I phoned lawyer Danny Watters this morning and we had a good chat.
He’s ready to represent me in Saint John on August 16th.
I learn that my trial will have nothing to do with me being present at Atlantica as a blogger.
It will only focus on the Saint John Police officer John Park or Parks telling the court that he told me to leave the area but I didn’t so therefore I was knock on the ground and handcuff by three police officers.
I do have one question?
How the heck can we trust a police officer from the Saint John Police Force who deleted all my pictures.
I believe this is enough evidence to find me not guilty.
But there’s more to this story.
While in Saint John the legal Aid lawyer old stern < you know what! > told me that I’ll get a lawyer if the legal Aid accepts my application?
Once again, I was very confuse. I’m on social assistant so therefore why wouldn’t they accept my case?
I was told that it wasn’t enough of a serious charge.
In my opinion, having a record for the rest of life is serious enough!!!
Most people have to defend themselves in court.
Very strange indeed.
Surely, it’s those bureaucrats in Fredericton who came out with this new style of the way the poor will be treated in this province.
I walked into the Legal Aid New Brunswick office with my guards up.
The last time that I used the legal Aid system was 4 years ago when I was on U.I.C.!
I was charge with assault causing bloodily harm.
I was in a bar minding my own business and this guy approached me calling me a fruit...stupid and a frog!
Well he wasn’t a big guy but I was sitting in my chair and he was pointing his finger right in my face while standing up.
Well...minus two teeth later. He went to the bar and the police were called.
Once in court, I was told to go to legal Aid in Saint John.
Once there, I was confronted by an old hag who was very stern with me. She turned out ok once we realizes that I was the guy that was on talk of the town all the time.
At the end, the prosecutor threw the charges away.
Well, this time around? I’m in the Capital and it’s full of bureaucrats.
I have no used for bureaucrats whatsoever.
Especially after the way they treated me in the Legislature and other issues that I haven’t gone public yet.
I was ready for a heavy confrontation but it never happen.
I was met by a very friendly female. 
She was a professional in her line of work.
She made me feel like I was a human being.
I might add that she’s very attractive. ..lol....
She asked a lot of questions. These are questions that must be answered before the system will grant you a lawyer.
I just said that I live in a rooming house and I got nothing.
It was sort of like when you apply for social assistant.
I told her what was the charge and she looked in the book of law to find out if my charges are serious enough to grant me a lawyer?
I left the office with a good feeling but it’s ot her decision but the bureaucrats and we know for a fact that we cannot trust those bureaucrats in the Capital.
Every bureaucrats should have the same attitude as this woman, She was very friendly.
Before entering the office, I have been told that our legal Aid system is the worse of the country.
At the end, it’s a waste of time for the judges because they have to explain the law to the poor souls who are defending themselves in court.
It is very strange.
Lets say that I would go to court? Can I bring a friend like Tim Smith with me? You know sitting beside me giving me some advices?
I believe the answer is no.
So if Legal denies my right to a lawyer?
I will have to defend my self.
I heard that the prosecutor will say that I should be on probation?
Why would I accept to be on probation if I didn’t do nothing wrong!
This sure looks like a witch-hunt by the bureaucrats against the poor people of New Brunswick!
Stay tune for more.....
Monday, July 31, 2006
WILL LEGAL AID NEW BRUNSWICK DENY MY RIGHT TO A LAWYER???
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
30 comments:
You're not a Professional Journalist Charles, just somebody who runs and operates a Web Site/ Blog Site or Whatever.
That's all.
My god? I posted the blog and bingo you put a comment.
You here 24 hours a day???
What's your point anyway???
I heard you won't even get probation.
But there's a lot of talk about sending you to a Nut House for good [lol]
que sera sera
que sera sera
yeah, well I hope you'll be saying that when your found guilty of OBSTRUCTION
Charley, keep your chin up. It's a coward that kicks someone that is down. Your anonyous friend is just such a coward. I have been following your work for some time and think its great that someone has the guts and time to do what you are doing.. Jealousy is a sign of weekness with in ones self and that person is jealous of what you have accomplished in your life. I'm wondering if he wrote these remarks him self or had to get someone else to do it for him?
The Law Man you have the right idea. You should defend this nut and give the judge proper advice. Anybody he meets or deals with drives them nuts. People just had it with him.
