Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      


Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 9, 10, 11  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 10 of 11
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 1468
Reputation: 128.8
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2019 5:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:
Why don't you care about the commitments the government made with the Charter?

We have the courts to decide. It is what they do, and they do it very very well.


Quote:

The way I look at it is if the government isn't keeping its commitments to its own citizens, what right has it to put its citizens' interests at risk because of less serious obligations to foreign states against whom that government has actively campaigned?

You can make all these feeble attempts to diminish what you want, but the sad truth is there is very little that the govt has done to trample our rights.

Happily, they get called out on the carpet time and time again for trying.

We shall always keep the govt and the judiciary separate. Unless your name is Harper.

Surely you agree.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6559
Reputation: 304.7Reputation: 304.7
votes: 8

PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2019 6:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Courts are a joke. If you examine the Court's record in defending the rights we came into the Charter with, as a serious matter. or even our Charter Rights, it's hard not to hold them in contempt. They should have their robes replaced by sackcloth.

They don't decide very well, not according to existing law. They duck the hard decisions and they allow the Human Rights Tribunals to run roughshod over our rights that were institutionalized in Court procedures. In them, we have no right to face our accuser or to cross-examine the evidence -- the basic rights protecting us in criminal trials.

If the Courts took seriously our right to a speedy trial, Robert Pickton wouldn't have languished for six years in prison waiting for a trial -- why? Because they didn't have enough evidence! I mean, the Court itself (if it were truly independent) would say, OK, you've had your four months, you've got two 'more before we go to trial!

The gentle reader should reflect on the nature of bureaucracy ... to self-justify. The fact is, the Courts never understand that they are taking a man's liberty away when they hold him. They don't understand that the trial, itself, is a punishment. They don't understand the way the Courts are used by media.

Can you hold a person for six years on a murders charge while you look for evidence that establishes that he's the perp? Can a Court find someone who's been held for six years "not guilty"? This is the truth. If a first offender did something horrible enough to be sentenced to 15 years, starting on the very day Pickton was charged, they'd quite likely have been out on parole before Pickton got to his trial.

And if they don't have enough evidence he would have been charged with something they could hold him on, or let go. Just like they do on TV. Instead, they let the cops hold him for six years and not one of his lawyers had the wit to make an issue of it!

I could go into a rant. We had more rights under common law than we have under the Charter. I'm not even talking about abortion or any of that. The point is that no objective analyst could ever say that Canadian Courts have been world-beaters -- in a world where 15 or 20 countries allow stoning and amputations as punishments for adultery or theft. Never mind throwing homosexuals off tall buildings.

It's not hard to look good in that company. Even so, they get by on their scarlet robes more than their penetrating reasoning.

Nor are they as "independent" as they pretend. They get the job not on merit but on the basis of sucking up to the parties. They get whistled into head office and sent to re-education camps where they are taught new "progressive" ways to interpret evidence. How do the Courts go from a standard of "No means No" to "Affirmative consent" in sexual harassment cases, for instance, if they are independent of government and the Attorney General's office?

They can't. They are employees of the government. They all get the memo and know when to start on the new definition.

In the process, we have (de facto) gone from being citizens in a nation, with recognized rights -- and turned into a population that is both managed and controlled, like a herd who are processed through an arbitrary system.
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 1468
Reputation: 128.8
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2019 7:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oh boy.

Thats a lot of hoeey...conjecture...and made up shite.

Robert Picton ? The guy that may have, and frankly pretty certain he did, murdered 27 women?

Oh right, he hates women like you so of course he is your hero! Woo hoo.

And really, you suck at math , along with understanding the courts, and you really and I mean really like to bullshit your way on these things.

So anyhow.....do the math.
Feb. 22, 2002: Mr. Pickton is charged with two counts of first-degree murder. In the years following, more charges are laid.
May 25, 2005: More charges are announced against Mr. Pickton; he is now charged with the first-degree murder of 27 women.(thisd by the way re-sets the clock but of course you wouldnt know that.
Jan. 22, 2007: Mr. Pickton's trial begins. Crown and defence lawyers present 129 witnesses, and 1.3 million pages of documents are generated.

In reality, which is something that is not common for you, the timeline is 1.5years from the reset.
From the outset it is 4 years ten months.

Math be like that sometimes . Oi vey.....

Agenda much? LOL!

This post correcting previously posted BS is brought to you by the educated .

