ciroccoj: (but baby)
Defense Counsel: My client is way too stupid to have made any money at this, Your Honour.

Crown Attorney: He really is. Look at these pictures. This was a very amateurish undertaking.

Judge: Yeah, that looks pretty dumb. Wow. He never would've made a go of it, would he?

Defense Counsel: No, never. Considering how incompetent he was, I suggest a mild sentence.

Crown Attorney: Fine by me.

Judge: OK, then Mr. Defendant, I'm going to sentence you to X months only. Also, please don't try this again. You're really, really bad at it.

Defendant: ...thank you?

ETA: Realized yesterday that I should probably include a disclaimer with every post that has to do with defendant-client-court-related stuff:

Solicitor-client privilege is a serious thing, yo. If you see any quotes, paraphrases, or any other kind of work-related tidbit on this journal, you are not seeing anything confidential. Most of it is from the (very public) courthouse, from defendants who have nothing to do with me. Any names used are fake, and I would only post something from one of our clients if it was extremely general. Eg, everything from "I murdered my mom" to "I work at a Canadian Tire" is too specific to post, IMHO; "I like summer" is probably OK. "We got a first-time petty drug dealer thirty days suspended sentence today" is too specific; "we got a fair sentence last week" is probably OK.

Eg, the other day I posted about three co-accused in court named Mohammed Mahmoud, Mehmet Ahmed, and Ahmad Muhamed. They weren't my clients, and those weren't their actual first and last names; I have no memory of what their real names were, only that there were three guys, six names, and all were close variations on Mohammed.

Just wanted to make that clear :)
ciroccoj: (contemplative)
The message that television sends then is that the problem of racism lies with black people - that it exists in our minds and imaginations. On a recent episode of Law & Order, a white lawyer directs anger at a black woman and tells her, "If you want to see the cause of racism, look in the mirror."

- bell hooks, Killing Rage

Name that ep, people. You know you want to :)


It is not as though the Treaty 8 First Nations did not pay dearly for their entitlement to honourable conduct on the part of the Crown; surrender of the aboriginal interest in an area larger than France is a hefty purchase price.


The Crown's second broad answer to the Mikisew claim is that whatever had to be done was done in 1899. The Minister contends:

While the government should consider the impact on the treaty right, there is no duty to accommodate in this context. The treaty itself constitutes the accommodation of the aboriginal interest; taking up lands, as defined above, leaves intact the essential ability of the Indians to continue to hunt, fish and trap. As long as that promise is honoured, the treaty is not breached and no separate duty to accommodate arises. [Emphasis added.]

This is not correct. Consultation that excludes from the outset any form of accommodation would be meaningless. The contemplated process is not simply one of giving the Mikisew an opportunity to blow off steam before the Minister proceeds to do what she intended to do all along.

- Mikisew Cree First Nation v. Canada (Minister of Canadian Heritage)[2005] S.C.J. No. 71


I'll probably post some quotes from another case I just read... later. When I'm feeling slightly less horrified/nauseated about it. Like, maybe next year.

November 2012

45 678910


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 24th, 2017 09:02 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios