TURMEL: Glitch delays Gravel release to Tuesday

John Turmel · science forum Guru Joined: 07 May 2005 Posts: 424

JCT: We've heard of nit-picking but today is a beaut. We
were before Justice Bedard in courtroom #2. The Crown was
Genevieve Depassille.

She had had the police call around to check on Dominic's
affidavit. So the first thing Dominic asked was to change
his affidavit. He explained how the police had called his
boss and when they didn't reach him, had called the boss's
family who didn't know him. The boss's family got so upset
that the boss informed Dominic that the job was no longer
there. So Dominic told the judge that after the police
intervention, he no longer had a job.

He also had not listed that he was living with his
girlfriend at his residence. They checked with her.

So they're going to be putting up the usual arguments
against release. Of course, I'm trying to obviate any need
for this kind of information by turning it onto the abuse
issue.

But there was some kind of big raid in town that had
made the news that morning, so the Crown wanted it adjourned
to Tuesday for her cops to arrive to testify.

She pointed out another glitch which was that when he listed
his criminal record, he didn't put the dates and the
sentences. Dominic responded that being in jail, he didn't
have access to that kind of information and he had done his
best to inform them of the charges and the years when he had
been convicted. It's real important to have the exact dates.
The judge pointed out how the Crown had his record and
she'll produce it next week.

But the real technical glitch that the judge stressed was
that the motion had failed in its body to say what
conclusions the applicant wanted the court to come to! I had
put the conclusion sought in the Notice of Motion, like we
do in Ontario. In Quebec, you mention it earlier in the body
of the Application. Mea culpa. In Quebec motions, they lay
out the facts and then put the conclusion at the end with:

Please the court to Order that.....

So the conclusion sought (his release) was in the Notice
rather than the body of the application. That's why the
judge didn't find it. Oh right, he was supposed to read the
Notice too. I'd have pointed
out to the judge how the conclusion sought was in the Notice
of Motion but Dominic didn't know what the judge was looking
for and couldn't help him find what was on the next page.
But that was the only glitch.

So, I'm going to have to move the paragraph:

"for an Order varying the bail conditions to permit release
upon Applicant's own recognizance on the grounds that
"Parliament has not re-enacted the necessary S.4 possession
and S.7 cultivation prohibitions sustaining any imputed
improper purpose since they were struck down in Parker and
Krieger"

from his Notice of Motion to 2 pages earlier! Won't that be
funny. His motion is thrown out because one paragraph is in
the wrong place. What a reason to keep a guy in jail. As if
the judge couldn't figure out from the Notice what
conclusion was sought and needed to read it in the earlier
place.

So the judge booked him back for Tuesday morning March 2 at
9am and told him to have his papers fixed by then. And of
course, the Crown asked that Dominic refile a whole new
motion again! Dominic pointed out how he had had difficulty
the last time. No help.

But that shouldn't be a problem this time. There's a section
in the penal regulations that permits the warden to
authorize a non-family member to visit an inmate. So Dominic
asked that I be allowed to visit him and it was granted.

So I booked an appointment for 2:30 today to show him how I
switched the paragraphs in the application, get him to sign
the new motion and file it for Tuesday.

I must admit I'm disappointed over such a tiny mistake
keeping him in jail. One misplaced paragraph. Still, it was
probably going to be remanded anyway for the cops to testify
so it's easily fixed by Tuesday.

Finally, if it would be an abuse of process to keep him in
jail if Krieger applies, it shouldn't be necessary to
discuss all of the affidavit information insisted upon for
use by people not released on their own recognizance.

Dominic's going to have to ask to deal with his motion on
Krieger first before getting into the cross-examination of
his release affidavit by the Crown. Why even bother talking
about the affidavit and conditions of release unless he is
going to be getting out due to Krieger?

--
Abolitionist Slave Leader John C."The Banking Systems Engineer" Turmel
for UNILETS interest-free time-based currency in U.N. resolution C6
to Governments in the http://www.un.org/millennium/declaration.htm
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel 519-753-0645 USENET: can.politics

Google