It was a very exciting day. Myself and Tim Smith left for my day in court.
We bumped into a few people on the way. Such as these protesters from Fredericton. They were all camera shy and I wonder why?
I was told that I had to give my fingerprint and pose for a mug shot.
The only good thing about this one? The cop asked me how much I weighted?
I said - 195 pounds. I quickly learned I was 215 pounds!!!! That’s a lot!!!!
In the hallway, I bumped into this guy?
I told the guy that I believe you were an Irving employee?
I told Tim to take a picture of the guy and me. The police officer told me that he would be back but I never saw him again. I wonder where he went???...lol...
Once in the hallway of the courts. I decided that I was going to take a couple of pictures.
I succeeded in taking this group.
But once I tried to take the paper that my name was on?
I was quickly confronted by a Sheriff. The guy was tall and stern.
He ordered me not to take pictures and quickly put his hand in front of the camera.
I wasn’t amuse so I said - Do you see any signs out here telling me that I cannot take pictures?
The guy remain silent and never said a whisper.
Tim Smith repeated the same question I asked just as a Police officer intervened.
It was the same guy who interviewed me in Fredericton about my complaint of the way the Police deleted all my pictures.
He quickly directed us away from the area.
He said that the police might have found my pictures? It could be in someone computers.
You see? For someone to delete all my pictures from my camera, they might have place the chip in a computer.
I did make myself very clear that if they find my pictures? I still want an inquiry.
I also learn that the female officer who arrested me has been with the Force for 10 years and she’s on leave!
My God? Don’t tell me she’s on stress leave?
How many people do I affect anyway???..lol...I met a few people while going to court.
Once in court, I quickly found out that we indeed have a major drug problem in this city.
I had a chuckle about one case.
One man was found guilty of stealing a huge 32 inch television from Sears which was only discovered because he went back several months later to steal bedding and got caught.
Later while reviewing previous tapes the television theft was discovered!
The strange part is that he had $41,000 cash on him!!!
Another case was a woman who was given the choice or 2 years in jail or 2 years Plus a day.
She chose the 2 years Plus a day because the Judge suggested that the Federal Program was Much better than the Provincial Programs for her problem. The sad part is that in the Provincial jail system? There’s no help.
Too bad so sad. These are the poor souls who are stealing to feed their drug habit. Stay tune for more on this issue in the near future.
Ok....I was all ready but I soon found out that it was a long wait. I even went outside for a smoke. It was terrible.
I had Judge William McCarroll.
Once he noticed my name?
He asked me if I wanted to have a French Judge?
He also asked me if I wanted to plead guilty or not guilty?
I told the Judge that I didn’t understand the charge of obstruction?
After a few minutes, he told me that I will have a French judge and trial.
I reminded the Judge that I was a Acadian from Memramcook and I speak Le Chiac! < Slang French >
I wouldn’t be able to understand the long legal words in French.
I just wanted someone to explain to me the charge of obstruction?
He told me that after the recess the legal-aid defense would help explain it to me.
Once a recess was ordered.
I proceeded to chat with my buddy Tim Smith. The lady lawyer < in her sixties > shouted my name and ordered me into a room.
I told her that I wanted a witness with me and I’ll get my buddy.
She shouted and ordered me one more time in the room.
I noticed a sheriff who quickly stopped me in my track.
I told the guy to tell Tim Smith that I was in a room.
Once in there, the lawyer was very straight forward and very rude.
Thank God that Tim Smith came in the room he suggested to her that see was a little too in your face direct, he did admit that she was a little rude.
I asked her if I could have a Judge and Jury.
She quickly told me that this was totally out of the question because my charge isn’t a serious one.
Not serious? Ok!!!!
It was at that moment that I found out exactly what the charges were.
Supposedly, I was told by the police officers to leave the area and I refused.
So it’s a game of who said what? I know for a fact that they never once told me to leave the area and it should be interesting.
I once again face the judge and it was interesting because I was the only one in the room with a few supporters.
I asked the Judge if I could make a comment or asked a question.
He allowed me to speak so I asked the Judge if I could have trial with a judge and jury.
From the answer I got? I guess it’s all about money!!!
I asked the Judge if he knew what a blogger was?
He told me that it was something that had to do with the internet right?
I explain that this could be the first case in New Brunswick history. It could be a unique case because the Irvings own all the newspapers in this Province so therefore I’m a independent journalist.
I went on by saying that it was the first time that I ever heard the charges and these are all lies!!!
But a trial will decide this!
I also was concern that all my pictures were deleted!!!!
At the end the Judge William McCarroll said- It could be a very interesting case? The Judge asked the prosecutor- How long will this case last? The female lawyer with her back turned to me answered - Ohh..half a day your honor!! I quickly jumped up and said- HALF A DAY??? I WOULD SAY AT LEAST ONE WEEK!!!Everyone just looked at me like I was crazy!! < But little did anyone know that the trial would last longer than a week!!!
Yes, it could be an interesting case so stay tune to this blog!!!
CFBC and CBC did a good job covering the story.
