditions,

Similar story for Pat King.

If she comes up with a materially better plan, she will likely get bail. Not sure if what she offered up last week will suffice. Accusing the bail judge of political bias is unlikely to cut it.

So today Lich has been granted bail. So there's that. I guess the court disagreed on the secondary and tertiary grounds submitted by the crown, the case wasn't that strong.

 

[Navy_Pete]

So today Lich has been granted bail. So there's that. I guess the court disagreed on the secondary and tertiary grounds submitted by the crown, the case wasn't that strong.

Or she got a surety from someone that knew what country they are living in, that understands basic bail conditions? It was a pretty low standard that the other people who got bail met, and she seemed to be able to sort out now.

It's almost like a plan to have 'God provide' doesn't really convince a judge you have real intentions to leave town the next day.

Curious how things will go for the lawyer that suggested the judge was biased though. Is a bollocking in chambers and general disrepute for looking like an absolute bellend on national news stories what we're looking at? Seems like a pretty solid Lionel Hutz move.

 

[brihard]

So today Lich has been granted bail. So there's that. I guess the court disagreed on the secondary and tertiary grounds submitted by the crown, the case wasn't that strong.

No, it means they feel that the improved surety plan means her behaviour can be adequately controlled. The judge found this new surety credible and capable of controlling her behaviour. I will concede that the judge did not find that there would likely be a lengthy sentence, which reduces the tertiary grounds.

She’s to leave Ottawa with 24 hours, Ontario within 72, and, interestingly, her conditions include basically a blanket social media ban, as well as not attending protests. So a bail plan with heavy emphasis on secondary grounds concerns.

Next up is Pat King on March 18th. That one should be fun.

 

[Booter]

So today Lich has been granted bail. So there's that. I guess the court disagreed on the secondary and tertiary grounds submitted by the crown, the case wasn't that strong.

Bail isn’t a trial on grounds. It’s a discussion about whether a release plan addresses the grounds.

But don’t worry about accuracy.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Bail isn’t a trial on grounds. It’s a discussion about whether a release plan addresses the grounds.

But don’t worry about accuracy.

Speed forgives accuracy within 100 meters


The information about bail is really interesting, thanks to you and Brihard for having the patience to explain it.

I think a of lot Canadians like myself don't understand the mechanics of it so we scratch our head when absolute POS people get bail. The president of the Toronto Police Association and Doug Ford, among other prominent people, also seem to to not understand the bail process (for example the two mentioned peoples comments when accused Toronto police killer Umar Zameer was released on bail).

 

[Haggis]

Next up is Pat King on March 18th. That one should be fun.

Is he representing himself?

 

[Remius]

Is he representing himself?

He has a lawyer. At one point he told king to shut up.

 

[lenaitch]

Speed forgives accuracy within 100 meters


The information about bail is really interesting, thanks to you and Brihard for having the patience to explain it.

I think a of lot Canadians like myself don't understand the mechanics of it so we scratch our head when absolute POS people get bail. The president of the Toronto Police Association and Doug Ford, among other prominent people, also seem to to not understand the bail process (for example the two mentioned peoples comments when accused Toronto police killer Umar Zameer was released on bail).

Preaching to their respective choirs.

 

[Booter]

Speed forgives accuracy within 100 meters


The information about bail is really interesting, thanks to you and Brihard for having the patience to explain it.

I think a of lot Canadians like myself don't understand the mechanics of it so we scratch our head when absolute POS people get bail. The president of the Toronto Police Association and Doug Ford, among other prominent people, also seem to to not understand the bail process (for example the two mentioned peoples comments when accused Toronto police killer Umar Zameer was released on bail).

Damn it jarnhamer. Your reasonable tone disarms me.

Police associations are unions, they howl at the moon constantly and politically, if they don’t act outraged they loose their position at the trough.

I find that most of how court works is kept behind exclusionary doors- be it the language or the process. And I honestly believe it shelters lawyers on both sides and judges from being accountable.

They are always in a position to blame some external factor for a bad decision and really the things that are done- are pretty infrequent and generally mild.

