After Charter WIN

[catchall]

When the Supreme Court rules that the RC Act is in violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms what do you think will happen to the broadcast industry in Canada?

[honky]

I also would like to hear the different scenairos that might take place.

[REDx]

well my guess would be that dtv
sub's would be legal.
the canucks would be in the same
boat as us in the USA.
that is untill new laws are passed.
contray to popular bielf the challange
isnt about freetv or whether you have
the right to watch dtv without paying
for it. it's about being restricted in
what you are allowed to watch.

[Dean_M_Love]

...according to McKenzie, it will dry up and blow away....


...those with a brain realize that all that will happen is people will have freedom of choice....that also means the choice to watch Canadian TV as some people actually do want to....

...if the Canadian Government truly wants to protect Canadian programming AND not offend the Charter, they will simply extend the 'tariff' that goes to develop Canadian content onto foreign programming and/or equipment....this way it will be a win win situation, even when a Canadian chooses NON canadian programming, he will be contributing to development of Canadian programming, rather forcing consumers to watch Canadian programming for the sake of furthering development of same. This will end the censorship but still allow subsidies to Canadian (inferior) programming.

[Jeet]

Directv would still not be allowed to sell in Canada and if they found out someone was subbing in Canada they would have to deactivate that person or risk being found in violation of the RCA. No broadcaster can broadcast a radio or tv signal in Canada without first having permission from the CRTC. The charter challenge will not change that fact.

The charter challenge is only dealing strictly with the rights of Canadians to watch foreign signals. Keep in mind with the Supreme Court ruling it is illegal for Canadians to listen to XM Satellite Radio or Sirius Satellite Radio in Canada because they also are illegal under the current interpretation of Sec. 9.1(c). See http://www.dsschat.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=137458

What the charter challenge, if successful, will permit is Canadians to watch foreign encrypted signals. You can put up a satellite dish and watch any foreign signal you want, as long as it is not encrypted. But if you try to watch an encrypted signal then you are committing a crime. So encrypted signal's harm Canadian Broadcasters but if the same signal is then not encrypted, it no longer harms Canadian Broadcasters? Think about it.

[Jeet]

I just want to follow up my last post.

To bring everyone up to speed. Telestar 5 broadcasts alot of ethnic channels that can be picked up with MPEG2 receivers. See www.globecastwtv.com (Mods if link is not permitted please edit it out).

Now some of these channels are encrypted and some of these are not. Basically if you want to watch an encrypted channel you need to subscribe and they will then send you a smart card that you can put in to your receiver.

Now under the current law, which is supported by BEV, it is illegal to watch any foreign encrypted signal, because it harms Canadian Broadcasters. So therefore a Canadian can watch RDS (an Italian channel) off of T5 because it is not encrypted but a Canadian can not watch SPT (a Portuguese channel) because it is encrypted.

The Canadian Coalition of Broadcasters have claimed that the Supreme Court of Canada decision is correct because foreign broadcast harm Canada's broadcast industry. BEV should be asked in a discovery or at trial to explain how SPT (an encrypted channel) harms them while RDS (an non-encrypted channel) does not harm them. Because under the current law a Canadian can watch SPT but can not watch RDS.

Some might say that the issue at hand is DTV or Dish Network not Telestar 5. Actually, Section 9.1(c) only says "encrypted signal" and so therefore any foreign encrypted signal (XM Satellite Radio, Sirius Satellite Radio, TeleStar 5 Encrypted Channels, DTV or Dish Network) can not be watched or listened to by a Canadian.

Now sometimes a channel, if it is very popular, is turned into a subscription channel on T5 and is encrypted. So let's say ZZ channel (I just made the name up) is encrypted on October 30, 2002. So after that date it is illegal for Canadians to watch it but before then it is ok for Canadians to watch it. The content of the channel does not change at all.

Again at discovery or at trial, BEV should be asked how is it that on October 30, 2002, ZZ channel starts to harm Canadian broadcasters but before then it did not harm Canadian broadcasters? The content of the channel did not change at all, rather it just became a subscription channel (encrypted). I just made up ZZ channel but we can easily research a channel on T5 that was free at one time but later became a subscription channel.