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
JUDGE WILLIAM MCCARROLL LETS CHARLES SPEAKS FREELY!!!!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
23 comments:
The only good thing about this one?
Was it a good thing?
The cop asked me how much I weighted?
Did he ask you or not?
In the hallway, I bumped into this guy?
Did you bump into a guy or not?
I told the guy that I believe you were an Irving employee?
Did you tell him or did you not?
But once I tried to take the paper that my name was on?
Did you try or not?
He said that the police might have found my pictures?
Did he say it or not?
I did make myself very clear that if they find my pictures?
Did you make yourself clear or not?
If something is not a question, don't ask a question. If something is a statement, write it as a statement, not a question.
French, English, Franglais or Pig Latin, it doesn't make a difference, the same thing applies.
You said you don't speak French and you don't speak English but you do speak Chiac. So you are admitting to being illiterate in both official languages? There are charitable organizations such as Laubach Literacy who will give free literacy training - all you need to do is ask them. If you seriously want to get a press pass, you're going to have to improve your literacy skills.
I just write the darn blog and send it away.
As for the French?
You must understand that I am a Acadien who speaks le chiac.
I remember after I was arrested at Atlantica?
I told the CBC French reporters that I got to watch how I speak Francais?
They answered- What does that mean? You can speak French!!
I meant J'etais dans le carrefoure quand les protesters ont apparues.
In my French- J'etais dans le hallway quand les protesters ont showai up!!!
There's another fancy word for protesters but I'm too tired to think about it.
I'm sure you get the drift.
I'm not talking about your spelling or grammar. I'm talking about punctuation, which is the same no matter what hybrid language you speak or write. If you're not asking a question, then don't end the sentence in a question mark. Use a period instead. That one change alone would make your posts much easier to read and increase your chances of ever successfully getting a press pass.
Do you see the difference in the following three sentences? Each one is different.
J'etais dans le hallway quand les protesters ont showai up!!!
J'etais dans le hallway quand les protesters ont showai up?
J'etais dans le hallway quand les protesters ont showai up.
The first is a statement of excited exclamation. Repeating the exclamation point is unnecessary but it doesn't change the meaning of the sentence. In journalistic writing, exclamation points should be used extremely sparingly. Read MSN.com, CBC.ca, Canoe.ca or others and you will rarely find an exclamation point in an article.
The second is asking a question. It is incorrect because the sentence is not actually a question. It doesn't make any sense if you use a question mark at the end.
The third is a statement with no emotional twist, as if it was being written in a news report. The third example is what you should be striving for in your posts.
Spending an extra 60 seconds to read over your post before you submit it would make a huge positive impact on your blog's readability. Using paragraphs more often would also help.
This blog is your 'baby' so to speak, so give it the attention it deserves. Constantly trying to excuse yourself by saying "I just write the darn blog and send it away." is really saying that you are just too lazy to care. You should have pride in your writing, regardless of language.
It sounds like another one of those 'technicalities'. When all the protestors were in the conference centre, I wouldn't be surprised if the cop there ordered EVERYBODY out of the building (I wasn't there so I don't know).
The point is that there were dozens of others, including other reporters who also didn't leave, making it odd to single you out.
I agree with the above poster, that if you want a press pass you've got to do more than 'send it along' the information highway.
Especially in journalism, it is important that the story not be misunderstood. You've been writing a blog a long time now and we've seen numerous incidences of where your writing skills are quite capable. Therefore, the same skill should go into your blogs. Otherwise it is hard to argue for a press pass if you are basically saying you care so little about your blogging job that you don't even bother reading it over or listening to basic comments by readers (such as the question mark thing)
As always, this is no criticism of what you do, just how you do it. All it takes is reading what you've written out loud to yourself to make sure it makes sense, THEN sending it along the information highway.
PS I think one day a week at court would make a great blog, even if its Fredericton court! Far more interesting than the legislature anyway, and far more helpful in finding out what is facing New Brunswickers.
Charles is right. This is going to be an interesting case, because it may define what is a journalist? After all, journalists have no body governing them and pretty much anyone can call themselves one with little or no training. It will be interesting to see the evidence. Charles did indicate on his blog he was going to Atlantica and clearly sypmathized with the protestors. I'll be curious to see if this blog itself is entered as evidence. Good luck CL.
"PS I think one day a week at court would make a great blog, even if its Fredericton court!"
Good suggestion. In case of legislature they just banned him when they could not put up with him anymore. In court they will put him in the slammer in no time. May be blogging from inside the slammer will be interesting if they allow it.
What was the result of yesterday's survey? Did not the majority say that put the bum in prison throw away the key? It will be interesting to find out.
You are lucky you are not Israel’s neighbour. By now you will be dust.
I guess that shows NB'ers true colours when they want people thrown in jail for 'being disruptive'. Be a good lemming and follow the others politely over the cliff.
This case has nothing to do with getting a press pass. Charles had no press credentials so it in no way defines 'what is a journalist'.