Do you have proof - beyond your word - that the photos were deleted?
If only you were Mel Gibson you could get away with it...but your not.
Charles, I would like to suggest you get an editor for your posts. You have a message to tell, but you often stray from your point. Might help you make a stronger case if the posts weren't written in Cooker. Not everyone is blessed with that ability. ;-p
The central issue is what the Officer said and did. You need witnesses, never let it be a case of your word against a cop, because he could be the worst scum of a human being and the accused could be Jesus Christ himself and the judge would still take the cops word for it.
You need witnesses, and the more the better. If they won't come to Saint John, then get them to fill out an affidavit stating what they may or may not have heard the cop say.
For example, the cop could simply say that he told you to leave the area, but because there was so much noise, you didn't hear him. All he has to say is that he THOUGHT you had heard him-that's it.
There were lots of people there, and since you are not afraid of confrontation you should ask as many of them as possible what they heard.
For example, even if a cop SAYS that he told you to leave, then a simple defence would be a reply that the police obviously would tell more people than you to leave, so then why weren't they arrested? You can quite legitimately say that since you were not actively protesting, then you had every right to be in a public building-which is what the convention centre is.
So, for a defense, the prosecution will call his witness, the cop, but then you can quite realistically ask for a cross examination, and ask for his witnesses, if there are none, that's suspicious. Simply say that in a room full of people, its surprising that the prosecution can't find a single person to back up their story. You've now discredited them.
Say cops stick together and another cop says he heard it, because there is also the possibility that you simply didn't hear.
In that case your defense would be by what right can they ask you to leave a public building?
They will then have to actually prove that you heard them, because your defense is that you are saying they didn't say it (they could in fact have simply whispered it under their breath). What is more likely is that at some point they told EVERYBODY to leave.
This is where you need witnesses. You need to find out for sure and you need it in writing. Find out who every reporter that was there was, and do up an affidavit. If they can state they heard nobody say to leave, get them to sign it, if they were right next to you and heard something, then you need to know this. But don't rely on YOURSELF and your word, because in a court of law the judge has heard every line imaginable-as he is from the cop (if thats what you state).
But if you have a picture of that officer, take it to the relevant people and ask them what they remember of this officer. Maybe he was on the other side of the room and not even near you?
But that can't be stressed enough, GET WITNESSES. Talk to every person you can remember being there. Reporters are better than actual protestors, but if thats all you can find, then it'll have to do.
You are only setting a court date, which means they are not dropping the charge. So we should find out how to apply for a subpoena. If you are your own lawyer, then you need to find out how you can legally accesss ALL the officers there. You re simple question is "did you hear officer parks tell me to leave?" Yes, or no. That's it.
As said, your defense changes if you simply didn't hear him, and witnesses back him up, or whether the prosecution can find no witnesses. Then its his word against yours. But you, or a lawyer, need to be able to talk to every officer there to see what they are going to say, and who is going to testify against you (cops are notorious for lying together, but it doesn't mean they will).
Remember one thing about a court of law. A lawyer never asks a question they don't know the answer to. You need to find out how many cops are going to say "sure, I heard John say that, in fact then Charles told him to go *&^% himself" A cop can easily say that, if you have no witnesses, then all you can do is deny it. As I said, judges have heard all that before. The unfortunate thing is that cops have a habit of making arrests when nobody else is around simply because then there will BE no witnesses.
The cop will have to try to prove that you actually heard him, cops have better standing than you, but if the facts are on his side, and he isnt a lazy son of a bitch, then he
'll want all the witnesses he can get.
To steal a page from american television, if you are questioning the officer (which should be your right...anybody know?) then it becomes an issue about blogging. That's when you would ask whether he was the officer who deleted your pictures. Then you would ask "who else did you tell to leave the area?" and "Did you ask X from the CBC to leave the area?" and "Did you ask Y from CTV to leave the area?" and "what happened when you arrested THEM?" and "was it you who shouted 'You're a troublemaker'?"
In fact, what would be a nice touch is to get Tim Smith or somebody to go into that room in the convention centre and take pictures of it. We can even do an overhead schematic done to scale showing where everybody was. If, for example, you were far from where John Parks was (do you know where he was? if not get witnesses), then you can easily assert that with all the people there, there is no way you would hear.