[REDx]

im sorry JEET i thought Canada was
like the US if the any part of the
act was found to be unconsitutional
then the who act was struck down.
until it was amended or revised.
they cant just pick out the part they
dont like:)

[gunsmoke2]

According to McKenzie & ExpressVu has better programing then HBO. Of course that makes no sense as why have approx 500,000 Canadians have chosen HBO.




GS2

[Jeet]

Originally posted by REDx
im sorry JEET i thought Canada was
like the US if the any part of the
act was found to be unconsitutional
then the who act was struck down.
until it was amended or revised.
they cant just pick out the part they
dont like:)

You are absolutely correct RedX and that is the point I am trying to make. How can a channel be harmful to Canadian broadcasters if it is encrypted but not harmful if the same channel is not encrypted?

Take for instance NBC. The encrypted feed off of DTV is illegal for Canadians to watch because it is harmful to Canadian broadcasters (this is what the Canadian broadcasters use for justification of an absolute prohibition under Section 9.1(c) of the RCA). Now I can pick up the same channel with an off air antenna then that is not illegal. The channel is the same just one is encrypted and one is not encrypted. If the issue is the harm to Canadian broadcasters, the obviously watching the off air antenna should also be illegal, but it is not. Question that should be asked to BEV directly, again either at trial or discovery, why is the encrypted signal harmful to them whereas the non-encrypted signal is not?

That leads to the next logic step that all Canadians should be restricted from watching all foreign signals beause all signals - whether they are encrypted or not encrypted - are harmful to Canadian broadcasters. If it is harmful to Canadian broadcasters then surely Canadians should not be allowed to watch them.

Banning the viewing of non-encrypted signals would clearly be a violation of the Charter. I know section 9.1(c) deals with an "encrypted signal" but the discussion needs to be drawn out into this direction, just like Justice Halburton did.

I agree with you RedX, the whole act has to be struck down, they just can not pick and choose. So if Parliament intended to protect Canadian broadcasters from foreign signals, then why did they just stop at encrypted signals, why not all signals? I wonder if BEV has really attempted to ever answer this question.

[catchall]

Great post. If HBO were to become FTA would it still be illegal for Canadians to watch?

[Jeet]

Originally posted by catchall
Great post. If HBO were to become FTA would it still be illegal for Canadians to watch?

Only encrypted HBO signals would be illegal to watch. Canadians can watch any FTA signals. Let say that from 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. a HBO feed was encrypted and the rest of the time it was FTA, then it would be illegal for Canadians to watch it when it was encrypted but ok to watch it when it was FTA. See how ludicrous the Supreme Court ruling is.

[Dean_M_Love]

...it is not the Supreme Court decision in itself that is ludicrous, but rather the original Law itself, the Supreme Court only interpreted the language Parliament chose to enact, notwithstanding of course how poorly worded that language is, nonetheless the Supreme Court had little choice but to give the proper interpretation to that language, and without a properly founded Charter challenge, these issues such as encrypted vs nonencrypted etc. etc. could not be addressed.

[gunsmoke2]

nonetheless the Supreme Court had little choice but to give the proper interpretation to that language, and without a properly founded Charter challenge, these issues such as encrypted vs nonencrypted etc. etc. could not be addressed.


Why little Choice ? the BC Court of appeals, the Ontario Court of appeals along with numerous other decisions interpretated 9(1)(c) differently. With all those Decisions sitting with the Supreme Court I would think they had a choice. It doesn't matter now but I don't agree with the interpretation that the Supreme Court concluded.


I think the other interpretation makes more sense as if Parliament meant a total prohibition of receiving US and foreign signals then why not write it into the Act.I have to accept the ruling but I don't have to agree with it.


Even some of the lawyers are still scratching their heads trying figuer out the logic used in the SC Decision.



GS2

[Dean_M_Love]

...I think the lower court decisions to the contrary were merely the result of the distaste for the law if it were interpreted the way it was apparently written....this was really the easier way out for the Judges rather than agree with the interpretation and then go to the Charter to strike the law....certainly we got several years of grace by the lower Courts interpretations, but in the long run, it has turned out to be worse, given that there is no appeal from the Supreme Court, and now until a court finds it contrary to the Charter, it is now illegal...

Although it was poorly written, and the language was poorly chosen, especially the french language version, there is no doubt that protecting the Canadian broadcasting monopoly of the Cable Companies was the ultimate goal in the amendments.

