JUSTICE OF THE PEACE SHOULD BE REMOVED, panel majority says
First, lets have a look at what she actually said, back on the 14th of March of 2016, in a National Post op-ed:
Two successive reports have revealed just how broken Canada’s bail system is. As a justice of the peace sitting in Ottawa’s main bail court, this unfortunately comes as little surprise.
In this country, accused people are legally presumed innocent and those who are held while awaiting trial are not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause. At their first court appearance, detainees are paraded in front of a camera in the basement of this courthouse, in handcuffs and shackles, where they speak to a JP via video link. Legally, they are supposed to be asked whether they wish to appear by video, or if they prefer an in-person appearance, yet this is generally not done.
Some will be remanded to another date, given the nature and severity of the charges. Others, for whom the prosecutor does not seek further detention, are released. The Criminal Code of Canada clearly states that unless the prosecutor shows why certain conditions are necessary, the JP is to release the person with a simple undertaking, or promise, he or she will return for their next court appearance.
It is at this point the law goes out the window, and cynicism and bullying kick in. Here in Ottawa, generally speaking, the JP will be told that the person is being released, and provided the list of conditions that have already been typed into the system.
Pity the JP who dares ask for a justification of those conditions. It is the JP’s legal responsibility to ensure that the conditions placed on a person’s bail are reasonable, lawful and appropriate. This is also reflected in the fact that the JP and the accused sign the release document, not the prosecutor, or the accused’s lawyer. Without sufficient justification for these conditions, individuals are to be released without them.
Some counsels are of the view that because conditions are consented to by the accused and the prosecutor, they should be accepted by the court, in the same way joint submissions on sentencing are. That would be fine, were it not for two monumental differences between bail and sentencing.
First of all, the person is presumed innocent at the bail stage. He or she has not yet been convicted of a crime and may actually be innocent of any wrongdoing. Secondly, after being found guilty, negotiations on sentencing occur on a level playing field, with both parties possessing the same powers. That is not the case with bail. The prosecutor is the only one who can consent to a release. If the accused does not accept the prosecutor’s conditions, he or she will not be released and may have to wait any number of days for their bail hearing.
The fact is that people will agree to just about anything to regain their freedom and go back home to their families and daily routines. I have seen alcoholics and drug addicts accept a condition of abstinence. If only it were that easy. I have seen homeless people promise $1,000 to the court. If they breach that condition, they are basically agreeing to pay that money. It should come as no surprise that they simply don’t have it. I have also seen men cry because, in order to be freed, they agreed not to see their children, on account of allegations made by the mother, of which the children played no part.
As a result of my interpretation of bail law, I have, in recent years, had a prosecutor turn his back to the court and tell all the defence lawyers that all deals were off the table as long as I was presiding. More recently, I had a prosecutor scream at me and basically throw a temper tantrum after I questioned certain conditions. I have also had a prosecutor ask that I recuse myself from all bail hearings, given my interpretation of bail law.
Between forced, rushed video appearances, a lack of respect for the JP bench and the absence of the rule of law in this court, I can no longer call it a court of law. It is a disgrace. I am there to administer justice. It is not my job as a JP to sign off on release documents that are unlawful.
As judicial officers, we are supposed to know the law and apply it according to our legal interpretation. We expect and accept that if one or both parties disagree with the court’s decision, they have the right to appeal. It thus comes as a shock when prosecutors attempt to wrestle jurisdiction from the court, through a variety of unacceptable tactics, rather than exercise their right of appeal.
Bail is not an opportunity or an invitation to fix people and to address all their issues with a myriad of conditions. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Criminal Code of Canada lay out the legal rights and responsibilities when someone is charged with an offence. Unfortunately, Ottawa’s main bailout court, and others, have devolved into dysfunctional and punitive bodies, devoid of the rule of law."
OKAY, FAIR ENOUGH: EVEN THOUGH SHE FORGOT TO MENTION HABEUS CORPUS, WHICH WOULD ONLY ADD TO HER CASE, SHE MAKES SENSE AND MENTIONED NO NAMES. ALL-IN-ALL, A SHORT, SWEET, WELL-THOUGHT-OUT ARTICLE.
SO NOW, LET'S SEE HOW THE POWERS-THAT-BE INTERPRETED SUCH MILD CRITICISM:
Justice of the peace ought to be removed from office: disciplinary panel
The majority of a disciplinary panel found that removing Justice of the Peace Julie Lauzon from office “is necessary to restore public confidence in the judiciary and the administration of justice.”
Justice of the Peace Julie Lauzon’s misconduct and her own testimony at her disciplinary hearing are “so seriously contrary to the impartiality, integrity and independence of the judiciary that it has irreparably undermined public confidence in (her) ability to perform her duties,” the panel wrote in a decision released Friday.
TO THE EXACT CONTRARY OF WHAT THESE PROFESSIONAL HYPOCRITES HAVE CLAIMED, SHE SHOWED HER PERFECT IMPARTIALITY AS IN A LACK OF FALSELY BLIND PARTIALITY TOWARDS A BROKEN SYSTEM, GREAT INTEGRITY OF CONSCIENCE THROUGH HER HONEST APPRAISAL, PROVING HER JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE, WHICH, FAR FROM UNDERMINING PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN HER ABILITY, IN STEAD COULD ONLY UNDERMINE PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN THE BROKEN SYSTEM AND THOSE WHO FALSELY ACCUSE HER IN ORDER TO PROMOTE ONLY THEIR OWN PARTIALITY AND LACK OF INDEPENDENT INTEGRITY - TO WIT, THE FRAUDS WHO ACCUSE AND JUDGE HER HERE, WHO BY DINT OF HAVING SO-EXPOSED THEM SELVES, HAVE UNDERMINED THIS MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC'S CONFIDENCE IN THEIR OWN CAPABILITY OF BEING IMPARTIAL ENOUGH TO ACCEPT CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM IN THE ROUTINE COURSE OF THEIR OFFICIAL DUTIES!
