Rahim Jaffer

Freeman wrote:

Pavolo wrote:It is recognized in this context that the ADAG (Criminal Law) has the authority:

• to intervene personally in a local matter. In practice, however, this authority should be exercised rarely;

Not much more needs to be said.

Thats right it can be done but it is not done lightly .

There are many cases of rulings overturned by the Supreme Court Of Canada , one of which is this and please take note who these people' s boss is The Attorney General of Canada . There is a procedure to follow but it is there . http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/01/29/omar-khadr-supreme-court.html
There are more but I grow weary of this game and I end it here for you to label me an idiot , whatever the frick you want . To bad you are so like minded as the debate is tiresome .

And Grumpy if it crap for you to bad

Wha?

You sure are a stubborn puppy. So. I call bullshit on your assertion that a minister can overrule a judge.

A minister cannot overrule a judge.

Pavolo wrote:Also The use of minister may be ahead of the fact the Minister can ask the Attorney General and he can look at the ruling and appeal . The Federal Justice Minister can ask for this also , as can the PM .
The Over rule is done by the Att General . Sorry I re read what was said and yes it was some what unclear to this bearing . But it stands it can be overruled , at different points of the procedure .

Again you do not read

Most of what you post is unclear. So the last 2 pages have been because you can't articulate, or is it because you change your tune when challenged.

Pav you are deluding yourself if you believe that ministers can preclude the justice process. It seems that you need to believe that to support a distrust of the conservative party. If a minister meddled into a criminal charge they would be put on the stake. Do you actually believe the rhetoric about "Harper" looking after a conservative? That is utter nonesense perpetrated by the foolish.
This kind of ridiculous position reminds me of the Ahenakew thread. In this case you're actually accusing somebody of something serious. You should be made to support that form of malicious defamation.

Pavolo wrote:

Pavolo wrote:Also The use of minister may be ahead of the fact the Minister can ask the Attorney General and he can look at the ruling and appeal . The Federal Justice Minister can ask for this also , as can the PM .
The Over rule is done by the Att General . Sorry I re read what was said and yes it was some what unclear to this bearing . But it stands it can be overruled , at different points of the procedure .

Again you do not read

What are you suggesting?

That the minister override the judge? Or the Crown attorney?

If I understand, the crown withdrew the possession charges. So what would overriding the judge do? Nothing. The sentence on the other charge was in line with others charged with the same offense.

So what are you asking the minister to override?

Or are you suggesting that the minister override the crown decision to drop the possession charges?

If so, then my question to you is.....

Is is model cement, carpenter's, white, or stick?


Glue that you are sniffing, that is.

Does anyone remember "Ticketgate"? Theres a case of the AG interferring with a local prosecution. Vic Schroeder was the AG of the day. Where is he now? Some high ranking civil servants also heard the screech of their careers coming to a grinding halt.

Taken from the Suprem Courts Site Read the last sentence of the Paragraph

The federal government is also given the authority to establish "a General Court of Appeal for Canada and any Additional Courts for the better Administration of the Laws of Canada". It has used this authority to create the Supreme Court of Canada as well as the Federal Court of Appeal, the Federal Court and the Tax Court of Canada. The federal government also has, as part of its jurisdiction over criminal law, exclusive authority over the procedure in courts of criminal jurisdiction
This power is given to the Attorny Generel Of Canada and he is the Minister Of Justice hence the MINISTER.

Yeah, it says the AG has authority over court procedure, you still haven't proven that the Minister (AG) can over rule a judge, have you?

Yikes. This thread has to represent the epitome of exasperation.

Heh! Pav, a new signature line for ya: Pavola, the epitome of exasperation.

And a new avatar:

I think it's more like "when you're in a hole, stop digging."

Okay Pav, lets just say that you are correct that the Justice Minister has the ability to override both the judge and the Prosecuting attorney.

Do you honestly think that this would be beneficial? That forcing a jail sentence for Jaffer on a possession charge would somehow outweigh the negative precedent and fallout from meddling in the judicial process?

They do this and we are starting on a road that nobody wants to go down.

Of course, you are entitled to your opinion that it is somehow acceptable to destroy the judicial system is Canada so that someone can get sentenced for a coke possession charge.

Didn't you see the sign?

Gordon Campbell

In January 2003, Campbell was arrested and pled no contest for driving under the influence of alcohol while vacationing in Hawaii. According to court records Campbell's blood-alcohol level was more than twice the legal limit. As is customary in the United States, Campbell's mugshot was provided to the media by Hawaiian police. The image has proved to be a lasting personal embarrassment, frequently used by detractors and opponents. Campbell was fined $913 (US) and the court ordered him to take part in a substance abuse program, and to be assessed for alcoholism.

A national anti-drinking and driving group, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) Canada called for Campbell to resign

Lets use political spin.

Campbell is a Liberal, therefor all liberals are drunken bozo's who like to drive under the influence.

Yeah, but we all knew that before Campbell got arrested.

Any way after talking with a learned colleague of mine I WILL ADMIT I WAS WRONG it is not the minister who can overturn or pardon it is the Prime Minister . And the Minister has to go the route of the Supreme Court . The provincial AG could have done this on the DUI, while the Federal could have on the Cocaine charge . Either way it stinks all of the people involved are connected to the Conservatives

Taken From Hill Times a Ottawa online blog
The Conservative MP who represents the federal electoral district where an Ontario prosecutor dropped cocaine and impaired driving charges against former Tory MP Rahim Jaffer says the judge in the case—a former Progressive Conservative appointee—can't be blamed for the deal.
David Tilson, whose Dufferin-Caledon constituency includes the Orangeville, Ont., courthouse where Mr. Jaffer pleaded guilty to a minor careless driving offence in place of the criminal charges, told The Hill Times the phone lines in his riding offices lit up after the decision became public last week.
"I can tell you, I have two constituency offices, one is in Orangeville, one is at Bolton, we got a lot of calls, very cynical calls," said Mr. Tilson, who practised law in Orangeville for 20 years before he entered politics and won election to the Ontario legislative assembly in 1990.




During his time as a provincial lawmaker prior to his first election to the House of Commons in 2004, Mr. Tilson at one point served as Parliamentary assistant to now federal Finance Minister James Flaherty (Whitby-Oshawa, Ont.), when Mr. Flaherty was attorney general in the provincial Progressive Conservative government of premier Mike Harris. It was Mr. Flaherty who named the judge who presided over Mr. Jaffer's case, Ontario Court Justice Douglas B. Maund, to the bench on Oct. 4, 2000.
Mr. Tilson said Judge Maund would not have been aware of the decision-making of the Crown attorney Marie Balogh that took place behind closed doors.


Sorry the picture did not come out , this could have been appealed and if really called for thrown out to be retried by the Federel Minister Of Justice . No matter how you look at this some politicle favor went down . And the only ones denieing it are the cons .

It does appear as if dude got a huge break. I think I've been saying that since first post.

Still waiting to hear all the circumstances around the charges that were dropped.

Pavolo wrote:Any way after talking with a learned colleague of mine I WILL ADMIT I WAS WRONG it is not the minister who can overturn or pardon it is the Prime Minister . And the Minister has to go the route of the Supreme Court . The provincial AG could have done this on the DUI, while the Federal could have on the Cocaine charge . Either way it stinks all of the people involved are connected to the Conservatives

Taken From Hill Times a Ottawa online blog
The Conservative MP who represents the federal electoral district where an Ontario prosecutor dropped cocaine and impaired driving charges against former Tory MP Rahim Jaffer says the judge in the case—a former Progressive Conservative appointee—can't be blamed for the deal.
David Tilson, whose Dufferin-Caledon constituency includes the Orangeville, Ont., courthouse where Mr. Jaffer pleaded guilty to a minor careless driving offence in place of the criminal charges, told The Hill Times the phone lines in his riding offices lit up after the decision became public last week.
"I can tell you, I have two constituency offices, one is in Orangeville, one is at Bolton, we got a lot of calls, very cynical calls," said Mr. Tilson, who practised law in Orangeville for 20 years before he entered politics and won election to the Ontario legislative assembly in 1990.




During his time as a provincial lawmaker prior to his first election to the House of Commons in 2004, Mr. Tilson at one point served as Parliamentary assistant to now federal Finance Minister James Flaherty (Whitby-Oshawa, Ont.), when Mr. Flaherty was attorney general in the provincial Progressive Conservative government of premier Mike Harris. It was Mr. Flaherty who named the judge who presided over Mr. Jaffer's case, Ontario Court Justice Douglas B. Maund, to the bench on Oct. 4, 2000.
Mr. Tilson said Judge Maund would not have been aware of the decision-making of the Crown attorney Marie Balogh that took place behind closed doors.