[gunsmoke2]

Its very hard to ignore the decisions from the BC Court of appeals and the Ontario Court of appeals. Not lower court with three Judges deciding.


Now that we lost we can all come up with thoeries of why but we all went into the Supreme Court feeling very strong about our position. We left that way also.


I don't know if you remember or was told that a lawyer was tipped off about six weeks before the decision that we were going to lose. Some could just not believe it at the time but it really happened.


I understood that this could not happen at the Supreme Court but it did. So personally I'll always wonder what really happen there.



GS2

[Bobo99]

Yes in Canada if a law is found to violate The Charter Of Rights it
(the whole law) is null and void (No longer allowed to exsist) and
new laws must be drafted that do not infringe our rights.

What I am amazed at is from 1994 and on we were told Canada would not
block foriegn signals, and go ahead get your little RCA dish..we certainly will not be clamping down on Canadians.

Well they lied and some of us built our lives on this and I for one
have commitments to people over 5 years that were put into motion before our lieing Government made it illegal. I will pursue them and sue the CRTC, CANADIAN GOVERNMENT in a civil suit for stress, emotional damage, lost revenue, ect as MORE LIKELY THEN NOT I would not of pursued this if they had straight out in the beginning NOT LIED and SAID NO YOU CAN"T DO IT. The Government needs to be held accountable for it's lies and deciet to the satellite comunity.

They have now put me/us in a difficult possition and I feel betrayed and ENTRAPPED and wrongfully compared to as a criminal ... they lied, they let us register buisnesses (knowing full well what we did) collect TAX from it and then bust us and toss us in the can?? What kinda comunistic country do we now live in???

We need to stand up to our Governments from time to time and remind them they work for the people -- not against them...and they to shall
be held accountable for their lies, greed and deciet....

I am no longer a proud Canadian, but an embarresed one...

(Mind the spelling, eh?)

[To The Real King!!]

Hi Bobo99,

Yes you are 100% correct and the chairman of the CRTC at the time, Mr. Keith Spicer, said that on National Television (CBC). In addition court rulings stated that it was not illegal to do so and even Industry Canada came to Satellite Shows in Toronto and said it was permitted. After all that, they turn around and a mere three years after Mr. Spicers January 17, 1995 CBC proclamation, I was arrested and all my Assets were seized on Nov 4 1998. Here is a written transcript of what was said.


MS. WALLIN:"And how about those consumers that are going over the border in this country, buying their little satellite dishes and saying"a pox on your houses, this is how I'm going to do it?"
_
MR. SPICER:"Absolutely, they're right. They should do whatever they think is right. Whatever they want to do."
_
MS. WALLIN:"So you won't be clamping down on them?"
_
MR. SPICER:"Absolutely no. We have spent, this country and the western world has spent 40 years telling the Russians it was immoral to block broadcasts. We're certainly not going to start doing that in Canada. Canadians are free people and they should act freely."



Well I do not feel like a free person after the RCMP arrested me on November 4 1998 and seized all my property and still hold it over 4 years later. If thats FREEDOM I sure dont want to see whatever the opposite is.

So how can this be right when the highest official of the CRTC, the Chairman misleads us intentionally by telling us they wont block broadcasts as he says above. This is "erroneously inducing us into error of law" by a high official for the least, yet the government and the courts look the other way when we introduce this evidence. What the Government did here is SUCKER us into doing something by saying it was legal and then later CATCHING us because their previous proclamation was a pure lie. And they wont admit any fault here unless they are taken to court.

So who is responsible here, who should be sued. Is it Mr. Spicer who had the right as Chairman of the CRTC to tell us that, or is it the government who later changed their minds and changed the rules in the middle of the game. SOMEONE is responsible for misleading us and inducing us in error and that is a cause that should form the basis of a "CLASS ACTION" for all the losses we have suffered due to this national broadcast that later became a LIE.

Our lives and businesses have been ruined, people have bought expensive equipment that is on no more use to them and this all because people followed what they were told by high officials of the Government and CRTC.

The RC Act also makes it look like it is not illegal since it calls for a lawful distributor of the signal and there is none. And yet both consumers and vendors are held up to be criminals today even though this can be clearly proven and I still have the video of Mr. Spicer saying this clearly on the Pamela Wallin show.

Someone with the financial ability and the ability to request "class action "Status for this should file a civil suit and they would have a large number of people join in.