What else you need to be schooled or learned on today? Two so far, but theres a special on right now , 3 for 1 .
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6559
Reputation: 304.7Reputation: 304.7
votes: 8

PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2019 8:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nobody, not even you, would say that this meets the requirement of a speedy trial.

They never convicted him on first-degree murder because the jury thought there were other people involved in the six murders. And there was lots of reasons for thinking that. Who? Possibly his brother, who was a biker, and his biker gang ran drugs and hookers in Vancouver. There are any number of people who could have killed these girls. They found other people's DNA all over the place.

The other thing was the leisurely pace of the trial, itself almost a year long. The Crown took 7 months to present its evidence. By the time he was convicted, it was a over 5 years before he was convicted. He was held all that time, and he couldn't even just plead guilty and go to a prison with hobby crafts and all the facilities.

There were certain things they could have arrested him on, without going for first-degree murder on all 26. There must have been at least one what they had good solid information on, and they could have won. In the meantime, they could have worked the case. As it was, they kept him in jail for six years waiting a trial, and after spending $70 million on an archaeological dig, looking for evidence, failed to get the verdict they wanted.

And Canadian courts thought they had no responsibility to ensure the man's right to a speedy trial because we don't have that right anymore.

I am not trying to take the part of Robert Pickton. I am trying to take the part the general public, who want Courts that resist public pressure, maintain constant, broadly understood standards, and reach just conclusions quickly and efficiently.

Our courts pander to public pressure, change their standards on a whimsey and apply them retroactively, and come to conclusions only after years of delay. Figure it out.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6559
Reputation: 304.7Reputation: 304.7
votes: 8

PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2019 12:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Freeland confirms Canadian detained in Macau
Foreign Affairs minister says this new case doesn't appear to be connected to other detentions
Catharine Tunney · CBC News · Posted: Jan 29, 2019 1:40 PM ET | Last Updated: January 29

Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland confirmed today that a Canadian citizen has been detained in Macau, but said there's no reason to think his case is linked to those of two Canadians being held by Chinese authorities on alleged national security grounds.

Her comments came after reports this weekend from the South China Morning Post, citing local media, about a 61-year-old Canadian who was arrested and is accused of trying to defraud an unnamed entertainment company of $375 million.

The newspaper said the man, whose full name was not given in the articles, allegedly tried to use fake papers to transfer the money from the company's account to an account in Hong Kong.

Macau is an autonomous Chinese territory and maintains a legal system separate from that of mainland China.

"We have no reason to believe that his detention is in anyway connected with the other cases," Freeland told reporters, referring to the cases of Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, who have been detained in China since December on allegations of endangering national security.

"We are seeking more information and we are seeking consular access."

The Canadian's arrest comes against a backdrop of a deepening diplomatic crisis between Canada and China. [....]
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/macau-canadian-freeland-1.4997359
=================================================

Amusing. She's saying nobody can prove there's any connection to our Meng blunder ... Something else she can't disprove -- nobody listens very seriously to a vassal state of the USA either -- not in China. And Macau is separate from China the way Hong Kong is.

This guy might have gotten into trouble on his own, but once in their clutches the Chinese would feel justified in punishing him to an extra degree because of his Canadian citizenship. Just to send a message.
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 1468
Reputation: 128.8
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2019 12:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
they kept him in jail for six years waiting a trial,

<sigh>

4 yrs 10 months.

And 27 murders to investigate takes time. I seriously doubt anyone would agree his rights were violated.
We see enough times when lack of speedy trial means someone is let go but certainly not this case.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6559
Reputation: 304.7Reputation: 304.7
votes: 8

PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2019 9:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Tribe has spoken.
================================================

Majority of Canadians think Trudeau is doing bad job handling tense relations with China: poll
Overall, 44% thought Trudeau's government has not been 'tough enough' and needs to take stronger action, versus 29% who thought it was about right

Marie-Danielle Smith
February 1, 2019
3:00 AM EST

OTTAWA — A narrow majority of Canadians disapproves of how Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is navigating a tense downward spiral in Canada-China relations, a new poll has found.

The arrest of a Huawei executive in December for possible extradition to the United States is what triggered the current decline, but a similar majority said in late January that they agreed with the arrest, according to results of an Angus Reid Institute survey released on Friday.

There is no disagreement on the severity of the situation — 92 per cent think it’s either “quite” or “very” serious.

