Sentenced to life without Parole for TV Crimes

[gunsmoke2]

Yep decided instead of placing my one call I would post instead.

Another weird day by this unperdictable strange bird Judge Judy..

Well it starts out with the Crown calling a Starchoice executive to testify.. unbeknown to us.. what a sob story.. how much it costs to obtained a license.. programming.. operations.. and how much I hurt their busines..

Except I have been a authorized dealer of StarNoChoice since the beginning.. the executive knew that but didn't know I was selling DTV.. What a liar.. pants on fire.. they even came to my house and the rep has always known I was selling DTV.. Tried to get the executive on selling C-Band equipement which they do but it was denied.. what liars.. I have their faxes.. did get the executive to admit their 921 model was able or capable of receiving VC2+ signals.

I wish I knew and if I have one complaint my lawyer should have objected to this witness and we were never informed.. anyone who thinks that StarNoChoice are good guys is badly mistaken.. they have showed up twice now in my case and others too.. they want the same thing as ExpressPuke.. put you out of business.. except they try to be low key about it.. that's all

Well the Crown asked for 120k for fines.. 72k on the company and 48k on me.. good thing they weren't "shy" :) even said that it was a burden on the tax payers to destroy my goods.. what Morons ;) since they never was an order to destroy my goods as the judge asked and we offered to take them back to the US about 5 times.. always denied by the Morons ;) well Judge Judy was not impressed.. Destroy my goods or evidence and you'll have the biggest lawsuit.. so please go ahead Morons ;)

Now Judge weirdo says he is not going to punish GS2 for all of Canada's mistake.. he/she says that it was not GS2's fault for the Government or the legistration that has a confusing law.. and was not going to make GS2 as an example.. says that while he believe his decision was right he has to respect his other Judge's Decisions.. and the higher court might not hold up his decision.. then says if GS2 was in BC he would be innocent.. and also says theres no Supreme Court ruling.. and yes will have to take in CBC into account since they wre doing the same thing.. and more.. got to get the transcripts.

Now if the Judge said all that then he/she just CONTRIDICTED MY DECISION BIG TIME AND JUST EXPLAINED WHY MY DECISION WAS WRONG AND ERRORED - BOZO

Hope he/she doesn't frequent the site. LOL

Well as usual no sentence.. come back May 31st.. ok I'm in no hurry. :)

We are expecting a fine 20 to 30 K.. ( 48 counts.. 24 counts to the company and 24 counts to me )

GS2






[Edited by gunsmoke2 on April 17th, 2001 at 11:15 PM]

[Pseudo]

Hell,

more ammo for an appeal... :)

[RiseStar]

hehe

Sounds like the honorable justice spoke to a couple of his peers and they told him what a dum dum decision it was and now hes trying to put in some damage control before an appeal makes him look like the biggest arse in eastern Canada...

[To The Real King!!]

Hi Everyone,

One of the interesting comments by the judge in this case is that "Its not GS2's fault that this is a confusing law."

Well if EVER there was a cause for appeal, this is it.

There is a clause in the code that is called "void for Vagueness" and that is also in our charter. Canadians cannot be expected for follow a law that is vague or confusing. Furthermore the NARROW interpretation of the act should be taken when penal sanctions are involved.

If you remember one of the judges in the BC Appeals court, The honourable Mr. justice Finch said


Here, considered judgments have been written holding that s. 9(1)(c) is "unambiguous," but concluding that it has two entirely different meanings, one an absolute prohibition against the unauthorized reception of DTH signals no matter where they originate, and the other a prohibition only against the unauthorized reception of DTH signals that originate with a "lawful distributor" in Canada. Legislation which can reasonably be said to bear two unambiguous but contradictory, interpretations must, at the very least, be said to be ambiguous. For that reason, and because the legislation bears penal consequences, the narrower interpretation adopted by the chambers judge in the case at bar must, in my view, prevail. However, leaving aside the conflicting authorities, and applying the interpretive principles referred to above, I am also persuaded that the narrow interpretation is correct.

So when a law is ambiguous, the benefit of the doubt should favor the accused.

Essentially the judge in the GS2 case recognizes (by what he said in court) that the law IS ambiguous and on this basis alone GS2 should NEVER have been convicted. If JUDGES are confused as to the meaning of this law, and if some rule ONE way and other judges rule the OTHER way, then how should an ordinary businessman like GS2 know WHAT the hell the law says.

While its quite clear to me by the LAW ITSELF including the necessity for a lawful distributor and no mention at all of a total prohibition (which could have been made quite clear by simply saying A DISTRIBUTOR rather than THE LAWFUL DISTRIBUTOR which implies clearly that it pertains only to distributors who are LAWFULLY authorized) does NOT make it illegal to sell equipment when there IS NO LAWFUL DISTRIBUTOR (such as in the case of DirecTV®). However by the simple fact that rulings have been given BOTH WAYS, this means that the law is vague or ambiguous and Canadians CANNOT KNOW what it means.

If a law is ambiguous or confusing then HOW can anyone be punished for it when many judges have ruled that IT IS NOT AGAINST THIS LAW. That is obviously completely unfair as the defendant cannot possibly know how a judge in his case (should that arise) would rule. He would have to KNOW from WHICH GROUP a judge judging HIS CASE would be.

Laws should be crystal clear and a person reading that law should be able to understand it. When a LAWFUL DISTRIBUTOR is called for under that law, then its quite CLEAR (to me) that if there is NO LAWFUL DISTRIBUTOR (which is called for in the law) then the LAW is NOT BREACHED.

For the LEAST the judges statement is cause for appeal and cause for reversal of the conviction as well.

Lets all hope that proper and honest justice is played out there and this UNREASONABLE CONVICTION is overturned as it should be. If this is allowed to stand then ALL CANADIANS need to worry about EVERY LAW on the books as we could NEVER KNOW what ANY LAW MWANS until it has been ruled on by the SUPREME COURT OF CANADA. That is totally unreasonable by any standard.

http://www.legal-rights.org/images/niceday.gif
Thanks & Good Luck,

To The REAL King!!
-----------------------
Freedom has nothing to fear from the truth!

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

Please DONATE for the SUPREME COURT BATTLE AS I DID (http://www.legal-rights.org/donation.html)<---CLICK here

http://www.dsschat.com/index2.html

http://www.legal-rights.org




[Edited by To The Real King!! on April 19th, 2001 at 10:45 AM]

[Jeet]

I would remind everyone to relook at B.C. Appeals Court ruling. If a law as an abiguous meaning (confusing) and it carries a penal consequence, the narrow interpretation of the RCA Section 9.1(c) must prevail (Paragraph 35).

[gunsmoke2]

Yes Jeet.. But my Judge *IGNORED* that and made another *HUGE* error in Law which is supported very well in the recent Court of Appeals Decision in Ontario.

GS2