That “erosion in confidence” has made Lauzon “incapable of performing the duties of her office.”
The majority of the panel found that removing her from office “is necessary to restore public confidence in the judiciary and the administration of justice.”
Lauzon wrote a March 2016 op-ed in the National Post in which she said Ottawa’s bail courts were a “disgrace” that had “devolved into dysfunctional and punitive bodies”, and essentially called prosecutors bullies who dictated unlawful releases to justices of the peace. The op-ed “betrayed her ethical obligation to remain impartial,” the panel found.
The three-member disciplinary panel unanimously found in May that Lauzon committed judicial misconduct when she wrote the op-ed.
“We found that Her Worship used the power and prestige of her office to make disparaging comments about Crown counsel and the bail courts in Canada and, in so doing, failed to uphold the fundamental principles of judicial office,” the panel wrote.
NO. SHE DIDN'T MENTION ANY PEOPLES' NAMES, BUT NOTED THAT SYSTEMIC ABUSE AND THE CORRUPTION OF HABITUAL ENTITLEMENT ON THE PART OF SOME CROWN PROSECUTORS HAD CREPT INTO THE SYSTEM, WHICH NEEDED TO BE ADDRESSED!
THE ONE AND ONLY FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF JUSTICE IS "DO NOT ATTACK FIRST."
SHE ONLY NOTED HOW THE CROWN ITSELF, THROUGH ITS PROSECUTORIAL AGENTS, HAS BEEN ILLEGALLY PRESUMING PEOPLE "INNOCENT UNTIL ACCUSED OF BEING GUILTY," OR "GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT," AND ALSO "GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY!" TO CALL THIS CRIMINAL BEHAVIOUR A "DISGRACE" AS SHE DID, WAS NOT TO MAKE "DISPARAGING COMMENTS" BUT TO ACCURATELY DESCRIBE HER OWN MILIEU.
The panel also found that the op-ed “was personal and retributive in that (Lauzon) intended to exact retribution on a number of Crown Attorneys in particular: those whom she believed had shown her or her office disrespect.”
LYING SACKS OF SHIT! HOW COULD THAT WORK, SINCE SHE DIDN'T NAME THEM?!
Lawyers for Lauzon argued that the publicity of not only the backlash to the op-ed, but also the disciplinary process, had “significant effects” on Lauzon, who did not need any further punishment from the panel. If one had to be imposed, a reprimand would do, they said.
But the majority of the panel found that Lauzon’s misconduct was deliberate — planned and thought out.
WHO ARE THESE FACELESS AUTHORITIES? NAME THEM!
“Her Worship was the sole author of the article. She chose a forum with a high degree of visibility in which to express and disseminate her opinions about the administration of justice and the Crown Attorneys who appeared before her. She testified that she chose both her words and the forum with intention and purpose.”
Two of the three panel members recommended removal from her role while the third member recommended a 30-day suspension without pay with a reprimand.
NAME THEM.
Lauzon testified at her hearing that she stands by the opinion piece and her reasons for writing it. She also believes its publication had a positive effect on the bail system.
But, according to the panel, that “testimony also revealed that she continues to harbour disdain bordering on contempt for Crown counsel. This speaks to (her) lack of respect for her ethical obligation to appear to be and to remain impartial.”
The panel found that writing the opinion piece was not related to her job or to the duties of her office. “By writing about bail court in a national newspaper, however, she chose to blur the lines between the professional and personal spheres of her life.”
OBVIOUSLY, WRITING ABOUT THE TRUTH OF HER JOB CONDITIONS AND THE DUTIES OF HER OFFICE WAS EXACTLY WHAT SHE WAS DOING, THUS REMAINING LITERALLY IMPARTIAL ABOUT HOW AND WHERE THE CHIPS MIGHT FALL. WHAT THEY PREFERRED WAS OBVIOUSLY THAT SHE SHOULD REMAIN ENTIRELY PARTIAL TO "THE SYSTEM" AND DEFEND IT AS IF IT WERE PERFECT, NO MATTER WHAT THE COST TO HER OWN CONSCIENCE MIGHT BE.
The recommendations are now with the attorney general.
Lawyer Lawrence Greenspon, who represented Lauzon, said the panel’s finding “failed to take into account the importance of this justice of the peace speaking out about the bail process in her court.”
Since the original op-ed, the Supreme Court of Canada, in two separate and unrelated decisions, has validated Lauzon’s concerns with the bail system, Greenspon said.
“Given the four years during which she has continued to work as a justice of the peace, the decision to remove, by the majority, was an unnecessarily harsh sanction for an isolated act of misconduct over the course of an otherwise unblemished career,” he said.
HER OWN LAWYER IS A SACK OF SHIT - SINCE THE SUPREME COURT HAS VALIDATED HER CONCERNS, TO CONTINUE TO PRETEND TO ADMIT SHE'S GUILTY OF MISCONDUCT IS A SELF-SERVING ACT OF BETRAYAL.
Lauzon will be filing a notice of application to divisional court for judicial review later this week, Greenspon said. That appeal will come with a request for an interim stay of the order to remove her from the bench, Greenspon said.
Lauzon had also requested that her legal fees be covered in full. Those costs total $202,481.31.
The panel unanimously recommended the attorney general cover $112,010.68, plus tax, of those costs."
WOW, WHAT A PILE OF LYING HYPOCRITICAL SELF-SERVING BULLSHIT. CLEARLY, THEY ARE "PROJECTING" THEIR OWN LEGAL AND MORAL FAILINGS ONTO THEIR VICTIM!
No comments:
Post a Comment