Last week, I was asked by Bonnie O’Dea if I would go to her court trial.
I first met Bonnie during Tent City in 2004. She has her way of protesting issues and I got mine.
I love to agitate her when I see her on the streets.
Once you get to know her? She’s not a bad person.
Bonnie was going to go on trial for making harassing phone calls to the workers of New Brunswick Family Services in Fredericton.
At the last minute, I decided to make an appearance at the Justice Building at 9:15am.
Bonny was outside having a smoke.
She looked upbeat and we had a little chat.
She was concern that nobody showed up?
I wasn’t going to stay long because I just finished a two-hour session in court the day before. < I’ll write about that one later. >
Lately, people are asking me to show up because the Irvings are not present and they are scared to be sent to jail without the public knowing the facts?
Once in court, present was one Police Officer, four workers from Family Services and a reporter from the Irving’s paper.
Just for the record? The guy hates to be called an Irving employee. He’s a very nice guy but since the Irvings owns all the newspapers in New Brunswick? You have to be an Irving employee I guess?
Ok...never mind that!
I noticed the prosecutor was laughing away with the workers of Family Services but it was no laughing matter for Bonnie.
Once the trial began, Bonnie looked a little hyper. She told the Judge that the disclosures were full of many lies < surprise? >
That’s exactly what happened with me in Saint John.
OK . . . never mind that . . .
Bonnie wanted to forward the disclosure as evidence but couldn’t.
Every instance Bonnie would say something? The old female Prosecutor would object to her every point of view.
Bonnie was getting very frustrated.
Lets not forget that she was denied a lawyer by New Brunswick Legal Aid and was at the mercy of the court.
You would have believed that a lawyer would have been present to give her a helping hand?
But nooooo....
I’m no genius in the Court system but I believe I know what’s the problem?
Canadians always watching American court television such as Law and Order or Matlock
They believe it’s the same system in place here in Canada?
I strongly believe that it’s time for Canadians to show their own court room drama.
Why not? I wish my trial in Saint John would have been on television. New Brunswickers would have seen first hand the way our Police Officers can act in court.
Ok..never mind that....
Bonnie was very hyper and the prosecutor knew it.
They were laughing at the way she acted but it was no funny story.
The first witness told the court that Bonnie called on seven different occasions.
At the end, she never answered the phone.
She told the court that she wasn’t certain that it was Bonnie calling because it said that it was a private number.
So? A good lawyer would have kept it at that!!!
Nope! Not Bonnie!!! She began to cross examine the worker and it began to go downhill.
We took a break and I began to have a conversation with the Irving employee. He told me that I wasn’t a journalist. < From a story that happen the day before in court. I’ll blog that later >
I replied - I am a journalist. I report news but with an opinion! < The journalist part came in handy later on in the day with the Fredericton Police Force >
Bonnie was a little down because she didn’t know how the system worked.
The prosecutor knew exactly how to play the acting roll in court but Bonnie didn’t.
It got so bad in the court that Bonnie decided to change her plea to guilty and get it over with!
She went further by telling the Judge to have a trial without her. She’s going home and the Judge can send the police when the verdict is ready?
Well, the judge ordered the Sheriffs to stop her and she ended in the prisoner box.
She had a chat with a lawyer in some room minutes earlier but the lawyer was nowhere to be seen.
The Judge told Bonnie that she’ll be remanded till her trial in the morning.
Bonnie with tears in her eyes told the female judge that she had a sick 15 years old with the flu and her father just died in Newfoundland.
She doesn’t wish to go to jail for her daughter’s sake.
The Judge had a change of heart and ordered the trial to continue at 2:00pm!!!
While chatting with someone on King’s street, I noticed the same lawyer walking into a building.
I shouted - OUR LEGAL AID MUST CHANGE!!!! WE NEED MORE RESOURCES IN OUR LEGAL AID!!!
He quickly replied - Phone your MLA and walked in the building!!!
I bumped into Amanda who’s doing a project on the poor people in Fredericton.
I told her - Do you want to see how the poor are treated by our Justice department?
