Judge gives man one year in jail for contempt of court

[myata]

49 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Doesn't matter.

Right. The wordy matters only in the sentence but not when an independent body or citizen is trying to make sense of it. Reminds you of something, like Ancient Egypt priest-run democracy"? Getting there, and why not? No, objectively and very seriously: why not? What is there to stop or prevent government abuse of power? Certainly not the justices and legalities, this is already an objective fact of reality just confirmed by two years of experience. What else is there then? Do look around and try to answer if you still can.

[blackbird]

15 hours ago, CdnFox said:

This is sedition.

No, he was not tried or punished for sedition.  Sedition would require a charge of such and the option of trial by jury for a criminal offence.  A judge cannot just sentence someone for sedition without due process.

[myata]

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

You haven't offered a single thing to explain why this is excessive.

Let's see. If a judge screws up every other decision, cannot be kicked out and costs enormous bucks to the society in delays and compensations, work never done what happens? They get rewarded with an obscene lifetime pension.

Factually: how many our median income citizens can be supported by one judge (see above for the results and qualifications) pension?

How does the cost inflicted by this, one can admit not entirely reasonable individual compare to the above, over lifetime, to justify a long prison sentence? Is it proportional? Does it make any sense?

Again: was it necessary (need to be proven, none)? Is it proportional (see above)? Is it just (a prison sentence for a crime of dissent)?

The conclusion: none of the essential checks passed, no questions answered. Failed. Again. Nah, doesn't matter. The pension keeps rolling, that's important.

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, blackbird said:

No, he was not tried or punished for sedition.  Sedition would require a charge of such and the option of trial by jury for a criminal offence.  A judge cannot just sentence someone for sedition without due process.

The fact that someone is not charged for something doesn't mean that they haven't done something.

And it definitely meets the dictionary definition even if it doesn't meet the canadian legal bar.

It's silly to pretend that only that which a person is charged for actually happenes.

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, myata said:

Let's see. If a judge screws up every other decision, cannot be kicked out and costs enormous bucks to the society in delays and compensations, work never done what happens? 

Then all of his decisions go to appeal.

Do you have any evidence that THIS judge has screwed every other decision?

No?

So you're just full of crap. Ok - thanks.

[blackbird]

3 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

It's silly to pretend that only that which a person is charged for actually happenes.

You are the one who brought up the word sedition.  He cannot be punished for sedition without a fair trial through the proper legal process for sedition.

[myata]

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Then all of his decisions go to appeal.

Right. A bureaucrat screws up repeatedly and citizen may get an appeal. A citizen screws up, nothing violent and goes to jail, for a year. Makes a lot of sense.

Make no mistake: this is not an aberration, the entire system was constructed, patiently and deliberately to eliminate any real responsibility for the bureaucracy. They are just invited to do it again, and again like nothing happened.

In a democracy, an independent justice system guards the rights and interests of the citizens. In Canada it's only another department of entitled bureaucracy that routinely sides with the governments. Do we need any reminders these days? It failed its duty to be a fair and competent arbiter repeatedly being blind and dumb to incredible (Dr. Charlie Smith fiasco, psychiatric hospitals and multiple others). It's a shame, a failure really a sad parody on real democracy where courts can and do actually stop attempts at abusing power, except it is entitled to pronounce itself "the good government", question closed. But of course, if you say so, or else yes we heard it, "sedition".

Edited April 24, 2023 by myata

[myata]

Here's another interesting one. "Despite multiple public inquiries into the practice, no Saskatoon police officer has been convicted for their role in the freezing deaths of any Indigenous men".

"Officers Dan Munson and Ken Hatchen, who abandoned Night that January evening, were later found guilty of unlawful confinement. Both were fired and sentenced to six months in jail."

Six month in jail for abandoning a citizen in an incapacitated state at -30 at night to almost certain death. Here's a gauge of proportionality for you. Still there?

Still sounds like a great blah system? Or just a pompous imitation, looking all the ways as another grotesque failure?

[CdnFox]

22 hours ago, myata said:

Right. A bureaucrat screws up repeatedly and citizen may get an appeal.

Do you have any evidence they screwed up repeatedly?

Or is that just the voices in your head talking again?

22 hours ago, myata said:

In a democracy, an independent justice system guards the rights and interests of the citizens.

Not according to you - according to you all judges are complete incompetents who only screw up !  So it seems like you're wrong.

 

27 minutes ago, myata said:

Six month in jail for abandoning a citizen in an incapacitated state at -30 at night to almost certain death.

They didn't tho. He didn't die. So it definitely wasn't certain death.

Sounds like that's all they could be charged with. Now - if they had stood up in court and claimed that first nations weren't really people and they had every right to kill them if they wished and they INTENEDED to kill him, then their senance would have been more like 12- 24 years.

The guy in the original story did that - he stood up and demanded he had a RIGHT to commit his crimes and the court couldn't do anyting about it.

So - he got a healthy punishment.

See how that works? You still there?

[myata]

32 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

The guy in the original story did that - he stood up and demanded he had a RIGHT to commit his crimes and the court couldn't do anyting about it.

I see. A real physical crime by the right people, not a great deal. The thought crime is entirely different matter though. Keep working on it - looks like you've got a great potential to fit in to the good system. By definition and claim - no checks or evidence needed. Because we say so. Because we can.

[myata]

39 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Not according to you - according to you all judges are

I was mentioning factual and specific system failures of Canadian legal system. Who has problems with reading now? Plus of course, the most recent failure. Were forced vaccinations necessary and justified? Someone had to look into this, check it,  that was someone's job for obscene lifetime privileges not to rubberstamp and / or look the other way. Whose, any ideas? In a democracy though, never to be confused.

[myata]

Canadian citizens should establish the permanent institute of citizens inquiry. We just cannot know what's going on in the country. The parliament is purposefully useless for that, RCMP a joke can barely manage itself, courts consume obscene salaries and pensions while looking the other way and with supposedly independent media one has to figure out their interest first. The country's public function will be at a standstill in no historical time at all. Screwed.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, myata said:

I see. A real physical crime by the right people, not a great deal. The thought crime is entirely different matter though. Keep working on it - looks like you've got a great potential to fit in to the good system. By definition and claim - no checks or evidence needed. Because we say so. Because we can.

Obstructing a police officer is a 'thought crim'?

If you're just going to lie, there's no point in having a discussion.

Quote

was mentioning factual and specific system failures

Well no you weren't at all actulaly. In fact you've repeatedly ignored my request for facts from you.

34 minutes ago, myata said:

Canadian citizens should establish the permanent institute of citizens inquiry.

You would just blame them for being 'incompetent' and 'constantly screwing up' as well.  What would be the point.

[suds]

On 4/24/2023 at 2:22 AM, CdnFox said:

Doesn't matter. While the legal requirement in canada to be charged with it may require that, the common definition does not, and that's still what it is even if he cannot be charged under the code.  It's a serious matter.  it is not just 'an opinion' it is a statement as part of a legal defense that canada's gov't is illegitimate and has no authority.

 

The most common definition for 'sedition' (that would apply here) is ....'an offense that tends to undermine the authority of the state'. The father of liberalism, John Locke, saw the use of forceful sedition as not just a right but an obligation with the only precondition being that force is to be opposed to nothing more than unjust laws or unlawful uses of force (by the state). The American, French, and Russian revolutions, were all seditionist movements. The word 'sedition' should not be seen as criminal unless all definitions, preconditions, and existing laws, are taken in their proper context. That said, these OPCA litigants do sound like a bunch of wackjobs and I can fully understand why the judge's patience finally ran out. But there must be some better way of dealing with this  then allowing it to go on for years and finally using this Hardy character as a person to be made an example of. Other than the sedition thing, most of your arguments make sense, but so do myata's. It's like you're both on two different wavelengths.

[CdnFox]

6 minutes ago, suds said:

The most common definition for 'sedition' (that would apply here) is ....'an offense that tends to undermine the authority of the state'.

Accepted

6 minutes ago, suds said:

The father of liberalism, John Locke, saw the use of forceful sedition as not just a right but an obligation with the only precondition being that force is to be opposed to nothing more than unjust laws or unlawful uses of force (by the state).

Sure. As a hat tip to that we allow 'civil disobedience' as a legal thing. Where it's accepted a person can challenge a laws constitutionality or validity directly.

6 minutes ago, suds said:

The American, French, and Russian revolutions, were all seditionist movements. The word 'sedition' should not be seen as criminal unless all definitions, preconditions, and existing laws, are taken in their proper context.

No no - let us be clear, those revolutions were all criminal. Sedition SHOULD be seen as criminal. Sometimes things get to the point where you have no choice but to commit a crime, which is the idea behind the Canadian tradition of 'defense of necessity'  (i don't know if that's an American thing). It may be a crhime we now all agree was necessary but it was a crime.

6 minutes ago, suds said:

That said, these OPCA litigants do sound like a bunch of wackjobs and I can fully understand why the judge's patience finally ran out. But there must be some better way of dealing with this  then allowing it to go on for years and finally using this Hardy character as a person to be made an example of.

Like what? Until he interfered with the police investigation he was just some guy with weird ideas. Myata's own ramblings aren't far off this guys' delusions. It's not like we could arrest Myata or anything.

I think all you can do is make an example out of people who use this as an excuse for bad behavior. Interfere with the cops or take some other action based on the idea that the courts and gov't have no authority and you get severely punished. Should send a message to the other nutbars.

6 minutes ago, suds said:

Other than the sedition thing, most of your arguments make sense, but so do myata's. It's like you're both on two different wavelengths.

Yes, i'm currently tuned in to reality FM and he's on VHF  (Very High Foolishness.)

(Sorry - i had to )

[myata]

10 hours ago, CdnFox said:

You would just blame them for being 'incompetent' and 'constantly screwing up' as well.  What would be the point.

