So how many of you are for longer jail sentences......
- Thread starter nottyboi
- Start date
I have seen it happen with my own eyes to someone. And his lawyer said it is very common. In this case the tab was 60K to fight false charges. Part of the agreement to drop the charges always includes legal indemnity to the crown and police officers and civil indemnity to all.Oh come on, what you describe is prosecutorial misconduct that will result in disbarment and possibly criminal prosecution.
Of course the lawyer said that. He had to justify it. No one says here that it never happens, just not anywhere near the frequency you've intimated.I have seen it happen with my own eyes to someone. And his lawyer said it is very common. In this case the tab was 60K to fight false charges. Part of the agreement to drop the charges always includes legal indemnity to the crown and police officers and civil indemnity to all.
Of course the lawyer said that. He had to justify it. No one says here that it never happens, just not anywhere near the frequency you've intimated.
And of course you have no other data to offer then your head up your ass i suppose?
Where might I get data like you suggest? Nice move and true to form for you. It is like making a statement lthat Judges are on the take and expecting people to have data to counter your claim. Grow up will ya.And of course you have no other data to offer then your head up your ass i suppose?
now this is Bullshit with a capital BPart of the agreement to drop the charges always includes legal indemnity to the crown and police officers and civil indemnity to all.
this is not a concept known in Canada
Crown drops the charges because there is no reasonable prospect of conviction (unless your innocent friend plead guilty or at a minimum agreed to a peace bond). Crown has no fucking standing whatsoever to even enter into the civil remedies territory. Nor do they give a fuck.
Besides, proceeding with the charges to achieve civil purpose is an abuse of process. Crown would find herself in deep shit if it was found to be the case.
Absolutely they do. They insisted on civil indemnity to the crown, police and city of mississuga.now this is Bullshit with a capital B
this is not a concept known in Canada
Crown drops the charges because there is no reasonable prospect of conviction (unless your innocent friend plead guilty or at a minimum agreed to a peace bond). Crown has no fucking standing whatsoever to even enter into the civil remedies territory. Nor do they give a fuck.
If you have no data to offer or personal experinces you share, then just shaddap instead of trying call people liars when all you have is an opinion based on nothing.Where might I get data like you suggest? Nice move and true to form for you. It is like making a statement lthat Judges are on the take and expecting people to have data to counter your claim. Grow up will ya.
Crown, Police and City are virtually invincible as it is. You may have misunderstood what was relayed to you by your friend who might have misunderstood what he was told by his lawyer.Absolutely they do. They insisted on civil indemnity to the crown, police and city of mississuga.
If you have no data to offer or personal experinces you share, then just shaddap instead of trying call people liars when all you have is an opinion based on nothing.
I don't have to accuse you of being a liar. People just have read your past posts and they can make up their own mind. I never said you were a liar, just wrong. There is a difference, but you thin skin and apparent narrow mindedness makes it hard for you to see.
No I actually went to see the lawyer with him the crown was insisting on civil indemnity and there is apparently nothing improper about it. Persoanally I question why civil indemnity sought in a criminal proceeding would have any standing in a civil court...but hey I am no lawyer.Crown, Police and City are virtually invincible as it is. You may have misunderstood what was relayed to you by your friend who might have misunderstood what he was told by his lawyer.
You are saying I am wrong based on limited data and the word of a prominent criminal lawyer... and your opinion is based on NOTHING. Funny how you can call me narrow minded yet you believe pretty much everything in the conventional sense.I don't have to accuse you of being a liar. People just have read your past posts and they can make up their own mind. I never said you were a liar, just wrong. There is a difference, but you thin skin and apparent narrow mindedness makes it hard for you to see.
A prominent criminal lawyer! Oooooooooow! Name please, nah you don't really have to. I know some prominent lawyers whom, if they told me it was 4:00, I'd still check my watch. Your comment in post 62, tainted an awful lot of good lawyers with one stroke. Is it possible the lawyer was trying to make your friend feel better, basically saying we did our best, but it wasn't in the cards, instead of the lawyer/your buddy fucked up.You are saying I am wrong based on limited data and the word of a prominent criminal lawyer... and your opinion is based on NOTHING. Funny how you can call me narrow minded yet you believe pretty much everything in the conventional sense.
Again, you're asking for data that just doesn't exist. Neither you or I will have accessible that kind of info. Of course, if it's not on the internet it can't be true. My opinion isn't based on 'nothing'. There are enough legal minds on this BB, that if I'm out of my mind they'll tell me. If not they'll tell you that you are.
From your post 71, was this a civil case or a criminal case.?
If his Lawyer actually believed he had "the goods" on the Crown, he should have been straight on the phone to the Law Society, followed by a letter the next day.his lawyer said it is very common.
Longer jail sentences?
Have punctuation marks been classified as contraband?
I'm here all week, try the veal!!
Have punctuation marks been classified as contraband?
I'm here all week, try the veal!!
what were the charges and how the city was involved?No I actually went to see the lawyer with him the crown was insisting on civil indemnity and there is apparently nothing improper about it. Persoanally I question why civil indemnity sought in a criminal proceeding would have any standing in a civil court...but hey I am no lawyer.
in fairness, if a lawyer relieved his client from $60K before trial that's pretty prominentA prominent criminal lawyer! Oooooooooow!
And how on earth are you going to prove that? The judge in the pretrial hearings said he did not think the case should go to trial, but that is a non-binding opinion....it is still up to the crown.If his Lawyer actually believed he had "the goods" on the Crown, he should have been straight on the phone to the Law Society, followed by a letter the next day.
If that's the retainer, prominent is not the first word I'd use.in fairness, if a lawyer relieved his client from $60K before trial that's pretty prominent
It was a criminal case..can you not read? But there was also a lawsuit involved against the police relating.A prominent criminal lawyer! Oooooooooow! Name please, nah you don't really have to. I know some prominent lawyers whom, if they told me it was 4:00, I'd still check my watch. Your comment in post 62, tainted an awful lot of good lawyers with one stroke. Is it possible the lawyer was trying to make your friend feel better, basically saying we did our best, but it wasn't in the cards, instead of the lawyer/your buddy fucked up.
Again, you're asking for data that just doesn't exist. Neither you or I will have accessible that kind of info. Of course, if it's not on the internet it can't be true. My opinion isn't based on 'nothing'. There are enough legal minds on this BB, that if I'm out of my mind they'll tell me. If not they'll tell you that you are.
From your post 71, was this a civil case or a criminal case.?