Here's where you want the judge to know that it is very peculiar in a room on two dozen protestors storming the doors that they would pick on you.
To wrap it up, you need 'exhibits' and you need witnesses. Find out what television stations were there, they must have footage, you need to find out how to subpoena it. Some radio people may have audio footage, same story.
You need to find out who everybody else in that room was and talk to them.
Don't take this for granted, the government (and the police ARE government) want to discredit you. You already give them enough ammo in your blogs (but we won't get into that again). If you are charged and convicted there is no chance in hell that you will get a press pass.
The government wants to make sure you are always an outsider. Keep in mind that with probation will come penalties, such as being forced to avoid even more places, or even more events. They are essentially making sure that your blog becomes nothing but hearsay and pictures of dogs and sunsets. Get cracking on those witnesses!!
Boy this irk's me.
The Provincial tax payer having to pay for a Lawyer for somebody that's just too damn lazy { and had grand Illusions that Their A Professional Journalist }to get a job, and just be content to live on Welfare !!
"The Provincial tax payer having to pay for a Lawyer for somebody that's just too damn lazy { and had grand Illusions that Their A Professional Journalist }to get a job, and just be content to live on Welfare !!
# posted by Anonymous : 10:00 AM "
At least Charles provides the useful service of giving a lot of people something interesting to read and look at every day. What exactly are you contributing to society? Hoping to be named to the Bitching and Complaining Order of Canada, perhaps? Or do you perform some other valuable public service that is trying to make NB a better place?
And by the way, what line of work are you in, Mr. Gainfully Employed, since you're messing around leaving messages on blogs at 10 o'clock on a Tuesday morning? Hmm? At least I'm on my lunch break!!
Charles wrote:
"My god? I posted the blog and bingo you put a comment. You here 24 hours a day???"
It's pretty clear that one or more of your anonymous gadflies are Teeny Tories ordered by their masters to hang around your blog and harass you. You know some of them are posting from the gnb.ca IP address.
They're trying to damage your credibility and ironically they just reinforce your image as an underdog, shoring up your support. Ironic, really. But, you know, whatever will get them a pat on the head from Lord and his toadies.
I'm in ontario and what irks me is my paying taxes to pay almost 30% of the budget for New Brunswick and have them bitch about somebody on welfare who gets less than $300 a month. Those aren't New Brunswick dollars paying for welfare, and it isn't your money paying a good percentage of your health care and education. When you New Brunswickers pay your own way then you can gripe about your taxes you damn lazy maritimer. Start telling your government to stop arresting people for nothing and you won't have to pay to represent them you idiot.
There is no "right" to legal aid.
Legal aid is available to those who need it. And for criminal law cases, "need" is defined not only based on how rich or poor a person is, but also on how serious the charges are. A person who's charged with a minor offence that usually does not lead to jail time will not get a lawyer to defend himself, no matter how poor he is.
What is your beef with the bureaucrats anyway. They created the system that supports you. If you are on assistance, yes, you have rights like anyone else but please stop blaming everyone for your problems. The media continues to say there are jobs that can't be filled here so if you have the time to run around, take pictures, blog and etc. you have time to work. And don't use the old ADHD excuse, there are many successful professionals who work with this disorder and contribute to society. ADHD is an excuse to do whatever you want, the prisons are full of "ADHD" excuses.
I'm all for the underdog but I also work and do my part for society and make an honest effort to be a decent person. There are ways to fight for a cause you believe in without ending up on the wrong end of a judge - man these guys make the rules then enforce them. I have no concerns about the police or the system. Does it work all the time, of course not, human error will always play a part but where would we be without it.
Stop for a minute and decide how to best get the message out there. A large portion of the population think you are a nut because that is how you present yourself here with your sacrasm and anti-everything. Unions, teh Irvings and the police all do some good you know. The entire world is not out to get you and maybe, if you reflected on your cause and how to get the message out there, you might have some success.
By the way, what pictures were deleted and why the big deal? If they were pictures of a lovely sunset, you can always take another.
Happy Birthday!
Hey this is Anonymous : 10:00 AM.
Someone asked what I contribute to society. I'm a paramedic - thus I'm not always working at 10:00.