Meet me in front of the Justice Building at 2:00pm!!! You’ll see it in your own eyes!!!
I arrived there and Bonnie was there.
I decided to do a few audio interviews for the blog and inside we went.
The witnesses testified that they felt harassed by her phone calls.
I had a strange feeling that the trial of harassment could be the same with me if I’m ever charge at the New Brunswick Legislature.
OK..never mind that...
There was another break and I told Bonnie not to cross examine the witnesses because she would just dig a deeper hole.
I gave Bonnie my cross and told her to say a prayer.
So? The workers at Family Services had their say and Bonnie never called any witnesses. It was the end of a very hectic day but we had to wait for the verdict of the Judge.
Bonnie was certain that she was going to end up in jail but I told her not to worry because I just couldn’t see a Judge sending someone in jail for making phone calls.
But there was this probation of maintaining the peace?
Amanda showed up also at 2:00pm. She was supposed to stay in the court room till 3:00pm but was still there for sentencing at 4:15pm!
I bet she found this situation very interesting.
I told Amanda before sentencing that Bonnie might be ordered to take some mental assessment or something like that.
The Judge is a very nice person. She reminded Bonnie that her behavior wasn’t the best and if she ever been diagnosed with ADHD????
MY GOD!!!! I was against the wall and I quickly raised my arm!!!...lol....
Bonnie got very lucky. The Judge gave her a suspended sentence and she has to go for mental assessment but warned her that if she showed up in court again?
She would go to jail!!!
Bonnie promise that the Judge will never see her again in court.
After a very hectic stressful day?
It was over!!!!
Bonnie was going home. She came towards me and I reminded her to give me my cross. She told me that the cross help her cause.
She couldn’t wait to go outside for a nice smoke.
Well? Little did anybody know? Bonnie wasn’t going anywhere.
Right around the corner came a cop in his 60s from the Fredericton Police Force to face Bonnie.
I forgot the term he used but he showed her a piece of paper and told her that she has to pay a fine of $100.00 or land five days in jail!
Bonnie face dropped and she said that she didn’t know what he was talking about.
The Police Officer had no-good public relation at all!
Bonnie said that she was going outside for a smoke but the cop ordered her under arrest!!!
If she didn’t have $100,00???
She was going to jail.
I stepped forward and told the cop that Bonnie was stressed out and the Judge ordered a mental assessment!!!
The cop quickly focused his eyes on me and shouted - SHUT UP!!!!!
You could have heard him one mile away and there were close to 10 Sheriffs around me.
I quickly went from Le Blogger to the journalist!
I went for my notepad and never said a word.
I knew the Sheriffs had a quiet day so why cause a disturbance close to quitting time. I wasn't going to join Bonnie in Jail!!!
I might add the workers in the Sheriff’s department are a nice bunch of people.
The Fredericton cop was very very very rude and it my opinion?
He shouldn’t be there! He sorta reminded me of John Parks in Saint John. Hey? He might be his cousin????
Was I being set up? Who truly knows?
I was so upset so being degraded in front of everyone that I told the Irving Employee < who was watching the situation very closely >
F#cking Cop!!!!
Well, Guess what? If I’m starting to dislikes our local Police Force?
Well, The situation must be bad?
Once society loses faith with their local Police Force?
It’s the end of democracy as we know it!
Bonnie was in tears and it off to the jail cell in Saint John. She handed her backpack and away she went.
I tried to take a close up of her in the Van but ended up with this one-
I told a few friends of hers what has happened in court and they were heading toward Saint John to pay the fine and pick her up.
What really disturbs me in this case? The cop or bureaucrats could have waited a couple of days to arrest her? They knew she’s on Social Assistance and a check would be in the mail in a couple of days.
Were the bureaucrats and cops working side by side on this one?
She went through hell in court and now this?
Sorry!!! It doesn’t speak volumes for our system.
Thank God??? We have good Judges in this Province because if it was to the Bureaucrats and the Police? All the poor would be in jail!!!!
How many poor people are in jail in New Brunswick who had no rights to a lawyer????
30 comments:
Why do you and she both smoke yet you both complain about not having any money? Quit smoking or quit complaining. Pick one.