Canadian Justice Minister David Lametti confirmed this week his department has received a formal request from the U.S. to extradite Meng Wanzhou on criminal charges including bank fraud and obstruction of justice. A 13-count indictment against her, Huawei Technologies and two of its subsidiaries was unsealed in the U.S. Tuesday. Now, the British Columbia Superior Court has a month to examine the Americans’ case and decide whether to proceed with hearings.

Trudeau and his ministers have said there will be no political interference in a matter before the justice system, although Lametti must ultimately rubber-stamp an extradition order if the court approves it. Trudeau fired his China ambassador, John McCallum, last weekend for being too loose-lipped about his opinions on Meng’s case.

But China has not hidden its anger. In what Canada and its allies deemed a retaliation, Chinese authorities arrested two Canadians in December, and in January ordered the death penalty for a Canadian who had been convicted of drug smuggling.

Pollsters asked respondents to rate Trudeau’s performance based on what they’ve seen, heard or read about the Canada-China relationship recently. The biggest contingent, 30 per cent, said they thought he’s doing a “very poor job.” Another 22 per cent said “poor,” 28 per cent “good,” only five per cent “very good.”

Overall, 44 per cent of respondents thought Trudeau’s government has not been “tough enough” and needs to take stronger action, versus 29 per cent who thought it was about right and 20 per cent who thought Canada “should ease up.” (McCallum’s high-profile firing came in the middle of Angus Reid’s polling period, Jan. 23 to 28.)
https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/majority-of-canadians-think-trudeau-is-doing-bad-job-handling-tense-relations-with-china-poll
==================================================
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6559
Reputation: 304.7Reputation: 304.7
votes: 8

PostPosted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 11:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It seems that the treaty requirement doesn't force us to take hostages for the US after all.
================================================

Decision whether to extradite Huawei’s Meng Wanzhou will take political factors into account, new justice minister says
By TONDA MACCHARLESOttawa Bureau
Thu., Feb. 7, 2019

OTTAWA—Justice Minister David Lametti says foreign affairs will be a factor if and when it comes time for him to make what he acknowledges is a political decision whether to extradite Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou to the United States over China’s furious objections.

Lametti, named three weeks ago to take over the justice file after Prime Minister Justin Trudeau shuffled Jody Wilson-Raybould off to veterans’ affairs for unspecified reasons, now finds himself on the hotseat in both the Meng Wanzhou affair and the SNC-Lavalin prosecution, among other unfinished legislative business.

Justice Minister David Lametti: “It is only, if and when there is a committal order to extradite by a judge that the minister of justice will enter into the proceeding and make what is, then, a decision based on all the evidence, but recognizing that, at this point, foreign affairs is a political matter, and … make a decision.”
Justice Minister David Lametti: “It is only, if and when there is a committal order to extradite by a judge that the minister of justice will enter into the proceeding and make what is, then, a decision based on all the evidence, but recognizing that, at this point, foreign affairs is a political matter, and … make a decision.” (PATRICK DOYLE / TORONTO STAR)

On Thursday, in his first sit-down interview, Lametti admitted he had no idea why Trudeau picked him to be Wilson-Raybould’s successor, and tried to draw a distinction between his job as the government’s top lawyer and being a cabinet member, Quebec minister and MP, on all those files.

Lametti said he will often prioritize his role as attorney general or chief legal advisor to the government and its departments.

But he said as a cabinet member he has a political role to play in helping to create and direct policy.

But, he said, he will not personally make a looming decision about whether his department will put the U.S. extradition case against a Huawei executive before a Canadian judge because it would politicize the legal process, which should run its course. [....]
https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/2019/02/07/decision-whether-to-extradite-huaweis-meng-wanzhou-will-ultimately-take-political-factors-into-account-new-justice-minister.html
=================================================

One wonders how the judges are reacting. But not to worry, TC claims they are independent.
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 1468
Reputation: 128.8
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 11:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
It seems that the treaty requirement doesn't force us to take hostages for the US after all.

Nope, wrong again.

It does. Plain and simply it does....with caveats.

As has always been the case (had you read the links supplied to you) they are free to release or not arrest if the case is merely a political ploy.

The orange idiot by his statements may have made it a political ploy and she may go free. No skin off my back if they release her for these reasons.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6559
Reputation: 304.7Reputation: 304.7
votes: 8

PostPosted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 4:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You could just admit a mistake, and that you mischaracterized the situation from the start because you were so eager to make Justin seem ordinarily competent.