See the difference: citizens will be working for themselves, their posterity and the country. The entitled bureaucracy we have now is working for themselves too: mansions, benefits and pensions.

Overall let's just leave it at a fact. What else can be added?

• 6 months in jail for abandoning a human being in a highly dangerous conditions with very real risk of death as confirmed by multiple incidents.
• One year in jail for saying some words.

Only an accurate, factual description. Not much to add here.

[myata]

P.S. Feel free to find out information about Dr. Charlie Smith and "shaken baby syndrome". How many cases were there, in a couple of decades? Each one of them was a faceplant grotesque failure of the "good" system. The pseudo expert was laughed out of a normal court just south on the first appearance and never tried it again.

Now ask yourself this question: where else, in which profession, company and occupation one can do a two decade long string of absolute, grotesque and expensive failures and end up with an obscene lifetime pension?

This is an accurate, factual summary of the state of affairs because it happened, a fact. See it, understand it, admit it and live with it. Or live you your std rosy dream. Either one. You choose.

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, myata said:

See the difference: citizens will be working for themselves, their posterity and the country.

You realize judges are just citizens too right?

3 minutes ago, myata said:

The entitled bureaucracy we have now is working for themselves too: mansions, benefits and pensions.

That's how it turns out. You're just creating another layer of entitled bureaucracy.

 

4 minutes ago, myata said:

• 6 months in jail for abandoning a human being in a highly dangerous conditions with very real risk of death as confirmed by multiple incidents.
• One year in jail for saying some words.

Here's my problem with you. You pretty much demand to be dishonest.

Obstructing a police investigation is not just 'saying some words'.  Neither is demanding that a justice in a legal setting that he has no legal authority and the guy doesn't have to listen to his judgements.

So you say bullcrap like 'it's a thought crime' but it's not

As to the cops, they told a very different story. They claim this guy is largely full of shit, but they did take him away from the bar and they didn't arrest him, so all the judge could PROVE was that they unlawfully confined him. They put him in their car without proper arrest.  So when you say that they got 6 months for abandoning him to his death its a lie - that's not what they were convicted of.

So you want to create fake things for the guys you don't like and want to magically disappear things for the guy you do like.

Would you be one of these 'honest citizens' you were talking about that would serve us all?

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, myata said:

P.S. Feel free to find out information about Dr. Charlie Smith and "shaken baby syndrome". How many cases were there, in a couple of decades? Each one of them was a faceplant grotesque failure of the "good" system. The pseudo expert was laughed out of a normal court just south on the first appearance and never tried it again.

so what. Youv'e proposed nothing better. All you're doing is whining like a baby that sometimes judges get it wrong, Sure - they're human. And in this case a con artist managed to con people. Big shock. Are you saying nobody should ever be charged with a crime?

2 minutes ago, myata said:

Now ask yourself this question: where else, in which profession, company and occupation one can do a two decade long string of absolute, grotesque and expensive failures and end up with an obscene lifetime pension?

Telus. Bank of Canada.  Parliament.  There was those nurses who spent their whole careers secretly killing people. Hockey coaches who molested kids for decades.  Almost any union job. 

Is that enough? Did you need more?

2 minutes ago, myata said:

This is an accurate, factual summary of the state of affairs because it happened, a fact. See it, understand it, admit it and live with it. Or live you your std rosy dream. Either one. You choose.

Sorry kiddo, pretty much none of that is true. That's what you get for listening to the voices in your head.

[myata]

Totally failed its duty and responsibility to the society. Did it again recently. That's it, the verdict and prognosis. Doesn't work. Cannot work for anything important and serious. Traffic tickets, maybe and sometimes. Case closed.

Edited April 26, 2023 by myata

[myata]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

All you're doing is whining like a baby that sometimes judges get it wrong, Sure - they're human.

Like repeatedly get it wrong for two decades, dozens of times, every time, non stop with 100% fail rate? What kind of human does that? Do you know the word for that? Just try.

[CdnFox]

7 hours ago, myata said:

Totally failed its duty and responsibility to the society. Did it again recently. That's it, the verdict and prognosis. Doesn't work. Cannot work for anything important and serious. Traffic tickets, maybe and sometimes. Case closed.

That doesn't even make sense. Is english your third language or something? Do you not know how to express your thoughts in an intelligent manner  WHAT totally failed ?  Did WHAT again recently? If you can't talk above the level of a 5 year old then why would anyone care about your opinion?

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, myata said:

Like repeatedly get it wrong for two decades, dozens of times, every time, non stop with 100% fail rate? What kind of human does that? Do you know the word for that? Just try.

WHo?? Get WHAT repeatedly wrong? How did they get it wrong? What are you talking about that has a 100 percent fail rate?

I know the word for what YOU'RE being -  retarded.

[myata]

That's how you know there's no intelligible response. Point taken, thanks.

[CdnFox]

16 minutes ago, myata said:

That's how you know there's no intelligible response. Point taken, thanks.

Well you got that right - you've given no intelligible response.   I'll let you get back to your English lessons then.