At least you're using a username...
:P
I could have add much more to the story but we'll the rest to the Irving employee in the morning....
Her being arrested was unfortunately badly timed expecially when she would have had the money in two or three days, compassion would have said lets see if she will indeed pay the $100.00 on the 1st of March, and if she did not then they would hve been within their rights to place her into Custody for five days. The way the law works is that if you ow a fine or some kind of Remuneration to society or the Courts, and you for whatever reason do not have the ability to pay the system has the right to exact a penalty untill in the Jeustice system is satisfied that the penalty has been paid.
was she given her rights to counsel at the time of arrest or detention? if not they broke another charter right! that when detained or arrested you have the right to counsel! if that was not given ,sue...
Just read the story in the Gleaner. She sure comes across as dishonest and out-of-control, maybe even nt all there. Charles, was the reporter making that stuff up?
Once again,
Charles you get told to shut up because you were sticking your nose were it didn't belong.
The cop was doing his job and perfectly within his rights to tell you to bugger off.
If you're going to "le Blogger" fine, but you're no lawyer so stay out of other people's affairs.
O'Dea ordered to undergo mental-health assessment
Article Tools
Print
By DON MACPHERSON
Published Wednesday February 28th, 2007
Appeared on page A1
A judge ordered a former anti-poverty protester to undergo a mental-health assessment Tuesday after she was found guilty of criminally harassing government workers.
Bonnie Caroline O'Dea, 42, of 581 Canterbury Dr. was in provincial court Tuesday for her trial on charges of criminal harassment and breach of a court undertaking to be a good behaviour.
O'Dea was accused of making harassing phone calls to the Department of Family and Community Services between Sept. 18-20.
Before court convened Tuesday, O'Dea told Crown prosecutor Hilary Drain she didn't realize the court date was for a trial and claimed she hadn't even entered pleas yet to the charges.
The courtroom was cleared so O'Dea could listen to the previous court proceeding in which she did plead not guilty and during which the trial date was set.
When the court convened, the trial proceeded. Const. Dennis Van Ember of the Fredericton Police Force was the first to testify, telling the court of his investigation into the department's complaint of harassing phone calls.
O'Dea accused the officer of lying on the witness stand.
"I want to put it on the record that this is not a very honest police officer," she said.
Drain objected to the comment, and a frustrated O'Dea quickly recanted.
"I take it back," she said.
At that point, she gave up on the process.
"I don't think I'm going to get a fair trial at all," O'Dea said. "I'm guilty. I can't defend myself. I don't have a lawyer."
Judge Mary Jane Richards encouraged O'Dea to speak with duty counsel lawyer Edward Derrah, but she refused. She said she wanted to plead guilty.
When Richards said a guilty plea would mean she was admitting the allegations made against her, O'Dea refused.
"I am not admitting anything, your honour," she said. "I am pleading mercy of the court."
"We don't have 'mercy of the court,'" the judge said.
"I'm done with this," O'Dea said, telling the judge to hold the trial without her.
She rose from the defence table, put on her jacket, grabbed her backpack and proceeded to leave the courtroom.
Sheriff's officers detained O'Dea, and she was brought back to court.
Richards told O'Dea she couldn't accept her guilty plea if she maintained her innocence while doing so.
The judge gave her a choice of speaking with Derrah or to be remanded into custody for a day.
She opted to speak with Derrah and then returned to court, ready to resume the trial.
During the frequent court recesses Tuesday, O'Dea often referred to Drain as "Jezebel," both to her face and when talking about her with others.
Two social workers - Pam Savary and Lawrence Simmons - testified that they worked at a child-protection intake hotline at the department Sept. 18 and 20.
Both said O'Dea called repeatedly on that line, trying to access a file pertaining to her daughter or to contact other social workers and department supervisors.
Both social workers said they told O'Dea to stop calling the line but repeated calls kept coming in, so frequently that they stopped answering the phone.
"She was tying up the intake line," Savary said.
Simmons said he felt public safety was being threatened because anyone with a valid concern about child or adult protection would be unable to reach the department as a result of O'Dea's incessant calls.