So bail- especially when we re awash in American information is a mystery. The second judge correctly observed that if she was kept in remand she would wind up exceeding what she would get from the courts IF found guilty, that and a more comprehensive release plan for her released.

Her issue is the national attention. So the crown really dug into the release plan- I believe that’s because there is a political interest in the case. Not because there is a direct line between the offices where things are being demanded or suggested- but because a crown can read the news, and see that any missed legal idea will be dragged out potentially- and their name will be attached.

When Joe McDirt goes to a bail hearing everyone is just trying to get out early enough for lunch.

 

[lenaitch]

Damn it jarnhamer. Your reasonable tone disarms me.

Police associations are unions, they howl at the moon constantly and politically, if they don’t act outraged they loose their position at the trough.

I find that most of how court works is kept behind exclusionary doors- be it the language or the process. And I honestly believe it shelters lawyers on both sides and judges from being accountable.

They are always in a position to blame some external factor for a bad decision and really the things that are done- are pretty infrequent and generally mild.

So bail- especially when we re awash in American information is a mystery. The second judge correctly observed that if she was kept in remand she would wind up exceeding what she would get from the courts IF found guilty, that and a more comprehensive release plan for her released.

Her issue is the national attention. So the crown really dug into the release plan- I believe that’s because there is a political interest in the case. Not because there is a direct line between the offices where things are being demanded or suggested- but because a crown can read the news, and see that any missed legal idea will be dragged out potentially- and their name will be attached.

When Joe McDirt goes to a bail hearing everyone is just trying to get out early enough for lunch.

I'm not totally convinced there is an active or sinister effort to shroud the legal or judicial system; just a general public knowledge vacuum that gets filled by the entertainment media. Heck, even within the profession, criminal law and procedure don't get a lot of non-elective time in law school and most practicing lawyer don't touch it.

It's the same with 'cop shows' and, as we have lived and seen over the past couple of years, the medical profession is equally mysterious to most of us.

I'm still trying to figure out how they get the cream inside a Caramilk bar.

 

[Booter]

I don’t believe it’s a sinister thing either. I just think the system has insulated itself against real reforms. There an awful amount of good people in that system too

 

[Good2Golf]

I'm still trying to figure out how they get the cream inside a Caramilk bar.

L, it’s caramel, so you’ll be a long time figuring out how cream goes in…

 

[QV]

Bail isn’t a trial on grounds. It’s a discussion about whether a release plan addresses the grounds.

But don’t worry about accuracy.

Thanks for that nuance correction Booter. I've only conducted a handful of show cause hearings myself and it was years ago.

 

[QV]

Curious how things will go for the lawyer that suggested the judge was biased though. Is a bollocking in chambers and general disrepute for looking like an absolute bellend on national news stories what we're looking at? Seems like a pretty solid Lionel Hutz move.

Even the appearance of bias needs to be addressed. This judge was a former LPC candidate, the accused was protesting the LPC government.

I'm not sure that meets the threshold for recusing oneself as a judge if there are regulations on that sort of thing, but in the eyes of about 40% of the population and taking into consideration the highly political nature of all of this, it probably looks bad enough that if not recused it appears to be biased.

 

[Scott]

Even the appearance of bias needs to be addressed. This judge was a former LPC candidate, the accused was protesting the LPC government.

I'm not sure that meets the threshold for recusing oneself as a judge if there are regulations on that sort of thing, but in the eyes of about 40% of the population and taking into consideration the highly political nature of all of this, it probably looks bad enough that if not recused it appears to be biased.

It was addressed.

It doesn't come remotely close to meeting any threshold.

Once again, go and read some of the reporting on the discussions - this was not even close.

 

[FJAG]

I find that most of how court works is kept behind exclusionary doors- be it the language or the process. And I honestly believe it shelters lawyers on both sides and judges from being accountable.

Nothing is behind closed doors. The court process is wide open to the public.

The fact of the matter is that watching the law in operation is like watching paint dry. It's slow; it's tedious; and of the spectators who show up, very few take a minute of their time to educate themselves in the process. And that includes most court reporters.

It's much easier to howl at the moon. To find some little event against which one can generate a burst of uneducated outrage.

Lawyers and judges are accountable. It's done every day. The fact of the matter is that we have one of the least corrupt justice systems in the world and most of the "offences" are at the level of not returning phone calls to each other in a timely fashion. Judges or lawyers who commit serious offences are dealt with both professionally and criminally where warranted. Oh - and all of those are open to the public as well.

Courts are there as a peaceful medium to assist in interpreting and applying the law. Some laws are good, clear and workable; others are muddled and vague. All are nevertheless the law as created by the representatives of the people through a democratically elected process. The fact that some people don't like a given law or dislike the way that it was applied is a given in a democracy. There will always be dissent - whether from a group of citizens with a special interest or an agency like a police union.

In a lot of ways social media is a boon but it has a dark side in that it's getting easier than ever for fringe groups to spread their particular venom around the country to people susceptible to that particular message. The mantra of "everyone else but me is lying to you" has taken hold in a way I never imagined possible even ten years ago. It's surprising that with more information available than ever before in history, we seem to becoming dumber than ever before in history. We educate ourselves with what we want to believe rather than with what is real.

There are some folks on this forum, like Brihard, who are both knowledgeable in the legal system's workings as well as fair in interpreting what is going on. But even there, we often do not have all the facts; we don't know every argument made or every piece of evidence that was presented in court on a given day. Every judicial decision is a matter of applying the law to the facts presented. Sitting as far removed from the courtroom as we all are we simply do not know what specific facts were presented and how they were applied to the law. News reports are the worst possible filters in delivering that information. Regretfully, most of the time, it's the best we have.

I'm not saying always give the benefit of the doubt to the judge. Judges, like everyone else, make mistakes from time to time. That's why we have appeal courts. All I'm saying is that jumping to a conclusion that a judge or prosecutor has some vague hidden political agenda to follow in a given case is wrong. The fact is that they are following an overt political agenda which has been set down by some democratically elected government in an open, public forum. Every law is a political statement made by the government that passed it. Every law is intended to create certain results. If the result is consistently unfair then don't blame the interpreters of the law, but elect a government that will change the law to one that will create fair results.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Banks went beyond RCMP list of names in freezing a ‘small number’ of accounts under Emergencies Act: Bankers Association​

[paywall]

The Canadian Bankers Association told MPs Monday that a “small number” of additional accounts were frozen under the Emergencies Act based on the banks’ own “risk-based” reviews and were not on a list of names provided by the RCMP. Angelina Mason, the CBA’s general counsel and vice-president, made

RCMP gave banks police info on Ottawa protesters with list of accounts to freeze'​

The RCMP told MPs Monday that it only gave the names of people directly involved in Ottawa protests to banks to freeze their accounts, and not supporters who donated to the so-called Freedom Convoy.

The lists of protesters given to banks included personal details from the police database, such as whether protesters had been suspected of other crimes, had witnessed crimes or had other “dealings” with the police, as well as personal information such as age and height.

Seems like an odd thing for the RCMP to pass on to banks, no?

 

[QV]

Rex Murphy hits it out of the park again.

Rex Murphy: 'Slippages' in democracy? Justin Trudeau knows a lot about that

What would invoking the Emergencies Act over a truckers' protest be considered?

nationalpost.com

 

[QV]

Banks went beyond RCMP list of names in freezing a ‘small number’ of accounts under Emergencies Act: Bankers Association​

[paywall]

RCMP gave banks police info on Ottawa protesters with list of accounts to freeze'​

Seems like an odd thing for the RCMP to pass on to banks, no?

That seems strangely improper, to say the least.

 

[QV]

We have elected leaders that feel it entirely within their power to bully the AG about a court case against friends of the PM/party (for lack of better term for SNC). Is it really a stretch to think a former LPC candidate, a judge in this case, would seek approval of the LPC in the Lich/Convoy/Protest/Bail situation? Though I'd like to believe a judge is beyond that, I'm fairly certain past events have demonstrated this behavior is beyond nobody in this day and age.