We're all waiting for you Charles, with a nice warm padded cell just for you :>)
Well Charles,I sure learned something today from your blog. Annoymouses in Ontario are every bit as obnoxious, rude and full of...stuff as many right here at home. Kind of makes you feel all warm and fuzzy knowing no matter where you go in this great land some things just never change. Then again, maybe their all just related. The do seem to have the same name after all. Inter breeding perhaps?
It isn't just one person posting as anonymous. Anyone who thinks it is just one person, hasn't got two sweet clues.
Anyway, the Saint John Trade and Convention Centre is run by the Hilton, not the City of Saint John, so therefore it is not public property like the sidewalk.
The building where Tom Mann works is also private property. So is Reid's, where you photgraphed Kelly Lamrock. So is Kings Place.
Is it true that people are posting critical comments to Charles' blog from the GNB.CA IP address?
If MY tax dollars are being used to pay the salary of some bureaucrat ordered to sit at a desk posting nasty comment to Charles' blog in an attempt to discredit him, that "irk's" [sic] me!
Hey 9:21 PM
You have 2 Clues, One is lost, and the other is trying to find the lost One.
What do you think of that ?
Is that right Annoymous? WOW, Some days you learn two things! Oops make that Three things, some people just don't get it.
A paramedic gets a paycheque from the same person as Charles or anybody else on welfare-the government. Which means the taxpayer pays the salary. I can guarantee that a paramedic gets paid far better for their contribution than Charles does for his.
As has been said numerous times, Charles almost singlehandedly changed the discrimination in the New Brunswick tenants act so that poor people in tenants houses now have the same rights everyone else takes for granted. I don't think he has to worry too much about his 'contribution'.
That quite literally will help THOUSANDS of people, and thats far more than any paramedic will help in a lifetime. And Charles does it for less than a fraction of a penny per New Brunswick taxpayer. I think that's a pretty damn good deal.
As for other comments, we can rehash again the fact that Charles HAD a job, and was fired by the Quebecer running the New Brunswick security at the legislature.
If you only read occasionally then you won't follow everything. Charles has flamboyant titles sometimes as he tries to attract readers, but then he doesn't have an editor.
He is clearly not against unions, and has never said so. He was a against one high level union administrator who publicly stated that he agreed with the ban.
People forget that Charles didn't start this. In fact, go read the earliest blogs, its quite amazing just how competent Charles was getting at holding his temper and being more objective.
I suspect thats what really motivated all of this on behalf of the government, because Charles was getting to be an effective political force, and thats dangerous.
Anybody that's done a nine to five job should know just how hard it is to be an activist, journalist, and media player in their 'spare time'. It really can't be done. So Charles does a very good job at it.
It is true that government doesn't like him, I also suspect many bureaucrats of making the snide comments, because everybody knows that in NB, it is bureaucrats who have enormous power. It would be one thing if Charles was just going after politicians, but he's indiscriminate, and good for him.
It is getting to the point where Charles is becoming symbolic of everything that is wrong in the province, at least in regards to poverty. Police brutality, legal system oppression, political repression, all at one person. So when you gripe at Charles sometimes sounding shrill, keep in mind he is one person who is fighting publicly the battles that go on privately all the time for the poor.
Keep it up Charles, we know that critics won't faze you, and those who are critical might well ask what they have done for society lately. Charles could use all the help and support he can get, if you don't have any to offer, at least remember what you should have been taught in school-if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all.
HAPPY BIRTHDAY CHARLIES. i AM ONE OF MANY WHO ENJOY YOUR BLOG. If I didn't I would just go away and leave you alone, Some people are too stupid to keep their mouth shut and go away. You are doing great work and that is bothering some people.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, all of you anonymouses should get a nickname. If you don't like being misunderstood or lumped in with other anonymous comments get a nickname, otherwise you get what you get.
Anyone who thinks Charlie Leblanc is doing a great job is making an a** of him. He belongs in a nut house.
Well then start your own blog.
I like getting lumped with all the other anonymouses, we're the most 'open minded' writer around. Perhaps its just one guy with schizophrenia. Of course perhaps all the comments are just posted by Charles to make it look like lots of people come here. In fact, perhaps its Charles writing this one too....
But really, Charles is doing a great job, in fact the more posts that gripe at him, the more we know what a great job he's doing. It's a sure sign of success when people start coming out of the woodwork and sending snide little messages. So keep them coming!
Post a Comment