Sorry the picture did not come out , this could have been appealed and if really called for thrown out to be retried by the Federel Minister Of Justice . No matter how you look at this some politicle favor went down . And the only ones denieing it are the cons .

Most Judges are liberal, and most bureaucrats are liberal. In the past 40 years how long has a Liberal government been in power? Long enough to stack the judiciary and bureaucracy full of their partisan appointees.

So Pav, give your head a shake. The conservatives party had nothing to do with Jaffer's plea bargain. Plea bargains, in case you were unaware happen every darn day, some are even more wacky than this one was.

So get off the political bashing wagon. If you really wanted to bash politicians you had better start with P.E.Trudeau, the father of all that is wrong with Canada.

So Pav, give your head a shake. The conservatives party had nothing to do with Jaffer's plea bargain. Plea bargains, in case you were unaware happen every darn day, some are even more wacky than this one was.

This seems to be lost in this entire matter imo.

I don't think he was treated any differently than anyone else, but, because he is/was a politician, we expect him to be treated more severely I reckon.

JTF wrote:

So Pav, give your head a shake. The conservatives party had nothing to do with Jaffer's plea bargain. Plea bargains, in case you were unaware happen every darn day, some are even more wacky than this one was.

This seems to be lost in this entire matter imo.

I don't think he was treated any differently than anyone else, but, because he is/was a politician, we expect him to be treated more severely I reckon.

For sure. The only reason is because he was a MP. The Leftard media needs to vilify conservatives. They can not stand Conservatives in power, and the Liberal party is powerless to do anything about it.

I've been hearing a lot of this lately --> "I was never a Conservative and did not like Harper, but I'm slowly warming up to Harper" that was a red blooded Liberal speaking those words. If more and more people start to think that way, Harper might find himself with a majority.

This is why the Leftard media needs to jump on anything to do with making Conservatives look bad.

Most Judges are liberal, and most bureaucrats are liberal. In the past 40 years how long has a Liberal government been in power? Long enough to stack the judiciary and bureaucracy full of their partisan appointees.

Have you recently looked at the Supreme court , do so. Which political party is not what matters, it is what took place. I could not give a rats ass about which party and if it had been the Liberals it is no better. I only point this out as it is a goverment who swore things were going to change , and then gives us the watered down version . Blame who you want but both of the parties have enough to go around for both .

Pavolo wrote:Most Judges are liberal, and most bureaucrats are liberal. In the past 40 years how long has a Liberal government been in power? Long enough to stack the judiciary and bureaucracy full of their partisan appointees.

Have you recently looked at the Supreme court , do so. Which political party is not what matters, it is what took place. I could not give a rats ass about which party and if it had been the Liberals it is no better. I only point this out as it is a goverment who swore things were going to change , and then gives us the watered down version . Blame who you want but both of the parties have enough to go around for both .

NEWS FLASH

It does not matter what government we have, they all say one thing then give us either a watered down version or no version at all. Every damn government has said things will change. So far the Harper government is on track to better all the rest, and they do it with a minority. Who cares if a few things get pushed back in the grand scheme of things, at least they are trying to do what they said they would do. Not their fault the Senate played partisan politics with bills to change things. Lets sit back and see how things go with a Conservative dominated Senate.

You bitching about some former MP who got lucky with the courts is not gonna change anything. Thousands get feather hand cuffs and slaps on the wrist. Priorities Pav, it all comes down to priorities.

You fell for the smoke and mirrors did you . Well it is as you put it a start it is way to little and way to soft . The measures we need is to revamp the entire system , make people (kids) fear the law again . And no one is doing that .

Wrongo... The Conservatives are TRYING to toughen up the penalties for breaking the law. The opposition parties are playing politics with those initiatives.

Pavolo wrote:You fell for the smoke and mirrors did you . Well it is as you put it a start it is way to little and way to soft . The measures we need is to revamp the entire system , make people (kids) fear the law again . And no one is doing that .

I am sorry to be the one to break it to you.

Canada is full of bleeding hearts who forget the meaning of sacrifice and hard work. We are becoming a nanny state.

No way the people of Quebec and Toronto will allow common sense and good judgment to rule Canada.

Why don't you take all the energy you waste complaining and put it towards making a difference.