If Meng's arrest is anything more than a political ploy, you should show us how. And no more of this "links I have already shown you" stuff. Just tell us, don't pretend.
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 1468
Reputation: 128.8
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 5:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Been shown here , so why bother? YOu dont read it anyhow.

A mistake? Dude please, you have fucked up so bad on this , numerous lies, mischaracterizations, no info on what was what.

Hell, you ranted about the bail conditions ....until you were shown it was Meng who offered them up.

You ranted about this being so rare....until you were shown how many times it is used.

You ranted about Iran and some offshore BS...until you were shown that the charge stems from fraud inside the US.

Oh thank you thank you thank you for the Friday laugh
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6559
Reputation: 304.7Reputation: 304.7
votes: 8

PostPosted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 5:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What else, I wonder, does it mean when the Minister of Just Us says that political considerations will come into play with the Meng case?

The correct time for "political considerations" was at the time she was arrested, but it's a little late to expect ordinary competence from Justin and Crystia. They can't even tell the simple truth and level with people.

Quote:
Justice Minister David Lametti: “It is only, if and when there is a committal order to extradite by a judge that the minister of justice will enter into the proceeding and make what is, then, a decision based on all the evidence, but recognizing that, at this point, foreign affairs is a political matter, and … make a decision.”


It seems to me that, in this case, the choice is between being a henchman to kidnapping, or acting with prudence and realism. They appear to be retreating from their earlier "we can't do anything about it" stance.
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 1468
Reputation: 128.8
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 5:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hey....lil boy.

Run off now and learn how these things work. This statement is so incredibly dumb...I dont even have the words.

Quote:
The correct time for "political considerations" was at the time she was arrested

So...one day the lawyers for our govt get a request to act within days, and you posit that the Minister should read and weigh all the evidence (of which most hadnt been sent by the US lawyers) and then make a decision on?

Dumbass.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6559
Reputation: 304.7Reputation: 304.7
votes: 8

PostPosted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 6:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There were not even formal charges against Meng with the "request" was made. Requests like that can be ignored because there were no charges laid. That's why the kidnapping scenario is so apt.

The bail was not "offered" by Meng. If it was offered, it was offered in an atmosphere of physical coercion as a way of getting out of a holding cell. That shouldn't be confused with the offer of a free person.

The Minister of Just Us should have enough sophistication to know the score, but, of course, this is Justin's government, so we are probably wrong to expect ordinary competence let alone sophistication.
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 1468
Reputation: 128.8
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 6:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Another post from the boy who refuses to read...or listen.

I have tried to stop calling you a moron, idiot, stupid.

But you keep saying...moronic, stupid and idiotic things. Do you have Alzheimers or something? Can you not recall from mere days ago that all this was addresses and shown to you?
Yet here you are again spouting stupidity
.
Bugs wrote:
There were not even formal charges against Meng with the "request" was made.

Aug. 22: A New York court issues a warrant for the arrest of Huawei Technologies chief financial officer Meng Wanzhou.[/quote]
Warrant= charges.

August is waaaaaaaay before December , and yes I need to tell you that. Not sure if you knew.

Ok, one lie down.

Moving along...

Quote:
Requests like that can be ignored because there were no charges laid.

The paragraph aboves proves this one is shit talking. Of course there are charges.
Quote:

That's why the kidnapping scenario is so apt.

Well considering you havent the foggiest clue what kidnapping is.... I guess this is no surprise.
Quote:


The bail was not "offered" by Meng. That shouldn't be confused with the offer of a free person.

Lovely. I now you are senile...or is it just confused and stupid?

Now lets take a nice walk back to this day...."Mon Dec 10, 2018 5:01 pm Post subject:"

You posted this, "Huawei CFO's Husband Offers $11 Million Bail In Cash & Homes
by Tyler Durden
Mon, 12/10/2018 - 16:45"
Additionally, Martin told the court that Meng would pay for her own security operations "as an added layer of assurance,"

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-12-10/huawei-cfos-husband-offers-11-million-bail-cash-homes

Thats ^ yours. You just dont recall. LOL!!

Offers. Offers.....do you know what Offers means? I doubt it.

Please bugs, just shut up. You are as dumb as fucking brick on this.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 10 of 11

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 9, 10, 11  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


The Huawei Arrest & what it means

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB