waldo Posted June 8, 2012 Report Share Posted June 8, 2012 Presumption of innocence is there until found guilty or convicted of the charge(s)You care to take a crack on how a bail hearing is conducted within our legal system? what relevance does a bail hearing have on presumption of innocence? Is presumption of innocence applicable at a bail hearing? Is guilt... or innocence of the accused being determined at a bail hearing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted June 8, 2012 Report Share Posted June 8, 2012 what relevance does a bail hearing have on presumption of innocence? Is presumption of innocence applicable at a bail hearing? Is guilt... or innocence of the accused being determined at a bail hearing? Trying to ignore the hard questions aren't we? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted June 8, 2012 Report Share Posted June 8, 2012 what relevance does a bail hearing have on presumption of innocence? Is presumption of innocence applicable at a bail hearing? Is guilt... or innocence of the accused being determined at a bail hearing? What would be the reason for an accused person to be denied bail? Not only a presumption of guilt in which they’ve been accused, but an assumption that they could/will commit a crime that has yet happened. Sounds a little like a Philip Dick storey when you put it in that context. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 8, 2012 Report Share Posted June 8, 2012 Why on earth do you care? Are you offended anyone would dare to insult a man who, by his record, is the definition of the term 'vermin'?why on earth do you care that I care... that a fundamental tenet of our judicial system is understood, recognized and respected?This might come as a shock to you, but MLW is NOT a part of our judicial system. thanks Captain Obvious! Whether you accept it or not, those principle foundations of common law and our judicial system reach into and reflect upon everyday dialog... even here on MLW. The "innocent until proven guilty" legal vernacular perpetuates to a point of layman understanding, extension and usage. More than that it has leaped beyond mere tenet to become an integral part of our very Charter of Rights. It is a shame when some show no understanding, recognition and respect for, "innocent until proven guilty". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 8, 2012 Report Share Posted June 8, 2012 what relevance does a bail hearing have on presumption of innocence? Is presumption of innocence applicable at a bail hearing? Is guilt... or innocence of the accused being determined at a bail hearing?What would be the reason for an accused person to be denied bail? Not only a presumption of guilt in which they’ve been accused, but an assumption that they could/will commit a crime that has yet happened. Sounds a little like a Philip Dick storey when you put it in that context. you didn't answer the questions? Same ole, same ole for you, hey? bail denied reasons? Flight risk... previous convictions weighing on risk assessment - none of which has anything to do with, or bearing upon, a determination of innocence or guilt in regards the current charge/accusation. Of course, if you actually attempted to answer the questions posed, you might actually be forced to acknowledge/accept what you continue to ignore/deny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted June 8, 2012 Report Share Posted June 8, 2012 you didn't answer the questions? Same ole, same ole for you, hey? bail denied reasons? Flight risk... previous convictions weighing on risk assessment - none of which has anything to do with, or bearing upon, a determination of innocence or guilt in regards the current charge/accusation. Of course, if you actually attempted to answer the questions posed, you might actually be forced to acknowledge/accept what you continue to ignore/deny. Look who is making accusations about avoiding questions... Really waldo, avoiding the question like the plague... tisk..tisk.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted June 8, 2012 Report Share Posted June 8, 2012 you didn't answer the questions? Same ole, same ole for you, hey? bail denied reasons? Flight risk... previous convictions weighing on risk assessment - none of which has anything to do with, or bearing upon, a determination of innocence or guilt in regards the current charge/accusation. Of course, if you actually attempted to answer the questions posed, you might actually be forced to acknowledge/accept what you continue to ignore/deny. Define weighing on risk assessment? Hypnotically, could an accused person with a violent past and charged with a violent crime be considered a risk? How does such determination by the Crown/Judge come about? Why don’t the crown/Judge presume the accused innocent and always allow bail? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 8, 2012 Report Share Posted June 8, 2012 Trying to ignore the hard questions aren't we? Look who is making accusations about avoiding questions... Really waldo, avoiding the question like the plague... tisk..tisk.. do you really want to come after... the Big Dog? about you avoiding questions: my reply, this following reply, aligns with your call for objectivity, while speaking to the greater voter suppression of non-Conservative voters across Canada. Have you heard... it's referred to as Robocalling, Misdirection, Vote Moving, etc. ! I believe there's a MLW thread on it! The idea is be objective until you get the facts together instead of going around and putting the blame to vote fraud blame the Conservatives and then start moulding the evidence to fit the predetermined guilty party. sooooooooo... objectively speaking... voter suppression of non-Conservative voters would be undertaken by what party and it's supporters? in any case, you failed to answer the question... is there a problem? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 8, 2012 Report Share Posted June 8, 2012 Define weighing on risk assessment? Hypnotically, could an accused person with a violent past and charged with a violent crime be considered a risk? How does such determination by the Crown/Judge come about? Why don’t the crown/Judge presume the accused innocent and always allow bail? your bail baffle-gab has nothing to do with the determination of guilt... or innocence... in regards the accusation/charge levied. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted June 8, 2012 Report Share Posted June 8, 2012 do you really want to come after... the Big Dog? about you avoiding questions: So you were blaming the Conservatives without a proper trial? Wow you sure provide the evidence for me... Keep dancing, your opinions have zero value as you have yourself proven, you slain someone or a group of people are guilty while at the same time accusing a member for a similar infraction without regard to the fact that he committed none. I guess you are not one for facts...or logic...or common sense for that matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted June 8, 2012 Report Share Posted June 8, 2012 your bail baffle-gab has nothing to do with the determination of guilt... or innocence... in regards the accusation/charge levied. Per your words: bail denied reasons? Flight risk... previous convictions weighing on risk assessment - none of which has anything to do with, or bearing upon, a determination of innocence or guilt in regards the current charge/accusation. Define risk assessment? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 8, 2012 Report Share Posted June 8, 2012 So you were blaming the Conservatives without a proper trial? Wow you sure provide the evidence for me... earlier you were all about, 'objective speaking'... you were all about seeking objective speaking! About you not answering the question - again: "- objectively speaking... voter suppression of non-Conservative voters would be undertaken by what party and it's supporters?" evidence? There's been a lot of evidence given throughout the other thread, direct or circumstantial. We could start as follows... although, I will again make the same suggestion to you so as to not completely derail this thread: cry me a Harper Conservative robo-call river, hey? I understand there is a MLW thread on that very subject... perhaps you should try and make your case... there. Robocalls - facts: 1. Elections Canada investigator Al Mathews started looking into complaints in Guelph on May 5, 2011, three days after the election that saw reports of illicit phone calls. The winning candidate in the riding, Liberal Frank Valeriote, compiled a list of almost 80 names of people complaining about the calls. News of the investigation didn't break until Feb. 22, 2012. 2. All political parties use automated robocalls and live calls to identify voter support and contact people during a campaign. The campaign of Guelph Conservative candidate Marty Burke used RackNine, a company that offers voice broadcasting services, to make legitimate robocalls to campaign supporters. The person who made the fraudulent robocalls also used RackNine. 3. The person who made the calls used a disposable, or burner, cellphone, registered to a "Pierre Poutine." The RackNine charges were paid via PayPal using prepaid credit cards, purchased at two Shoppers Drug Mart stores in Guelph. Shoppers Drug Mart doesn't keep its security camera videos long enough to see who bought the cards more than a year ago. 4. Elections Canada traced the IP address used to access RackNine on election day and send the fraudulent message. Mathews got a court order for Rogers, the company that provided the internet service to that IP address, to provide the customer information that matches that address, on March 20, 2012. 5. Pierre Poutine and Burke campaign worker Andrew Prescott accessed their RackNine accounts using the same IP address. On election day, they accessed their RackNine accounts from the same IP address within four minutes of each other, Mathews says in documents filed in court. 6. A court document lists the billing account numbers for the customer information provided by Rogers to Mathews. Those accounts don't match the number found on the Burke campaign's Rogers invoices submitted to Elections Canada, suggesting RackNine wasn't accessed through a computer in the Burke campaign office. 7. Two Conservative staffers, accompanied by the party's lawyer, told Mathews they overheard Michael Sona, another Burke campaign worker, talking about "making a misleading poll moving call." Sona, who stepped down from a job in the office of Conservative MP Eve Adams when the story broke, has previously said he had nothing to do with the misleading calls. 8. Arthur Hamilton, the Conservative Party's lawyer, told Mathews the list of phone numbers uploaded to RackNine by Pierre Poutine appeared to be a list of identified non-Conservative supporters, with data on it that was updated in CIMS, the party's database, days before the election. The CBC's Terry Milewski had reported a similar pattern after sifting through complaints in 31 ridings. 9. News coverage led to 40,000 people contacting Elections Canada one way or another — whether to report a misdirecting call or by signing an online petition to express concern that it had happened — chief electoral officer Marc Mayrand told a parliamentary committee in April. There are now specific allegations in almost 200 ridings by 800 people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 8, 2012 Report Share Posted June 8, 2012 Define risk assessment? it's irrelevant; the determination of guilt... or innocence, of an accused, is not a part of the bail process... you're simply reverting to your standard go-to - deflection/distraction! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted June 8, 2012 Report Share Posted June 8, 2012 earlier you were all about, 'objective speaking'... you were all about seeking objective speaking! About you not answering the question - again: "- objectively speaking... voter suppression of non-Conservative voters would be undertaken by what party and it's supporters?" evidence? There's been a lot of evidence given throughout the other thread, direct or circumstantial. We could start as follows... although, I will again make the same suggestion to you so as to not completely derail this thread: So you are admitting that you flip flop on your values and beliefs? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 8, 2012 Report Share Posted June 8, 2012 earlier you were all about, 'objective speaking'... you were all about seeking objective speaking! About you not answering the question - again: "- objectively speaking... voter suppression of non-Conservative voters would be undertaken by what party and it's supporters?" So you are admitting that you flip flop on your values and beliefs? not at all - of course not... in any case, you're attempting to equate the absolutes of the individual's accusation, innocence and guilt per the Canadian Criminal Code, within our judicial system... to the forming of, at this stage, nothing more than evidence based opinion concerning the, "voter suppression of non-Conservative voters, robo-calling, voter misdirection, vote moving, etc.... well before the absolutes of formal lawful innocence/quilt are determined and applied. In the former, MLW member, 'Derek L' (and others... yourself?), have chosen to extend upon the progression within the judicial system and assign offending guilt to an individual who, at this stage, within the judicial system, has only been charged. in any case, I've given you some of the evidence you were clamoring for... there is considerably more in the related thread - as I said, if you wish to persist take it to that thread instead of continuing to derail this one. In any case, you still won't answer the question you've obligingly quoted above. "- objectively speaking... voter suppression of non-Conservative voters would be undertaken by what party and it's supporters?" feel free to answer this question, the question you keep avoiding, here... or preferably in the related thread, hey? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted June 8, 2012 Report Share Posted June 8, 2012 not at all - of course not... in any case, you're attempting to equate the absolutes of the individual's accusation, innocence and guilt per the Canadian Criminal Code, within our judicial system... to the forming of, at this stage, nothing more than evidence based opinion concerning the, "voter suppression of non-Conservative voters, robo-calling, voter misdirection, vote moving, etc.... well before the absolutes of formal lawful innocence/quilt are determined and applied. In the former, MLW member, 'Derek L' (and others... yourself?), have chosen to extend upon the progression within the judicial system and assign offending guilt to an individual who, at this stage, within the judicial system, has only been charged. in any case, I've given you some of the evidence you were clamoring for... there is considerably more in the related thread - as I said, if you wish to persist take it to that thread instead of continuing to derail this one. In any case, you still won't answer the question you've obligingly quoted above. feel free to answer this question, the question you keep avoiding, here... or preferably in the related thread, hey? "- objectively speaking... voter suppression of non-Conservative voters would be undertaken by what party and it's supporters?" That is based on your own assumptions, it could have been one of the other parties or a completely unrelated group that had some stake in this, so your assumption and thats all it is an assumption is based on a few "facts". There is no difference, you can argue about how guilty the Conservatives are and the PM is and every time a newspaper prints out something about MND you and your cohorts are always on the assumption that he is guilty without even taking in any facts aside from those cherry picked by a reporter. Now, you either treat everyone as guilty until proven innocent, and in many cases even then its a "cover up" or you treat everyone as innocent UNTIL proven guilty. Just like life, the forums here are interconnected and thus your position on one subject can be called in to question when it is completely against the position taken on another subject. The Conservative Party of Canada as an entity should be given the same treatment as would be awarded to any other group/person, just like a political figure(PM, MND etc...) should also be given the exact same treatment as the average citizen. If you believe so strongly in to the innocent until proven guilty aspect in our justice system then you should be careful every time the subject comes in question, as when you take two or more opposing points on the same subject in different threads then your opinion is less then helpful in any argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 8, 2012 Report Share Posted June 8, 2012 If you believe so strongly in to the innocent until proven guilty aspect in our justice system then you should be careful every time the subject comes in question, as when you take two or more opposing points on the same subject in different threads then your opinion is less then helpful in any argument. again, you're mixing something formally within the judicial system to something that has yet to enter into the formal judicial system. As for your expressed political sensitivities over someone forming evidence based opinion, are you really sure discussing/arguing politics is something you want to engage in... that you're suited for? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 8, 2012 Report Share Posted June 8, 2012 In any case, you still won't answer the question you've obligingly quoted above. "- objectively speaking... voter suppression of non-Conservative voters would be undertaken by what party and it's supporters?" feel free to answer this question, the question you keep avoiding, here... or preferably in the related thread, hey? That is based on your own assumptions, it could have been one of the other parties or a completely unrelated group that had some stake in this, so your assumption and thats all it is an assumption is based on a few "facts". There is no difference, you can argue about how guilty the Conservatives are and the PM is and every time a newspaper prints out something about MND you and your cohorts are always on the assumption that he is guilty without even taking in any facts aside from those cherry picked by a reporter. like I keep saying, take it to the other thread... attempt to argue/make your case there. You're simply ignoring the evidence just presented to you... and the much, much more evidence that exists in that thread. In any case, it is truly remarkable to read a Harper Conservative partisan ignore evidence while at the same time trotting out a suggested alternative that "another party" was engaged in Canada wide manipulations to negatively influence it's own supporters. Remarkable! Truly! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted June 8, 2012 Report Share Posted June 8, 2012 again, you're mixing something formally within the judicial system to something that has yet to enter into the formal judicial system. As for your expressed political sensitivities over someone forming evidence based opinion, are As for your expressed political sensitivities over someone forming evidence based opinion, You mean like picking and choosing facts that support your accusation and discarding and/or destroying evidence that proves otherwise simply because you want someone or a party to pay for a crime? There are plenty of people who have been accused of committing a crime and then police and prosecutors "forming" evidence based on opinion, when the evidence does not support their assumption they rearrange the "facts" and remove those that do not support their theory. Now, if you think that we need to conduct politics at the provincial and federal level as a witch-hunt as long as that witch-hunt is directed ONLY at the conservatives then by all means say so... you really sure discussing/arguing politics is something you want to engage in... that you're suited for? More suitable then you are...seeing as you cannot extend the exact same rights to your political opponents as you would to someone who is CHARGED with sexual assault, murder and attempted murder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted June 8, 2012 Report Share Posted June 8, 2012 like I keep saying, take it to the other thread... attempt to argue/make your case there. You're simply ignoring the evidence just presented to you... and the much, much more evidence that exists in that thread. In any case, it is truly remarkable to read a Harper Conservative partisan ignore evidence while at the same time trotting out a suggested alternative that "another party" was engaged in Canada wide manipulations to negatively influence it's own supporters. Remarkable! Truly! Funny, when it comes to the government its GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY no trial no jury just you as the judge, while it comes to a joker who opened fire in a crowded mall and potentially put dozens if not hundreds of lives in danger you become a stickler for innocent until proven guilty.... Do you have any relation to the accused in this case? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 8, 2012 Report Share Posted June 8, 2012 You mean like picking and choosing facts that support your accusation and discarding and/or destroying evidence that proves otherwise simply because you want someone or a party to pay for a crime? There are plenty of people who have been accused of committing a crime and then police and prosecutors "forming" evidence based on opinion, when the evidence does not support their assumption they rearrange the "facts" and remove those that do not support their theory. nice non-specific rant - get back to me if you want to discuss something directly related/applicable/specific. Now, if you think that we need to conduct politics at the provincial and federal level as a witch-hunt as long as that witch-hunt is directed ONLY at the conservatives then by all means say so... which 'witch hunt' are you referring to? Obviously you're feeling the burn! More suitable then you are...seeing as you cannot extend the exact same rights to your political opponents as you would to someone who is CHARGED with sexual assault, murder and attempted murder. if you continue to purposely and improperly conflate externals to the internal workings within the formal judicial system there's not much point in continuing... is there? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 8, 2012 Report Share Posted June 8, 2012 Funny, when it comes to the government its GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY no trial no jury just you as the judge, while it comes to a joker who opened fire in a crowded mall and potentially put dozens if not hundreds of lives in danger you become a stickler for innocent until proven guilty.... wow! Why can't you be as dismissive of me... and my evidence based opinion? When you purposely conflate the non-related accusation to the subsequent event in question, your emotions have gotten the better of you. Do you have any relation to the accused in this case? how desperate are you... really? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted June 8, 2012 Report Share Posted June 8, 2012 (edited) For an alleged violent crime. As I figured. Thats not a type of bail hearing . That is a type of crime. Big diff. Anyhow , A violent criminal act would fall under a Superior Court Bail hearing for starters . Edited June 8, 2012 by guyser Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted June 8, 2012 Report Share Posted June 8, 2012 nice non-specific rant - get back to me if you want to discuss something directly related/applicable/specific. which 'witch hunt' are you referring to? Obviously you're feeling the burn! if you continue to purposely and improperly conflate externals to the internal workings within the formal judicial system there's not much point in continuing... is there? I understand it finally, you speak out of your ass, and when you are called out on it you try to weasel your way out... I don't have the time or desire to play where's waldo or more accurately where waldo's values and beliefs stand if you have any that is... You can dance around the issue but you are just another joker in a world full of them...You preach something and in another topic you do the very thing you cry about. You try hard to sound intelligent but unfortunately for you most people on MLW can see through your bullshit and see the real you, you cry and cry about how Derek L is doing something wrong, and then you do the exact same if not worse then that of which you accuse him. Its official you do not stand for anything as you have so clearly shown with your multiple opposing positions on the exact same issue, if you want people to take you serious choose one rather then switching your values according to the argument you are engaged in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted June 8, 2012 Report Share Posted June 8, 2012 wow! Why can't you be as dismissive of me... and my evidence based opinion? When you purposely conflate the non-related accusation to the subsequent event in question, your emotions have gotten the better of you. I am going to dismiss anything coming out of you from now on, just like most other intelligent people see through your bullshit. how desperate are you... really? Well I was trying to see if you were related to the guy, after all that would explain a lot. Turns out you don't stand for anything so that explains it all... You are wrong and you just hate that fact so you try and confuse the issue unfortunately I'm not 5 and I can see that there is a pattern to your bull... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.