Trucker's Convoy

[Dougie93]

7 hours ago, Iceni warrior said:

Dogs?

Does Georgia have anew friend to play with?

nah, I have guest dogs,

everybody is going on vacation, so I've been booked solid for more than a month

[ExFlyer]

On 8/30/2022 at 3:14 PM, Goddess said:

Chris Scott, of the Whistlestop Cafe, is in court in Mirror AB today and tomorrow.

He's fighting the fines he got when he refused to close his restaurant after AHS sent out the heavies several tiems to shut him down.

He was pretty popular at the Freedom Convoy in Ottawa.  Great live feeds.

So, what is the outcome??

[Goddess]

Just now, ExFlyer said:

So, what is the outcome??

Today is the second day of court.  Verdict will likely be several months after that.

I'm just following the by-the-minute updates on Twitter to see the testimony from both sides.

[Goddess]

20 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

So, what is the outcome??

If you're interested, the trial has had to be adjourned for a couple weeks.

AHS was supposed to provide emails related to Chris Scott's restaurant closure and property seizure and fines, but they did not.

Judge ordered them to turn them over, they say that they need some time to go over them before they can turn them over to the defense, who would then also need some time to go over them, since they were not provided prior to trial.

[ExFlyer]

29 minutes ago, Goddess said:

If you're interested, the trial has had to be adjourned for a couple weeks.

AHS was supposed to provide emails related to Chris Scott's restaurant closure and property seizure and fines, but they did not.

Judge ordered them to turn them over, they say that they need some time to go over them before they can turn them over to the defense, who would then also need some time to go over them, since they were not provided prior to trial.

Thanks,

 Man! They can sure drag this stuff out.

Everybody knows the guy will get off with time served.

Edited September 1, 2022 by ExFlyer

[Goddess]

7 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Thanks,

 Man! They can sure drag this stuff out.

Everybody knows the guy will get off with time served.

I just saw it's going to be a delay of 4 weeks.

Apparently that's how long it's going to take for AHS to get those emails.

[ExFlyer]

2 hours ago, Goddess said:

I just saw it's going to be a delay of 4 weeks.

Apparently that's how long it's going to take for AHS to get those emails.

Can you imagine what happens when Lich and the other guy go to court. Could last another year.

Whenever lawyers get in involved, the longer it lasts, the more money they make.

[WestCanMan]

2 hours ago, Goddess said:

If you're interested, the trial has had to be adjourned for a couple weeks.

AHS was supposed to provide emails related to Chris Scott's restaurant closure and property seizure and fines, but they did not.

Judge ordered them to turn them over, they say that they need some time to go over them before they can turn them over to the defense, who would then also need some time to go over them, since they were not provided prior to trial.

Uhhhh, geez, what to make of that.....  lol. 

"We'll just sort through all of this evidence and see what you can have."

[ExFlyer]

1 minute ago, WestCanMan said:

Uhhhh, geez, what to make of that.....  lol. 

"We'll just sort through all of this evidence and see what you can have."

At least the judge makes then tun the evidence over.

[WestCanMan]

4 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

At least the judge makes then tun the evidence over.

Yeah but the judge doesn't know what's all there.

If I was the prosecutor and I had a bunch of evidence, would you trust me to root through it all for a couple of weeks to see what you can have? 

[ExFlyer]

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

Yeah but the judge doesn't know what's all there.

If I was the prosecutor and I had a bunch of evidence, would you trust me to root through it all for a couple of weeks to see what you can have? 

You must not know what a judge does.

You also do not know how evidence disclosure works.  For your enlightenment, if defence or prosecution does not disclose, it cannot be used,

[WestCanMan]

3 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

You must not know what a judge does.

You also do not know how evidence disclosure works.  For your enlightenment, if defence or prosecution does not disclose, it cannot be used,

You shouldn't have gone all declarative like that because now you're just gonna get hoisted on your own petard again.

FYI the evidence in question definitely can be used because it was formally requested by the defence attorneys before the trial began (as per Goddess's post). That means that handing it over was a mandatory legal requirement.

The fact that the prosecution disobeyed the law isn't surprising though, because that's the way this whole debacle was handled by our government and the police. 

And I just gotta ask, wtf do you think the judge wanted the emails if they weren't going to count as evidence? Does he just have too much time on his hands, and he wants to read a bunch of emails just for shits and giggles? Did he ask for a copy of War and Peace in Russian too, plus a Russian - English dictionary? 

Edited September 2, 2022 by WestCanMan

[ExFlyer]

8 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

You shouldn't have gone all declarative like that because now you're just gonna get hoisted on your own petard again.

FYI the evidence in question definitely can be used because it was formally requested by the defence attorneys before the trial began (as per Goddess's post). That means that handing it over was a mandatory legal requirement.

The fact that the prosecution disobeyed the law isn't surprising though, because that's the way this whole debacle was handled by our government and the police. 

And I just gotta ask, wtf do you think the judge wanted the emails if they weren't going to count as evidence? Does he just have too much time on his hands, and he wants to read a bunch of emails just for shits and giggles? Did he ask for a copy of War and Peace in Russian too, plus a Russian - English dictionary? 

Man, you are some thick. It is a shame you cannot shake the stupid out LOL

The Judge did not want the evidence, he ordered it to be shared with the defence.

The judge ordered evidence to be turned over, to the defence, which was not previously provided or disclosed. Evidence cannot be used if it is not shared with the other party.

IAW Godess:

"AHS was supposed to provide emails related to Chris Scott's restaurant closure and property seizure and fines, but they did not.

Judge ordered them to turn them over, they say that they need some time to go over them before they can turn them over to the defense, who would then also need some time to go over them, since they were not provided prior to trial."

Edited September 2, 2022 by ExFlyer

[Goddess]

18 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Everybody knows the guy will get off with time served.

I don't think that's the point of this.  The point is to set an example for others who want to disagree.

The point is to make civil disobedience to governmental overreach so costly and stressful that nobody else ever tries it again.

[ExFlyer]

19 minutes ago, Goddess said:

I don't think that's the point of this.  The point is to set an example for others who want to disagree.

The point is to make civil disobedience to governmental overreach so costly and stressful that nobody else ever tries it again.

The court case is that an existing law was broken and the defence wants to get the fines and time dismissed.

My comment was only my opinion of what the result may be.

[WestCanMan]

5 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Man, you are some thick. It is a shame you cannot shake the stupid out LOL

The Judge did not want the evidence, he ordered it to be shared with the defence.

The judge ordered evidence to be turned over, to the defence, which was not previously provided or disclosed. Evidence cannot be used if it is not shared with the other party.

IAW Godess:

"AHS was supposed to provide emails related to Chris Scott's restaurant closure and property seizure and fines, but they did not.

Judge ordered them to turn them over, they say that they need some time to go over them before they can turn them over to the defense, who would then also need some time to go over them, since they were not provided prior to trial."

None of that says what you think it does, Einstein.

The defence couldn't provide the emails in disclosure because the prosecution didn't give them the emails. 

In lefty speak that = no havey, no providey.

Your own words: 

Quote

"AHS was supposed to provide emails

FYI the prosecution doesn't have to give the defence anything that isn't formally requested of them. That's one of the reasons why it's important to lawyer up if you're ever charged with anything criminally. 

Therefor, the only reason why "AHS was supposed to provide the emails" is because the emails were formally requested. 

Quote

Judge ordered them to turn them over, they say that they need some time to go over them before they can turn them over to the defense, who would then also need some time to go over them, since they were not provided prior to trial."

Right. The prosecution wants to have a couple of weeks to sift through the emails before they turn them over. Weeks.

Do you know how long it takes me to sort out all of my emails to Bell Mobility? Or BC Hydro? I can do it in seconds, not weeks, and I don't have an IT department in my dining room.

So why do they need weeks if they're not picking and choosing what emails to provide? 

Why does the defence need the emails if they can't use them in court?

 

And again, why do you think that the judge ordered the prosecution to give the defence evidence that can't be used in the trial? What would be the purpose of that? 

Captain: "Sergeant, bring these bouncy castles to the soldiers on the front line, ASAP!"

Sergeant: "Why sir, what could they possibly do with them?"

Captain: "Nothing, I just want them to have some bouncy castles."

Edited September 2, 2022 by WestCanMan

[Goddess]

12 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Therefor, the only reason why "AHS was supposed to provide the emails" is because the emails were formally requested. 

From the testimony I heard, yes - AHS was requested to produce all emails associated with Chris Scott's case.

They did provide some.  But in the first day's trial, it was discovered that there were email exchanges related to the case that were not turned over.  So the second day was adjourned until the additional emails are located.

Quote

So why do they need weeks if they're not picking and choosing what emails to provide? 

It appears to me that they already "picked and chose" what emails to share.  

During the first day's testimony, officers and health inspectors reported additional email exchanges that AHS did not include in the original request, so court is adjourned until they are provided.  

Edited September 2, 2022 by Goddess

[ExFlyer]

57 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

None of that says what you think it does, Einstein.

The defence couldn't provide the emails in disclosure because the prosecution didn't give them the emails. 

In lefty speak that = no havey, no providey.

Your own words: 

FYI the prosecution doesn't have to give the defence anything that isn't formally requested of them. That's one of the reasons why it's important to lawyer up if you're ever charged with anything criminally. 

Therefor, the only reason why "AHS was supposed to provide the emails" is because the emails were formally requested. 

Right. The prosecution wants to have a couple of weeks to sift through the emails before they turn them over. Weeks.

.....

So why do they need weeks if they're not picking and choosing what emails to provide? 

Why does the defence need the emails if they can't use them in court?

 

And again, why do you think that the judge ordered the prosecution to give the defence evidence that can't be used in the trial? What would be the purpose of that? 

....

Dense or what???

The judge ordered the prosecution to give the defence the materials. The defence asked for the evidence. The prosecution  cannot use the evidence if not shared. And vice versa. Basic legal processes. Period.

Why does it take so long? I think the defence are the ones that need the time to review, not the prosecution.

It all takes time. Why does it take 6 months to go to court.

I honestly gave you a lot more credit for being intelligent and have some reading comprehension but you burst that bubble.

 

Edited September 2, 2022 by ExFlyer

[WestCanMan]

25 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Dense or what???

The judge ordered the prosecution to give the defence the materials. The defence asked for the evidence. The prosecution  cannot use the evidence if not shared. And vice versa. Basic legal processes. Period.

Why does it take so long? I think the defence are the ones that need the time to review, not the prosecution.

It all takes time. Why does it take 6 months to go to court.

I honestly gave you a lot more credit for being intelligent and have some reading comprehension but you burst that bubble.

 

That's just proof that even though you have access to all the information, you don't have the foggiest clue what it all means.

 

Coles Notes:

Defence formally requested all pertinent emails before the trial

Prosecution pretended to provide emails, but illegally withheld some

The supplied emails were entered into evidence at discovery

During the trial, testimony from witnesses revealed the existence of AHS emails which were pertinent but not provided.

At that time, the judge orders AHS to provide all pertinent emails to the defence

AHS said that they needed two weeks to find the emails

 

That's the part where I chimed in and insinuated that the people who illegally withheld pertinent evidence in the first place might be using these two weeks to sift through the remaining emails of interest so that they can withhold as much other evidence as possible.

Makes sense, right? They were busted for withholding evidence once, why wouldn't we be concerned that they might be doing the exact same thing again, when they asked for such a ridiculously long time to perform a very simple function? 

 

Here's what you need to understand: the defence had no chance to enter emails into evidence that the prosecution kept hidden from them. The defence wouldn't even have known what emails existed on the AHS server. (Do you know how many emails I've sent to Shaw Cable? Why not?)

Therefor, the judge isn't going to say: "Haha defence, you didn't know about the emails, so you didn't add them during disclosure, and now that evidence is forever excluded from these court proceedings. BWaaaahhhahahahahaha!!!"

If the judge did that, then the legal requirement for the prosecution to provide pertinent evidence might as well just be thrown out forever at that point. 

This is all pretty self-explanatory. If you don't understand it now, then I'd suggest that you just keep it to yourself because you're not doing yourself or anyone else any favours by continuing to play stupid.

 

Side note: this is another blatant example of the covid fear mongers who work for "our" government being busted for unconstitutional/illegal activity, and that's in addition to all of their known disinformation. Shocker. 

[ExFlyer]

2 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

That's just proof that even though you have access to all the information, you don't have the foggiest clue what it all means.

 

Coles Notes:

Defence formally requested all pertinent emails before the trial

Prosecution pretended to provide emails, but illegally withheld some

The supplied emails were entered into evidence at discovery

During the trial, testimony from witnesses revealed the existence of AHS emails which were pertinent but not provided.