When Savary left the witness stand, O'Dea called her a liar. Drain objected, and O'Dea denied making the comment.
Richards had the court stenographer play back a recording of that moment, in which O'Dea could clearly be heard calling the woman a liar.
The judge warned O'Dea that she'd lock her up if she made any further such comments.
Family and Community Services receptionist Claudine Thebeau testified O'Dea made dozens of calls to the main switchboard at the department between Sept. 18-20.
She said she started logging the calls around lunchtime on Sept. 19. From that time to the next morning, the log showed O'Dea called 100 times.
Richards found her guilty of both charges. The judge said she was willing to forego a jail sentence if O'Dea agreed to undergo a psychological assessment.
"The (lack of) impulse control is getting you into a lot of trouble," the judge said.
She sentenced O'Dea to 12 months of probation, during which time O'Dea is to undergo a mental-health assessment and follow any recommended counselling or treatment.
She must also refrain from contacting any government office or worker except for her social worker and probation officer, unless it's through a lawyer.
O'Dea still ended up going to jail Tuesday, as she was served with a warrant of committal for an unpaid city-bylaw fine of $100.
The default time on that ticket is five days in jail.
O'Dea got upset when a city police officer executed the warrant outside the courtroom.
"You can't spring this on me right after the judge released me," she said.
O'Dea said her teenage daughter was alone at home and sick, but sheriff's officers took her into custody.
Nice story Charles. But one thing sticks out at me.
I have said this before, I don't consider you a journalist. You have no journalist training or schooling so you are not a journalist. You are a member of the general public with a blog site.
You are making false statements by saying you are a journalist.
I beleive the real journalist story over "le blogger" story.
The Gleaner story has more facts and is more beleivable.
he is a journalist, we all come on here and read his stories, you don't need an education, to anything.
The "Irving" Copyright Info:
http://www.canadaeast.com/ce2/docroot/onsite.php?page=copyright
Copyright Information
Last Updated: November 30, 2006
Welcome to our site. This Copyright Information notice is designed to give you the user more information on how to use materials published on this site. Together with our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy govern our affiliates, partners, advertisers and CanadaEast Interactive"s relationship with you in relation to this website. Please read them carefully.
The term "CanadaEast" or "us" or "we" refers to the owner of the web site, CanadaEast Interactive, whose registered office is 939 Main Street, Moncton, New Brunswick E1C 8P3.
The term "CE Network" refers collectively to sites owned by or managed by CanadaEast Interactive. The term 'you' refers to the user or viewer of our website or any persons with accessibility to, or in possession of, Content as described below.
A. Use of Copyright
All materials published or otherwise accessible through CE Network, including but not limited to articles, images, text, audio and video media, software and other materials, collectively known as "Content" - are protected by copyright and are owned, licensed or controlled by CanadaEast. All visitors shall abide by all additional copyright notices, information and restrictions contained within or in proximity to Content accessed through CE Network.
CanadaEast and its affiliates actively protect its rights to the Content to the fullest extent of the law. You may not use such material except as provided in this Copyright Information and CE Network's Terms of Use.
Content produced by or accessed from CE Network may only be used for your personal non-commercial purposes, provided you do not remove any trademark, copyright or other notice contained in such Content. No other use is permitted. All other rights are reserved and commercial uses including redistribution, publication or broadcast in any medium are prohibited without the express written consent of CanadaEast. No other use is permitted. You may not, for example, republish the Content on any Internet, Intranet or Extranet site or incorporate the Content in any database, compilation, archive or cache. You may not distribute any of the Content to others, whether or not for payment or other consideration, and you may not modify, copy, frame, reproduce, sell, publish, transmit, display or otherwise use any portion of the Content without the written consent of CanadaEast.
Notwithstanding the above, you may download or copy, one-time only, the Content and other downloadable items displayed on CE Network for personal, non-commercial, use only, provided that you maintain all copyright and other notices contained in such Content.
Requests for use of the Content for any purpose other than as permitted in this notice should be directed to CanadaEast Interactive at 506 859 4900. In certain cases, you may be able to obtain a license to use individual stories that appear on CE Network through an online vendor we have specifically designated as authorized to license Content on our behalf. If we have authorized a third party vendor to grant you a license to any Content, we will tell you that directly in the portion of the Content you may license. If you do not see our express authorization, you should assume no third party has the right to allow you to use the Content.
B. Copyright Complaints
CanadaEast respects the intellectual property of others. If you believe that your work has been copied in a way that constitutes copyright infringement or are aware of any infringing material placed by any third party on CE Network, please contact us at CanadaEast Interactive Copyrights, 939 Main Street, Moncton, New Brunswick, E1C 8P3 Canada, 506 859 4900.
C. Trademarks
The Content includes logotypes, trademarks and service marks (collectively "Marks") owned by CanadaEast and its affiliated companies, and Marks owned by other information providers and third parties. No Marks may be used in any manner unless approved in advance by CanadaEast.
D. Inquiries
If you have any questions, comments or concerns regarding the use of copyrighted material you may write to CanadaEast Interactive for more information at:
CanadaEast Interactive
939 Main Street
Moncton, New Brunswick E1C 8P3
Canada
"You have no journalist training or schooling so you are not a journalist."
How do you feel about people who spend thousands of dollars on college or university journalism courses and end up bagging groceries for a living?
...or worse, get a job in NB but leave it, only to find themselves blacklisted by the Irvings, and with no other English newspapers in the province, have to give it up or leave the province?
I try to measure a person by what they do, and not what they're "trained" to do.
Charles may be rough around the edges, but he generates copy like there's no tomorrow and a percentage of his photos are top notch. As far as grammar goes, I've actually seen worse submitted by professional fulltimers so you can take it as you will.
First:
"Notwithstanding the above, you may download or copy, one-time only, the Content and other downloadable items displayed on CE Network for personal, non-commercial, use only, provided that you maintain all copyright and other notices contained in such Content."
This is one time only, and for personal use. Charles is not a 'commercial' enterprise. The link above is for 'donations', which are not commercial transactions. The ads are for google and also do not represent a commercial enterprise.
That shows that Charles is not breaking copyright. If he didn't moderate he could also add a disclaimer saying he's not responsible for comments and so would not be liable for any copyright infractions-since he didn't post the article, or at least it can't be proven that he posted the article.
Second, the Gleaner and Charles are not in competition, they both simply explain the events from different points of view-which is why its nice to have more than one media. So you don't have to 'disbelieve' Charles in order to believe Irving.
The main issues are not even analyzed by either party. However, Bonnie has been targeted by the NB government for harassment since 2004, go read the comments section on the other O'dea thread. So of course she is acting differently, so would you if you were poor and government was constantly harassing you, even jailing the 'lawyer' who was helping you with your case.
The other thing the paper only mentions is this very important point:
"Two social workers - Pam Savary and Lawrence Simmons...Both said O'Dea called repeatedly on that line, trying to access a file pertaining to her daughter or to contact other social workers and department supervisors."
In other words, she was getting the run around. Why shouldn't a person be allowed to access a file on their own child? And why wasn't she simply passed to a department supervisor?
So the repeated phone calls at least SEEM to be clearly aimed toward obtaining service which is being denied, and services to which every person in the province should be entitled to.
So even if she was 'harassing' then she seems to have very good reason to harass. The other issue that Irving doesn't mention, and shows clearly that its an Irving story, is that Family Services Personnel 'stopped answering calls'. That's a pretty gross violation of standards, what if somebody had an emergency? That clearly sounds like a situation where a department supervisor should get involved.
That's a very typical bureaucratic manouver to keep people in line, you simply frustrate them til they either give up or else start acting belligerent so you can call the cops. Ask any native about that, the Department of Indian Affairs has a loooong history of making it impossible for natives to actually deal with them. It seems family services operates in a similar way.
Good coverage Charles, yes, you were getting involved by telling the cop not to arrest her (he has no choice), but yes he could have at least been polite.
The lawyer going into the building got it right though, CALL YOUR MLA. All of these problems are the fault of inadequate legislation. The only way to change that is through the political system. Occasional protests are fine, but if that's the only political tool you use, then it won't accomplish much.
People have to get more involved in the political system, especially the poor, since they are most harmed by government policies.
Bonnie is a strong woman and I'm glad that she's out now!
To heck with what anyone says about Bonnie, they would have hung themselves if they knew what she had to go through!
"However, Bonnie has been targeted by the NB government for harassment since 2004, go read the comments section on the other O'dea thread..."
Why would the NB government, with a massive deficit, crumbling infrastructure, shrinking population, and millions of other problems, devote their time to specifically target one woman for harassment? There is a definite line between harassment and thinking there's a massive government conspiracy out to get you.
If I continually speed, and the police continually pull me over and issue me a variety of tickets, and eventually arrest me for not paying the tickets, am I being targeted for harassment?
"That's a pretty gross violation of standards, what if somebody had an emergency? That clearly sounds like a situation where a department supervisor should get involved."
What if there was an emergency, and someone couldn't get through, and only got a busy signal? What if that busy signal was caused by some lady continually calling in with the same compaint, over and over and over? Ever look at it that way?
Someone said:
"The other issue that Irving doesn't mention, and shows clearly that its an Irving story, is that Family Services Personnel 'stopped answering calls'."
Clearly, this person has trouble with *reading*. From the Gleaner story:
"Both social workers said they told O'Dea to stop calling the line but repeated calls kept coming in, so frequently that they stopped answering the phone."
Devil's Advocate here. I don't think that this counts as personal use. It's being presented for public viewing for over 500 people a day. It's a public display, much as screening a movie to a crowd is technically against copyright while watching at home with just you or your family isn't.
"All other rights are reserved and commercial uses including redistribution, publication or broadcast in any medium are prohibited without the express written consent of CanadaEast."
A portion of the revenue from the Google Ads would, in theory, go to Charles (although I've yet to meet someone who got a cheque.) Just because he doesn't hand select the ads doesn't mean anything. It's a commercial venture, through which by providing content and a place to host the ads, Charles does play a part in.
It's great to see that the Irving newspapers have continued with their unbiased reporting ::eyeroll:: . Its strange that Micheal g. McKay and I actually agree on this issue.
and for those of you who think that this was a speeding ticket, let me enlighten you. This was a ticket for not wearing a helmet while walking a bicycle. You don't go to jail for five days for a 100$ ticket, its only 24hours per 100$. So instead of driving her all the way to Saint John for 5 days (which is ridiculous)they could have just kept her in jail til midnight (that constitutes 1 day).
The next thing you know, they'll be charging her with being a neglectful parent by being in jail while her daughter was projectile vomiting and home alone!
I wish for peace for Bonnie in the future.
Telling Bonnie to 'stop calling' is not dealing with the issue. She wanted access to files on her daughter and wanted to talk to somebody else besides the two people who kept telling her to stop calling.
So the onus is on the government to explain, first, why they had a file on her daughter, and second, why Bonnie couldn't get access to it. Not tell her to 'stop calling'. I'm not suprised she didn't stop calling. If you found out the government had a file on your child, would you?
Next, the government isn't three guys sitting in a room who have to allocate sparse resources. The same nonsensical 'defence' could be offered about why they would have harassed Charles by arresting him. Because there are other issues doesn't mean somebody isn't being targeted.
That's hardly a conspiracy, as charles said about his protest, several people said they were warned by personnel that they would be cut off. That's not a 'conspiracy', that's simply a bureaucracy trying to keep its name out of the papers.
That is a common tactic, to claim that people who are persecuted are simply being conspiracy minded. Again, go and read the other thread and there are numerous instances that show fairly clear evidence that she was targeted. In fact, the same can be said of her lawyer Vaughn Barnett, a volunteer who has legal training but can't get passed by the bar because he helps out the poor. They even went so far as to jail him for helping Bonnie and others who are without means. Here we see a perfect example of why they don't want Vaughn to help out in court, because its far easier when defendants 'throw themselves on the mercy of the court'. I thought that was priceless where the judge almost literally said "there is no mercy in this court".
