To The Real King!!
June 17th, 2001, 02:38 AM
Hi Everyone,
Well my report on the thread at
http://www.innermatrix.net/members/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3202
was right on the money.
The Judge, the honourable Mr. Jean Guy Boislard who had ruled for me two weeks ago travelled 150 miles to the east to rule on the Appeal of Mr. Jacques D'Argy and Richard Therriault in Drummondville and it was WELL worth going there to see it.
The Judge let the crown get out 2 sentences then he asked him "do you have anything NEW Mr. Denis or are you just going to repeat what we have already heard?"
The crown said he had nothing new, that it was the same issue. Judge Boislard blew his top. "Do you think I would change my mind in 2 Weeks" he asked? I waited all day Tuesday in my office for your call dropping this Appeal, but the call never came. I ruled for Mr. Scullion and Ms. Callan in Valleyfield 2 weeks ago and then Mr. Justice Tessier ruled for Mr. Gregory in Montreal and NOW YOU ARE HERE? What for? the state of the law is very clear. The Ontario Court of Appeal has also ruled and its CLEAR that the DirecTV® signal is public domain in Canada so I will rule against you.
He proceeded to make it clear that the appeal should not be before the court and that the Crown seem unreasonable convinced otherwise. But the courts have ruled. Then he proceeded to make a comment that was aimed at GS2's judge when he stated that it is the custom and courtesy to rule WITH a HIGHER court even if the judge did not agree with the ruling. Clearly GS2's case. He did not mention Judge Provost by name but he made it clear who he meant as no other judge has ruled against anyone. He was totally annoyed and even though Jacques had asked for costs in his written submissions he again asked "Mr. D'Argy would you like to have costs"? And Jacques responded, yes your honour I wrote that in my submission.
I didn't ask you what you wrote Mr. D'Argy said the Judge, WOULD you like COSTS?????
Yes your honour I would like costs.
So RULED says the judge, costs to Mr. D'Argy.
Well it was crystal clear to everyone in the court that he said this publicly to show the Crown that he was annoyed at their audacity of being there for this appeal and was awarding costs against them. For those who don't now, this is VERY UNUSUAL. Costs are almost NEVER given in these criminal type cases and the Greffe of the court told Mr. D'Argy when he called for the transcripts later that he MUST be mistaken. When he said no she pulled out the ruling and said that she had never ever seen that in her 22 years on the job.
So it goes without saying that the judge was VERY pissed and was making a clear point AGAINST the Crown.
As I said in my other post I think his presence there alone where he never normally goes was a message by the Chief Justice that this should NOT have taken place.
Finally the courts see that the crown has an exceptional Agenda here (Can anyone say BRIBES?) and that the courts wont put up with it.
That's 3 Superior Court Appeals LOST by the crown inside 2 weeks now so I think, as dumb as they are, that they may now get the message. But I predict that they will come back for more in the Quebec Appeals court soon and I also predict that they will get the SAME message again.
Its OVER for the Crown and I believe we will have 3 Appeals courts from Canada's 3 largest most populous Provinces to take to the Supreme Court of Canada with us. NEVER BEFORE has such strong jurisprudence been taken to the Supreme Court and this really leaves them no choice but to rule for US which is basically what they themselves have said in many other cases (probably half of them) that they have ruled on in the last 10 years. They are VERY unlikely to rule against us if we can just raise the money to actually get there.
This is the BIG ONE but unfortunately there is some doubt that we can raise the funds to get there.
We all have to pitch in ESPECIALLY the BIGGER dealers who have donated DIDDLY SQUAT up to this point. Consumers HIT your sealer for a BIG donation. Not hundreds of dollars but THOUSANDS as they should donate. After all it is their business that is at stake here as well as YOUR rights.
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
Well my report on the thread at
http://www.innermatrix.net/members/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3202
was right on the money.
The Judge, the honourable Mr. Jean Guy Boislard who had ruled for me two weeks ago travelled 150 miles to the east to rule on the Appeal of Mr. Jacques D'Argy and Richard Therriault in Drummondville and it was WELL worth going there to see it.
The Judge let the crown get out 2 sentences then he asked him "do you have anything NEW Mr. Denis or are you just going to repeat what we have already heard?"
The crown said he had nothing new, that it was the same issue. Judge Boislard blew his top. "Do you think I would change my mind in 2 Weeks" he asked? I waited all day Tuesday in my office for your call dropping this Appeal, but the call never came. I ruled for Mr. Scullion and Ms. Callan in Valleyfield 2 weeks ago and then Mr. Justice Tessier ruled for Mr. Gregory in Montreal and NOW YOU ARE HERE? What for? the state of the law is very clear. The Ontario Court of Appeal has also ruled and its CLEAR that the DirecTV® signal is public domain in Canada so I will rule against you.
He proceeded to make it clear that the appeal should not be before the court and that the Crown seem unreasonable convinced otherwise. But the courts have ruled. Then he proceeded to make a comment that was aimed at GS2's judge when he stated that it is the custom and courtesy to rule WITH a HIGHER court even if the judge did not agree with the ruling. Clearly GS2's case. He did not mention Judge Provost by name but he made it clear who he meant as no other judge has ruled against anyone. He was totally annoyed and even though Jacques had asked for costs in his written submissions he again asked "Mr. D'Argy would you like to have costs"? And Jacques responded, yes your honour I wrote that in my submission.
I didn't ask you what you wrote Mr. D'Argy said the Judge, WOULD you like COSTS?????
Yes your honour I would like costs.
So RULED says the judge, costs to Mr. D'Argy.
Well it was crystal clear to everyone in the court that he said this publicly to show the Crown that he was annoyed at their audacity of being there for this appeal and was awarding costs against them. For those who don't now, this is VERY UNUSUAL. Costs are almost NEVER given in these criminal type cases and the Greffe of the court told Mr. D'Argy when he called for the transcripts later that he MUST be mistaken. When he said no she pulled out the ruling and said that she had never ever seen that in her 22 years on the job.
So it goes without saying that the judge was VERY pissed and was making a clear point AGAINST the Crown.
As I said in my other post I think his presence there alone where he never normally goes was a message by the Chief Justice that this should NOT have taken place.
Finally the courts see that the crown has an exceptional Agenda here (Can anyone say BRIBES?) and that the courts wont put up with it.
That's 3 Superior Court Appeals LOST by the crown inside 2 weeks now so I think, as dumb as they are, that they may now get the message. But I predict that they will come back for more in the Quebec Appeals court soon and I also predict that they will get the SAME message again.
Its OVER for the Crown and I believe we will have 3 Appeals courts from Canada's 3 largest most populous Provinces to take to the Supreme Court of Canada with us. NEVER BEFORE has such strong jurisprudence been taken to the Supreme Court and this really leaves them no choice but to rule for US which is basically what they themselves have said in many other cases (probably half of them) that they have ruled on in the last 10 years. They are VERY unlikely to rule against us if we can just raise the money to actually get there.
This is the BIG ONE but unfortunately there is some doubt that we can raise the funds to get there.
We all have to pitch in ESPECIALLY the BIGGER dealers who have donated DIDDLY SQUAT up to this point. Consumers HIT your sealer for a BIG donation. Not hundreds of dollars but THOUSANDS as they should donate. After all it is their business that is at stake here as well as YOUR rights.
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