I just learn that the bureaucrats are sending me a letter telling me that I cannot have the right to a lawyer.
Good news? Yes, it sure is.
Goes to show you that those bureaucrats in Fredericton want me in jail.
This is going to be very interesting!!!
Stay tune!!!!
7 comments:
Good, I'm glad the taxpayers won't have to pay for one for You.
I am also very please......trust me...I got a trick up my sleeve....stay tune....
You keep saying stuff like "trust me" or "just wait", but continuously fail to provide evidence to backup your claims...
It is not good but I thought that anyone on Social Assistance had their right to a Legal Aid lawyer. I do not understand this one bit.
I do agree somewhat with the above comment, not to be rude, but you do say a lot on your blog "trust you", you got something up your sleeve, but it seems you never follow through with it.
The good thing about that is that you know people ARE visiting your blog and reading it regularly and at least waiting to hear follow-ups. Better than not having your blog visited at all.
Keep up the great blog, just the same.
Hope your birthday went super well !!
Keep in mind that often the 'trick' ends up as a negotiation with some government official who wants it to stay off the record.
So much for that idea that "if you cannot afford a lawyer one will be provided you.."
It is truly frightening to see malcontents like the above actually claim that they are happy that people are robbed of constitutional rights. What a sick world! I'm tired of my tax dollars being paid to arrest people. If those idiots at Atlantica wanted security, they should have locked the doors. Instead, we get to pay for all the police work. But for some reason people don't complain about their taxes going to that.
Why would someone say anyone is being "robbed of constitutional rights"? What constitutional rights? The "if you cannot afford a lawyer" line that 9:12 pm quotes is from television. That is fiction, folks.
Anyway: in Canada you have a right to talk to a lawyer whenever you want, or to be represented by a lawyer if you want. You don't have a right to have someone else pay for you to have a lawyer. In that sense, it's like the "right to property".
There are exceptions: under the Charter we have a right to a taxpayer-funded lawyer in some cases. But not for minor charges that carry no risk of jail time.
That was a comparison to the states, where it ISN"T fiction. And for your information, 'obstruction of justice' and 'resisting arrest' both carry the very real possibility of jail time. In fact, 'obstruction of justice' carries a maximum ten year jail term.
There is no such thing as a 'right to property', there isn't even any such thing as a 'right to purchase property'. So that comparison makes zero sense.
Anybody even remotely familiar with the canadian, and New Brunswick legal system is quite well aware of just how much 'constitutional rights' means.
We can start with the right to peacefully demonstrate, which is exactly what the protestors in Saint John were doing. None had a weapon, certainly not Charles.
Charles didn't even know what he was charged with until his court date, and section ten of the charter clearly states that "Everyone has the right to on arrest or detention..a)to be promptly informed of the reasons therefore."
Next, we can add this...
"Section 10 has also been held not only to guarantee the right to see a lawyer, but also a right to be told that one may see a lawyer, a right to legal aid, and a right to be told that one may seek legal aid."
A right to legal aid is NOT the 'right to be refused legal aid'. Seeking legal aid certainly doesn't mean filling out a form and having some bureaucrat send you a letter telling you to *&^% off.
That's just off the top of my head, so clearly we can see EXACTLY why its unconstitutional.
The ramifications of this is quite dire. As said, there is a possible ten year jail term at stake. Somebody may argue that it isn't likely, but that's hardly the point-it is possible, and ANY jail term will come with a guilty charge which also bears a heavy bearing on somebody's life.
In this case, acting without a lawyer makes it extremely difficult to get witnesses. Subpoena's for recalcitrant witnesses MUST be obtained by a lawyer, which means in this case it is up to the goodwill of people to take time out of their day to come to trial.
In the case of video footage a television station may just refuse, but a lawyer could get a warrant for seizure of video tapes showing the altercation at the conference centre. That isn't possible for a general member of the public, which makes it extremely difficult to mount a credible defense.
As for getting legal aid, lets look at another example, namely Manitoba, another 'have not' province:
"Formal representation - Legal Aid Manitoba pays for or helps to
pay for a lawyer for a person
charged with a criminal offence. For
this kind of service individuals must complete an application and
be found eligible."
The application and eligibility is NOT dependant on the case, it is dependant on the INCOME. Meaning, they aren't going to pay for it if you can.
As for the final paragraph of the above post, the word 'taxpayer' exists nowhere in the charter. There is no section of the charter that says "ok, for this charge you have the right to counsel, for this one you don't". That would defeat the other constitutional provision that doesn't mean much, "the right to equal treatment before the law"
Post a Comment