At that time, the judge orders AHS to provide all pertinent emails to the defence

AHS said that they needed two weeks to find the emails

That's the part where I chimed in and insinuated that the people who illegally withheld pertinent evidence in the first place might be using these two weeks to sift through the remaining emails of interest so that they can withhold as much other evidence as possible.

Makes sense, right? They were busted for withholding evidence once, why wouldn't we be concerned that they might be doing the exact same thing again, when they asked for such a ridiculously long time to perform a very simple function? 

......

Blah, blah blah blah

Stop making shit up to fit whatever you think.

You have no idea whether they were going to use the emails so, an assumption on your part.

Two weeks is another rectal pluck from your nether region.

They are told to turn over "provide emails related". So hes, they have to review which are related and which are not.

This is the first time this has gone to trial.

 

From Goddess.

"AHS was supposed to provide emails related to Chris Scott's restaurant closure and property seizure and fines, but they did not.

Judge ordered them to turn them over, they say that they need some time to go over them before they can turn them over to the defense, who would then also need some time to go over them, since they were not provided prior to trial."

So, unless you have trial transcripts, Goddess's post is all there is and you sure can make a bunch of shit up from those 2 sentences.

I will not respond to your next post because you make shit up, cannot read, a flake and not worthy of my time. Have a great conspiratorial day

[WestCanMan]

3 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Stop making shit up to fit whatever you think.

You have no idea whether they were going to use the emails so, an assumption on your part.

Two weeks is another rectal pluck from your nether region.

They are told to turn over "provide emails related". So hes, they have to review which are related and which are not.

This is the first time this has gone to trial.

 

From Goddess.

"AHS was supposed to provide emails related to Chris Scott's restaurant closure and property seizure and fines, but they did not.

Judge ordered them to turn them over, they say that they need some time to go over them before they can turn them over to the defense, who would then also need some time to go over them, since they were not provided prior to trial."

So, unless you have trial transcripts, Goddess's post is all there is and you sure can make a bunch of shit up from those 2 sentences.

I will not respond to your next post because you make shit up, cannot read, a flake and not worthy of my time. Have a great conspiratorial day

You're a joke.

Bottom line is the AHS illegally withheld evidence, the evidence which they will be turning over will be allowed to be presented as evidence in court, and it's 100% reasonable to question their intentions at this point. 

Edited September 2, 2022 by WestCanMan

[Goddess]

13 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

You're a joke.

Bottom line is the AHS illegally withheld evidence, the evidence which they will be turning over will be allowed to be presented as evidence in court, and it's 100% reasonable to question their intentions at this point. 

I agree with this.  If I was asked to turn over all emails related to a certain person, I would know that means ALL correspondence that relates to that individual.

I think AHS knows this too - it's commonsense - but they want to drag this out as long as possible in the hopes that Chris Scott runs out of money or just gives up.

[Nefarious Banana]

55 minutes ago, Goddess said:

I agree with this.  If I was asked to turn over all emails related to a certain person, I would know that means ALL correspondence that relates to that individual.

I think AHS knows this too - it's commonsense - but they want to drag this out as long as possible in the hopes that Chris Scott runs out of money or just gives up.

Our government . . . working for us.  

Hoping Chris Scott 'stays the course' . . .

[WestCanMan]

58 minutes ago, Goddess said:

I agree with this.  If I was asked to turn over all emails related to a certain person, I would know that means ALL correspondence that relates to that individual.

I think AHS knows this too - it's commonsense - but they want to drag this out as long as possible in the hopes that Chris Scott runs out of money or just gives up.

C Scott is one of the most important people in the country now. If Hillary Clinton was our PM he wouldn't be able to get life insurance lol. 

[Dougie93]

we shipped a lot of equipment to them American truckers today

down in Missouruh, Texas, Tennesee, and along the I-75

they all want our Canadian made trucker kit

that's visors, grills,  bumpers, t-bars, slip covers, battery boxes, cabin bunk sets, you name it

stainless steel, brushed steel, or aluminum if you want to paint it

we got everything done by 1400, so the boss let us go early for the long weekend

just chilling in my neighbours swimming pool right now, posting from one of these smart phones

drinking some ice cold beers, smoking some government weed

the dogs are swimming around me

beautiful sunset coming on, the day moon is high in the sky

my wife says supper tonight will be Fruits de Mer

fish on Friday night, for the Fisherman

hold the line

happy warriors

the protest is a party

?

Edited September 3, 2022 by Dougie93