If there is such a thing as justice in Canada, people should NOT be allowed to be "sucker -punched" by the government and drawn into something they now claim is illegal by being told that it would NOT be pursued in Canada.

There are countries that are not democracies where this may be expected, but not in a country like Canada where we live under rule of law.

In 1995 its OK, go ahead and make a large investment in a business. Yet in 1998 they come and arrest you and seize all your property for this same business investment.

How could that LOSE in a court where there was REAL FUNDAMENTAL JUSTICE.http://www.legal-rights.org/images/ttrk.gif

How many others agree with this and if you do PLEASE SPEAK UP AND POST.

http://www.legal-rights.org/images/ttrkblack.gif

Thanks & Good Luck,

To The REAL King!!
http://www.legal-rights.org/images/rotate_rib.gif

Freedom has nothing to fear from the truth!
http://www.legal-rights.org/images/satelliterights.gif
http://www.legal-rights.org/images/freedomblack.gif
<a href="http://www.legal-rights.org/dtv/classaction.html" target=blank> <img src="http://www.legal-rights.org/images/classaction.gif"></a>


Our Deepest Condolences one year later too (http://www.legal-rights.org/condolences.html) <-- Click here Please

Please REMEMBER OUR WAR HERO’S (http://www.legal-rights.org/remembrance.html) <-- Click here Please!


Please DONATE for the SUPREME COURT CENSORSHIP BATTLE (http://www.legal-rights.org/donation.html) <-- Click here Please!

Por favor dona para la BATALLA EN LA SUPREMA CORTE (http://www.legal-rights.org/donation.html)<-- Haz Click aqui!

[Jeet]

Why has Keith Spicer never been called upon to testify in any of the court cases?

[To The Real King!!]

Hi Jeet,

You know that is a damn good question. We don't even know if he would be a hostile or friendly witness. He might even be a little annoyed that they have gone against what he said so strongly. He certainly seemed like a gentleman.

We have always tried to introduce the CBC tape as evidence and while some courts accepted it, they never seem to have placed much stock in it.

Perhaps contacting him and having a lawyer speak to him would give us a much better idea of how he would testify.

He would make a powerful witness in person, that's for sure. And obviously the Government did not have a clear agenda against us back in early 1995. Since there were no Canadian broadcasters operating, I guess they had not yet made their arrangements with government officials. It seems that may have come later on.

There is still opportunity to subpoena him (call him first to see if he would come voluntarily) since my case was reversed by the appeals court, but that's only the preliminary hearing. If I have to go to trial, I could certainly still call him.

What do you think about doing that?http://www.legal-rights.org/images/ttrk.gif

http://www.legal-rights.org/images/ttrkblack.gif

Thanks & Good Luck,

To The REAL King!!
http://www.legal-rights.org/images/rotate_rib.gif

Freedom has nothing to fear from the truth!
http://www.legal-rights.org/images/satelliterights.gif
http://www.legal-rights.org/images/freedomblack.gif
<a href="http://www.legal-rights.org/dtv/classaction.html" target=blank> <img src="http://www.legal-rights.org/images/classaction.gif"></a>


Our Deepest Condolences one year later too (http://www.legal-rights.org/condolences.html) <-- Click here Please

Please REMEMBER OUR WAR HERO’S (http://www.legal-rights.org/remembrance.html) <-- Click here Please!


Please DONATE for the SUPREME COURT CENSORSHIP BATTLE (http://www.legal-rights.org/donation.html) <-- Click here Please!

Por favor dona para la BATALLA EN LA SUPREMA CORTE (http://www.legal-rights.org/donation.html)<-- Haz Click aqui!

[gunsmoke2]

Tape recording of that show was entered. No one contested what Spicer said. Remember Court decisions were going are way until Politics seem to have their way into the Supreme Court. Every Judge except one came through from the Liberals. Apparently the Supreme Court does not like to rule against the Government.


Just like the US where Florida Supreme Court judges having been appointed by the Democrats ruled in favor of the Democrats. Then you have the US Supreme Court judges coming from the Republicans and ruling in their favor.


You pretty knew the outcome before it came.



GS2

[Dean_M_Love]

...TTRK are you saying that the dismissal of the charges against you has been reversed and you are going back to a prelim? This is news I haven't heard yet....

[gunsmoke2]

I think it has been appealed..