We should note that the lenience shown wasn't exactly mercy, women's groups have complained for years that men who continually call and harass ex girlfriends or wives never see jail time and get a slap on the wrist, it would have been a real travesty if Bonnie had been sent to jail for making phone calls.
On the last point, if Charles doesn't get money from Google then that proves he is not a commercial enterprise. To be a commercial enterprise you have to file with the province and recieve a license and pay taxes.
So just because some people may give some money to him doesn't make it a commercial enterprise anymore than a guy panhandling and gets some money is a commercial enterprise. Just because Charles is seen by many people doesn't make it commercial, if I start a blog about my bird 'budgie' and everyday post his various adventures and people flock to my blog to hear about budgie that doesn't make me a business.
But following that logic, since Charles didn't post the article from the Irving paper then he is not liable for it. If he were, then it could also be claimed that the city of Fredericton is liable because they offer free internet services. Likewise, the telecomm supplier which 'allows' such copyright infringement is also culpable.
In the end though, that's up to a court to decide. If Irving wants to take Charles to court and decide it once and for all. I think it would be quite interesting if Charles had a form email letter made up and kept emailing Irving papers asking for permission. The letters would quickly add up to dozens and no doubt the editor would wish for the days when people just cut and pasted them. It gives them free advertising, and often posits an opposing view to Charles.
On the last point, if Charles doesn't get money from Google then that proves he is not a commercial enterprise. To be a commercial enterprise you have to file with the province and recieve a license and pay taxes.
What is proves is he is defrauding social assistance by receiving Google money and not claiming it to his case worker.
Ian is correct above and "Anonymous" is all wet. Charles is violating the terms notice on the CE web site.
Anonymous is using flawed logic to detract from the fact that Charles is not complying with the terms of use - regardless of the nature or purpose of his use of the content.
A judge would not even need to find whether it was commercial use or not.
Check this from the policy: you can download and display the content, "provided that you maintain all copyright and other notices contained in such Content"
Commercial or not, Charles is not including the copyright notice with the lifted CE material here on the blog.
Case closed.
The woman was calling a child protectin hotline for crying out loud! Surely with that much anger and that much time on her hands she could have at least picked a proper number to call. That makes about as much sense as calling a help desk about your Dell computer at a call center in India and expecting them to put you through to the company president when they explain they can't help you.
Kira wrote:
It's great to see that the Irving newspapers have continued with their unbiased reporting ::eyeroll::
Where is the bias in the Gleaner article? Charles's bias shines through clearly, but where's the bias in the professional account of the case?
The reason Bonnie can't get the info she wants about her daughter is because she has no right to . All her kids are above the age that a parent can obtain personal info about them. I'm sure most of us wouldn't want our mommies calling the government or our doctors to find out personal stuff about us now would we. I hope Bonnie gets the help she needs through the phsyc exam cause she like most of the anti poverty people share a common trait "PARANOIA" .. and a side note if the anti poverty people spent as much time and dedication to work or starting up a business i think they would be millionaires and with the wealth they could amass then turn it over to the less fortunate..
I just wonder why the papers are referred to as the Irvings. So they own a paper, and stores and gas pumps. Whatever, they are a huge employer in this province. Take them away and some of you might have to share your welfare cheque.
I'm so tired of this site always blaming others for life's situations. I won't get into the "get a job" argument, but hey, if one can walk all day taking pics and has technical ability with computers, there might be a job for that person.
That's what the two social workers said, but then you'll notice that Bonnie called them liars, which means that nobody knows who to believe. The anti poor rhetoric is really heating up here, the poor are just 'paranoid' and could be accomplishing wonderful things if...what exactly? You'll notice that Bonnie was working until the harassment began and that the stress cost her working hours. So so much for that argument, of course if you are sitting around without that kind of stress then you wouldn't understand.
What is at issue here is the treatment of the poor. Bonnie O'dea may well be crazy, I don't know her, I know that dealing with government bureaucracies, particularly when you are poor, can make you crazy.
The issue here is the poor's access to lawyers and how they are ill equipped to deal with the courts. This proves it aptly. Charles prophetic statements about what is happening to the poor in the courts is turning out to be well founded. They can't afford lawyers, and the people who help them are jailed for helping them.
So people are missing all the big issues by just jumping in and blaming the poor for their hard lot. While that is an easy out for society, its partly a necessary one since people know that there is little they can do about how their government operates-although that doesn't mean there is nothing they can do.
So why for heaven's sake on a supposed children's protection hotline are calls not recorded? How can you build a prosecution or a defense without recording crucial evidence, namely the first contact with the individuals involved?
Why is there only ONE hotline that doesn't even appear to have call waiting? So if two children or people call the line one of them is out of luck? Call waiting is not that expensive and could very well end up saving a life.
If it was a child protection hotline, what kinds of files are they keeping on people? The above point about keeping files away from a parent may be valid, but it also may not be. How do we know that the child or young adult didn't give permission? Who's to say that Bonnie wasn't trying to get a file because her daughter couldn't?
We don't have the answers to any of these questions because the Irving reporter never asked. As for the claim about Irvings, there are plenty of places in the world that get along just fine without Irvings, a good lot of them get along a lot better.
The 'bias' at Irvings is very similar to the bias at many small town newspapers and that's from laziness. It is from simply only showing up for one event and describing what they see without any regard to the context or history of events, and no investigative work to find out whether it is true or false. That is the bias toward the 'status quo', the idea that everything is just fine, the message is that this crazy person is harassing the nice helpful government but don't worry, she'll get the psychiatric help she needs. That's far from the case, you can check out any of the various blogs to find out different aspects of how 'helpful' the government is being in different areas.
That's too bad because an objective viewpoint would look at both sides, but of course that would put Charles out of business.
Which brings up the last point, namely that Charles didn't post that article, a commentor did. They did forget the byline, however, when Charles posts articles he does include them, because people quickly jump on his back when he doesn't.
As in all cases the legality of everything is up to a judge. If Irving hasn't notified Charles with a cease and desist order or simply told him to stop, then there is no point in getting irate for them, they are billionaires with a massive empire and a team of lawyers, they certainly don't need anybody's help.
The prosecutor requested that the sentence be incarceration on Bonnie's second charge, which was a breach of a court order to keep the peace and maintain good behavior. She obviously breached this order by calling the intake number over 100 times, ensuring that other calls about legitimate emergencies where unable to get through. The judge chose to order Bonnie to undergo a phsycological evaluation instead. This is because Bonnie is obviously suffering from some sort of mental disorder (btw, please don't be offended by the term since this is how ADHD, impulse control issues, opositional defiance disorder, etc are all referred to technically.) This story is being skewed all kinds of ways. Bonnie was not denied council as she claims, rather the judge advised her to seek council and Bonnie refused. During the trial, the judge did her utmost to inform Bonnie of the proper procedures. Bonnie claims that she was not allowed to enter any evidence or to defend herself. This is just not true. Bonnie simply had to wait her turn. . .this was explained to her very clearly by the judge. When it was Bonnie's turn and the judge specifically asked her if she wanted to present anything to defend herself, Bonnie threw up her hands and refused to take the stand, or to enter her evidence. The sad part of Bonnie's story is that she needs help. It doesn't seem as though anybody has directed her to a phsycologist in the past. The judge was very fair and very understanding. This is no conspiracy, just an unfortunate situation. I wish Bonnie all the best in getting the help she needs.
JAneDoe, my mommy does everything for me, so what you talkin about girl
It has always been that way since the beginning of time ~ nothing has really change over the years ~ just that ~ no one is burning witches in Salem anymore ~ but if they could ~ I am sure they would ~ if they still could get away with it ~ yet ~ they are getting away with other stuff ~ against the people ~ that is just as bad. And the poor don't really stand a chance against the police and bureaucrats in Canada. Yet ~ people has a god given right to take a stand ~ only if they do ~ they will be punished for it ~ one way or the other. Canada and New Brunswick is in a poor state of affairs when it comes to dealing with poor people in their province. May a god somewhere have mercy on their souls ~ because I don't for what they are doing to the poor. tf
lock her up
Post a Comment