 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Economy Forum » TURMEL: Judge Belanger adjourns Krieger Quash |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| John Turmel |
 Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2005 8:58 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
JCT: On Dec 01 2005, I appeared before Ontario Provincial
Court Judge Belanger to discuss my upcoming Dec 15 2005
trial before before him. Allyson Ratsoy for the Crown.
Before things got started, I mentioned how he had been the
first judge to rule in 1988 on permitting me to use my tape
recorder and now could I turn it on in a manner approved by
the judge. Every other time I asked a judge, the court asked
about a Crown objection and Ms. Ratsoy would say not. As I
was turning to await her response, Belanger deked me right
out of my shoes by saying to go ahead without seeking her
opinion.
He'd been told it was to deal with a short application to
adjourn the trial and had been surprised by the half-inch
thick motion to quash for which there was no way he had time
to deal with it today. But that needed proper notice with an
affidavit of reasons. I know, I was only bringing it up now
since the Monday decision of Judge MacLeod had changed lots.
And I wanted to discuss the adjournment after the quash was
decided.
Judge Belanger asked why the quash motion shouldn't be heard
at the trial. I said that it didn't have to be heard by the
trial judge and I didn't have to prepare a defence until
after I'd found out if the charge was quashed. Anyway, he
said that there was no way he could possibly handle such a
hefty application today.
As for the motion to adjourn, I'll be appealing the Monday
Krieger prohibition refusal by MacLeod J. to the Court of
Appeal like the Parker prohibition refusal by Aitken J.
which is now going back to the Supreme Court of Canada.
The Crown simply got up and bemoaned that this was the
seventh application with a whole slew of adjournments and
she wanted to get on with it.
I said that if the Crown didn't like the applications going
on above, she could move to quash them but wanting to get on
with the trial while applications exist for extraordinary
relief in the higher and highest courts was improper as it
risked wasting the court's time.
Judge Belanger told her that despite her feelings, John
Turmel had a right to file his applications: He hasn't been
declared a vexatious litigant and he's been known to put in
some pretty interesting arguments.
I guess she wasn't going to use the "I find him incoherent"
argument which seemed to go over so well with Justice
MacLeod.
So Judge Belanger explained, since I have no lawyer he's my
legal adviser, that I could make my application for another
adjournment in courtroom #7 or before him in the last 3 days
before my Dec 15 trial.
No matter what, he's going to be my trial judge. So I may as
well use every opportunity to educate him to what's at stake
and why. So I'll be making my application before him for a
delay next week.
Reasons:
1) SCC Leave to appeal Aitken Parker prohibition refusal;
2) OCA appeal MacLeod Krieger prohibition refusal;
3) Now till Jan 23 2006 Federal election, #60;
4) Jan 24-29 2005 World Social Forum in Caracas Venezuela
5) Time to prep my constitutional challenge after Noreen's
is heard. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:17 pm
|
|