GS2

[To The Real King!!]

Hi Dean,

Yes that was several month ago now. The Appeals court of Quebec, in a 1/2 hour hearing, reversed the Superior court appeal and the 23 days of hearings of the Provincial court. In the Provincial court where I and my wife had all charges against us (20 in all) dismissed. I never made a defence but rather just cross examined the crowns witnesses.

I am charged with 10 counts under the criminal court yet that ruling of the Appeals Court (the Reversal) was based on the Supreme Court decision in BEV v Canam yet I am not even charged under the RC Act.

I have appealed that decision to the Supreme Court of Canada based on several reasons, among them the irrelevance of the RC Act ruling to a CC case and the fact that a certiorari and mandamus cannot challenge an error of law. The judge COULD be wrong in his decision but it was made nonetheless within his jurisdiction.

After the ruling we got on the 28th of April however, I cannot put a lot of stock in the Supreme Court deciding to hear the issue, even though it is clearly a wrongful decision by the Appeals court. As you know, if they say no they wont hear it, that's it and after 4 years of time wasting by the crown and some $400.000.00 in legal fees, I am back to square 1 with a trial.

That is one of the principal reason the Judge in the DirecTV™ affair ruled against me. This happened just BEFORE the DirecTV™ case.

And as usual, I am still waiting.

This is the principal reason I would like to see someone take a civil action against the Government to recover some of the losses that have been pushed upon us by the governments having stated it was not a problem (Keith Spicer) and then after we had all made investments and the public had acquired equipment, change the interpretation of the law regardless of what they had stated earlier at Satellite Shows and what Mr. Spicer said. I would certainly join into that as I do not believe I can be convicted under the 327 and the CC which has nothing to do with an "Absolute prohibition". As you know, the law (327 says) without payment of a lawful charge therefor and there IS NO lawful charge that could be made.

They change things as they require. For instance I was raided under the RC Act but then they charged me under the CC so they could get "proceeds" which requires an "enterprise crime" and when I am acquitted under that, the appeals court comes back to send me to trial under the RC Act ruling of April 26, which is ridiculous. But that does not matter if it makes any sense or not, if the Supreme Court does not hear it, I am cooked. Cooked wrongly, but they dont care. They have a witch hunt against me and they seem to be able to do whatever is needed to sink me via political favors, regardless or right or wrong.

And no Dean, I am not really paranoid. You have to LIVE 4 years of this with them depriving me of all my resources so that I cannot fight the way I want (I did in the first court) and now this pendulum swinging back in 1/2 hour compared to 23 days of hearing. The crown even admitted that they could have preferred an indictment against me (we pointed that out to the Appeals Court) had they felt strongly enough to appeal twice but they did not because "there are limits to these things". What the hell does that mean?

I used to believe in the system very STRONGLY but after the incredible treatment I have received, then to be judged on the SC ruling of April 26, why I just plain out understand that City Hall will get me no matter what is right and /or wrong here. And when you are OUT of money, nobody gives a crap including your own lawyer. But I have never complained about it, I state it here only because you asked.


http://www.legal-rights.org/images/ttrkblack.gif


Thanks & Good Luck,

To The REAL King!!
http://www.legal-rights.org/images/rotate_rib.gif

Freedom has nothing to fear from the truth!
http://www.legal-rights.org/images/satelliterights.gif
http://www.legal-rights.org/images/freedomblack.gif
<a href="http://www.legal-rights.org/dtv/classaction.html" target=blank> <img src="http://www.legal-rights.org/images/classaction.gif"></a>


Our Deepest Condolences one year later too (http://www.legal-rights.org/condolences.html) <-- Click here Please

Please REMEMBER OUR WAR HERO’S (http://www.legal-rights.org/remembrance.html) <-- Click here Please!


Please DONATE for the SUPREME COURT CENSORSHIP BATTLE (http://www.legal-rights.org/donation.html) <-- Click here Please!

Por favor dona para la BATALLA EN LA SUPREMA CORTE (http://www.legal-rights.org/donation.html)<-- Haz Click aqui!

[gunsmoke2]

Hi TTRK


I think you have a good chance that the SC will hear it. You were successful in Provincial and Superior Court. Not sure how they can base it on the SC decision when it was not an issue to begin with.