It does define what exactly constitutes a 'police state'. Charles maintains that he was never told anything, while the police maintain that he was told to leave. Under one set of circumstances the police are out and out lying, which will be very scary. The only way to prove that is that I assume there were other reporters nearby who can verify this.
In the other instance, if Charles was told to leave it would be surprising that none of the others weren't. That means Charles is being singled out because, as its attested one cop said "you're a troublemaker".
There were dozens of people there, as well as other reporters, if they weren't arrested then we are looking at targeted prosecution. Thats also pretty frightening (unless you sit at home and never do anything) because the very foundation of a law and order society is that EVERYBODY is treated the same under the law. Once that is gone, all bets are off.
As for the press pass and 'what defines a journalist', that has to be decided by politicians, not the courts. Irving of course is not going to grant bloggers a press pass, and right now they are in charge. It takes a legislative decision to change that.
I'm personally on the fence on that one, I am a supporter of Charles, but he clearly has an agenda and doesn't even strive to be objective, and in that case, every protestor for every cause will be demanding a press pass.
The central issue to that one is the very question of why exactly people can't attend a press conference. In fact, in a democracy I think its terrible that during question period people can't come in and ask their representatives questions.
A note to Spinks. You've also got one question mark in there too many-I guess its not just Charles!:)
Yeah, I spelled sympathized wrong too.
This caught up in spelling fascination on Charles blog is getting a bit ridiculous. His comments are always understood (well most of the time, but that's usually not due to spelling :))
and this isn't a newspaper where the reader is owed something. This is one man's blog. If things about it drive you nuts, don't visit it. There's umpteen billion other sites out there. Visit one of them if spelling is your biggest concern.
What's wrong with criticizing? Charles has made a blog out of it, people should be able to complain if they want. Charles is under no obligation to listen.
However, as readers way back have posted, the people of New Brunswick have a very large vested interest in seeing Charles succeed as much as possible. Many people support him in various ways, some that he doesn't even know about.
People don't do any favours by simply letting Charles get away with anything. He is in the unique position that there are many who are trying to make this a successful blog. Charles can't get out into the world and flog it, except on the internet, and word of mouth goes a long way.
We would love to see Charles get a press pass and bring 'some' of that disruptiveness to the legislature where it is sorely needed. That won't happen unless the government can be convinced that it won't result in a circus and that Charles can actually fulfill the obligations that rest on those with press credentials (who I might add rarely live up to those credentials)
Editing is not too much to ask. Unlike many commentors, these criticims are pretty light, they don't involve 'shut up' or 'get a job'.
As for comprehension, there are numerous times when I have no idea what Charles is talking about. If I wasn't interested, I'd go elsewhere, but I don't think its too much to ask that the blog be as legible as possible.
As published on page B7 on July 26, 2006
In the courts
Protesters enter not guilty pleas
Two men charged following a disturbance at the three-day Reaching Atlantica Conference in Saint John last month appeared in Provincial Court Tuesday. Charles Joseph LeBlanc pleaded not guilty to obstructing a peace officer and will return to court on Aug. 16 at 1:30 p.m. to set a trial date. Andrew Morgan Webber pleaded not guilty to creating a disturbance and obstructing a peace officer. He will set a trial date on Aug. 16 at 10 a.m.
A person writing an online daily diary is not a journalist.
How is asking Charles to read over his blog and correct spelling and errors 'getting in a knot'? How does that change the end result of what he does? It doesn't, and it shouldn't, as the post above shows quite well, Charles is very good at what he does and it is important. If it wasn't, nobody would be here.
But if that's all that makes a journalist then by definition every blogger in the world is a journalist and therefore should be allowed a press pass. That is what this is about-a press pass. And to do that there must at least be some semblance to adhering to a style. Nobody is badmouthing what Charles is doing, but Charles is on welfare and doesn't exactly live high on the hog. A press pass would give him some accreditation and perhaps enable him to get access to the kind of information that people pay the Irvings for. Then perhaps he could have a donation box or take advertisers.
This delayed posting is screwing up the discussion. Stop this approving nonsense.
Charles is too biased to be considered a journalist. Granted, so are most of the reporters at the CBC but at least they pretend not to be.
I like Charles and I enjoy his blog but I can't endorse him being a journalist given the rhetoric and bias he holds.
"A person writing an online daily diary is not a journalist."
How nice it is that you have absolutely no authority to make that determination.
Very interesting stuff, Charles. I look forward to following the case.
Charles, it's very hard to take your claims as an independent journalist seriously. Twice in this article you mention how the protestors from Fredericton are camera shy. Has it even occurred to you that there is good reason for this? Those protestors probably don't want to be easily identified, especially by having their pictures up on a website known to the police. You claim that you are on the side of the protestors, but it amazes me how you refuse to respect them.
Asking Charlie to respect others? That is asking him to learn Greek. Not a chance.
Did the protesters communicate to Charles that they did not want to be identified. The protesters were more than happy to be in the media spotlight during the protest, why should it make any difference now?
Because they were appearing in the court and stressed out. Nonetheless if someone says 'do not take my picture' it should be respected.
Post a Comment