Although I lost in Provincial Court there were three rulings in Superior Court and I didn't get the benifit of it as the Provincial Judge would not reverse his ruling.



GS2

[Dean_M_Love]

...this might sound far fetched GS2 but I think there coud stillbe a basis for reversing your decision DESPITE the SC...

...on the basis of fairness and equal protection under the law, it may be possible to have the ruling reversed on the basis that when it was rendered it was inconsistent with the law of the day, and to have the conviction upheld by the SC ruling which wasn't available to the Trial Judge is not fair, if you should have been acquitted at the time it should be done now, for example, Dawn Branton was completely acquitted, even though now the Supreme Court decision is opposite to her decision, but she cannot be retried or found guilty, so under the doctrine of equal protection of the law, if 2 people were doing the exact same conduct at the same point in time where the law favoured such conduct, why should 1 get off, and the other be convicted and then upheld on appeal as a result of a decision later in time?

I think there is a legitimate argument that can be developed along these lines....

[Dean_M_Love]

...TTRK I am entirely too familiar with the abuses the Government uses to pressure the citizens with, I am STILL waiting for a decision on my RC act issues going back to Sept. of 1997, over 5 years despite us taking every chance we had to push things forward.....I can only hope that after this long and expensive process, that true justice will prevail, and perhaps I will get a ruling that will strike down the law, and save numerous other parties from having to go through lengthy proceedings in an attempt to get to the SC. We have excellent evidence and excellent lawyers, and I also think an excellent Judge who will be retiring very soon, and perhaps wanting to create a legacy as his final ruling.

And let me add, this trial started with an ILLEGAL search and seizure, AFTER I paid this Government duties and taxes on imported good which they were happy to clear into Canada.

[To The Real King!!]

Hi GS2,

I sure hope you are rtight GS2, because if not what do I tell my kids about the law in Canada.

And I hope what Dean says is right too. It seems logical because your ruling was completely contrarian at the time and did not even make sense according to what the Judge said during your trial.

I clearly remember him saying that he could NOT convict you if the CBC was doing the same thing and then the CBC (Radio Canada) did testify that they were doing the same thing.

So why did he allow the government owned Radio Canada to do this and yet convict you. That is NOT fundamental justice but then there has been a large lack of that in your case and in the Appeals court for me.

I know you would work on any legal theory that made sense. Perhaps Dean would run that by HIS lawyer to get an opinion before you go ahead. That could be important and your lawyer would not be able to say you are grasping at straws.

Dean, has it been that long. WoW that is case of abuse right there. And would the judge not normally rule on an illegal Search and Seizure during the trial and simply throw it all out if he ruled the S&S was illegal. Anyhow I certainly agree, this is abusive. Lets just HOPE he does rule in your favor on the Charter issue. I guess that is what you are now awaiting. When does he retire officially?
http://www.legal-rights.org/images/ttrkblack.gif

Thanks & Good Luck,

To The REAL King!!
http://www.legal-rights.org/images/rotate_rib.gif

Freedom has nothing to fear from the truth!
http://www.legal-rights.org/images/satelliterights.gif
http://www.legal-rights.org/images/freedomblack.gif
<a href="http://www.legal-rights.org/dtv/classaction.html" target=blank> <img src="http://www.legal-rights.org/images/classaction.gif"></a>


Our Deepest Condolences one year later too (http://www.legal-rights.org/condolences.html) <-- Click here Please

Please REMEMBER OUR WAR HERO’S (http://www.legal-rights.org/remembrance.html) <-- Click here Please!


Please DONATE for the SUPREME COURT CENSORSHIP BATTLE (http://www.legal-rights.org/donation.html) <-- Click here Please!

Por favor dona para la BATALLA EN LA SUPREMA CORTE (http://www.legal-rights.org/donation.html)<-- Haz Click aqui!

[gunsmoke2]

Dean


Right now we are waiting hopefully for a Charter ruling striking down section nine. That's what it really will boil down to. No matter what happens as far as I am concerned I wasn't guilty of anything. Providing services to allow Canadians to receive US signals was a Monopoly Political excuse to go after us mostly due to the huge failures by Canadian DBS providers. ExcuseVu which was suppose to launch in 1995 was followed by two years of mistakes is not our problem but some how they made it our problem.




GS2

[bill41]

TTRK, it would be a very good idea to see if Kieth Spicer would be a witness voluntarily...but don't count on it...he was an appointment and you will most likely have to have him subpeonaed....also how about Francis Fox, he is the person who actually started the whole ball rolling with satellite service in Canada...in what 1979 if I remember correctly?
When will this government stop the ludicrisy of thier business practices, they will have to realize that they just cant stop a certain business just because thier business friends in Canada's monopolies want to get the whole pie, even though the whole thing was perfectly legal and tax collectable for years.

[Techy212/Mastermind/Billy/Emulator1]

Originally posted by Dean_M_Love
...I think the lower court decisions to the contrary were merely the result of the distaste for the law if it were interpreted the way it was apparently written....this was really the easier way out for the Judges rather than agree with the interpretation and then go to the Charter to strike the law....certainly we got several years of grace by the lower Courts interpretations, but in the long run, it has turned out to be worse, given that there is no appeal from the Supreme Court, and now until a court finds it contrary to the Charter, it is now illegal...

Although it was poorly written, and the language was poorly chosen, especially the french language version, there is no doubt that protecting the Canadian broadcasting monopoly of the Cable Companies was the ultimate goal in the amendments.

I must agree with you on point. While the other courts actually looked at it from a charter position they had no record to support there findings. Which really left the SC no choice.

[Jeet]

Originally posted by To The Real King!!
Hi Jeet,

You know that is a damn good question. We don't even know if he would be a hostile or friendly witness. He might even be a little annoyed that they have gone against what he said so strongly. He certainly seemed like a gentleman.

We have always tried to introduce the CBC tape as evidence and while some courts accepted it, they never seem to have placed much stock in it.

Perhaps contacting him and having a lawyer speak to him would give us a much better idea of how he would testify.

He would make a powerful witness in person, that's for sure. And obviously the Government did not have a clear agenda against us back in early 1995. Since there were no Canadian broadcasters operating, I guess they had not yet made their arrangements with government officials. It seems that may have come later on.

There is still opportunity to subpoena him (call him first to see if he would come voluntarily) since my case was reversed by the appeals court, but that's only the preliminary hearing. If I have to go to trial, I could certainly still call him.

What do you think about doing that?

Most PREVIOUS civil servants refuse to lie under oath because the risks of perjury far outweigh any potential benefit they might gain. Further there is a video tape of what he said, so if he lies then he just digs a deeper hole for himself.

I think he should be talked to first and you might find that he feels quite strongly about the situation. After all an act that he was asked to make recommendations on is being used in a way it was not supposed to be used. This is one witness you really need. However BEV might fight "tooth and nail" to prevent him from testifying. That would only show that BEV knows his testimony would be harmful to their case. Worst case he can always be subpoenaed.

[Bobo99]

Well after investigating further -- those that would be able to sue succesfully are those that have been riaded/charged/harrased before the SC Ruling and if you were, you should persue a CIVIL case against
those involved in such harrasment.

I also think Bell should be criminally charged for their sale of RCA recievers that occured after the SC Ruling --- and pressure should be put on the appropriate legal authorites to do so.

[gunsmoke2]

Hi Techy,


I must agree with you on point. While the other courts actually looked at it from a charter position they had no record to support there findings. Which really left the SC no choice.


I could be wrong or misunderstood your post but I don't think that was Dean's point. I don't know any court that looked at it from a Charter position. Every Court looked at it from the interpretation of section nine of the Radio Communication Act and closed their eyes to the Charter. Many cases filed an application to the Attorney General as you must do when it is about consitutional matters. Not one single Judge ruled on the Charter which was disappointing. As a result the SC didn't either and left the door open to challenge the law as infinging on the Charter.


I think Dean was saying that it was much easier for the Judges to rule on the law versus considering the Charter. When it came to the SC I think Dean expressed that there was no doubt that the protection of the Canadian broadcastiong monopolies was more important based on the admendments.



GS2

[Jeet]

The closest I ever saw any judge comment on the Charter was Justice Haliburton in Nova Scotia. There are a few judgements were the judges alluded to an absolute prohibition violating the charter but they then qualified their comments saying that is an issue they are not addressing in this ruling. Most judge were willing to accept the arguement that Section 9.1(c) is ambiguous and so therefore they accepted the minimal view of the section. Where section 327 of the Criminal Code was being ruled, the judges commented that Directv service does not meet the definition of a "lawful charge".