Submitted for your consideration:
More amusingly, Ezra is monetizing the shit out of the Coutts hearings, even as he makes it clear he will contribute nothing to the defense of the four charged. So all that "Fight the Fines" stuff?
Yeah, that's not happening here.
10 comments:
I wonder to what extent the Rebel’s own approach to “covering” courtrooms has led to this and related publication bans.
Justice is not served by the admission of a jester to the courtroom streaming a real time, live feed of taunts, lies, misinformation, cheerleading for the accused and mockery of the Crown. It’s cheap, lazy filler for the Rebel - much easier than actual analytical reporting- but it’s the exact opposite of journalism.
Do keep up, old boy: https://www.westernstandard.news/news/democracy-fund-gets-coutts-trucker-tickets-thrown-out/article_8dab6bc8-eb76-11ed-96ba-db24796a69f5.html
Anon at 10:43 I think you're a bit confused about the various charges past and present associated with Coutts.
As was the case in Ottawa, a number of minor parking infringements were dismissed by the court. Representing people appealing parking tickets on the basis of administrative or issuance errors is the meat and potatoes of bottom-feeding third-rate legalists everywhere; not quite the Epic Constitutional Battle For Freedom that Rebel contributors thought they were supporting when they shelled out their nickels to the Rebel and its charitable-receipt issuer, the Democracy Fund. It's interesting to note the the Democracy Fund and the JCCF have failed in every single one of their actual constitutional challenges, a legal track record so astonishingly bad one wonders why they continue. Well, no, actually, one doesn't wonder: their lawyers get paid regardless of the success of these challenges.
But the Coutts case under discussion in this case, dear boy, relates to the yahoos who allegedly plotted to murder police. And Ezra has stated quite explicitly that the Democracy Fund won't be providing legal support to them, presumably because murdering cops might be a little more "Rebellious" than even Ezra is prepared to get.
I would encourage both the commenter and the author of the original blog post to more carefully read the "Rebel News" article representing the second image in the post. The article specifies the assistance will be limited to "tickets", and says nothing about murder conspiracy charges. Therefore, there is no contradiction in not extending said legal assistance to cover murder conspiracy charges. If the author of this post does not acknowledge this within 24 hours, I will be reporting this post to "Rebel News" lawyers for defamatory content. Unlike the blog author, I do have legal training, and I contend the suggestion that "Ezra is lying" is defamatory.
In addition, the commenter's assertions in regard to the JCCF's "astonishingly bad" track record on constitutional challenges ignore the JCCF's numerous successes in other areas: https://www.jccf.ca/achievements.
Anon @ 12:46 PM: That's all very amusing, but that's not the "lie" I was referring to. You should learn to read more carefully. And perhaps attend a better law school.
Thanks, Patrick. I always get a kick out your little tantrums. I'm afraid that years of initiating a series of failed legal actions while ducking legal service of court documents doesn't really constitute "legal training", though.
As for "careful reading", you may not have noted that my comment on JCCF's serial failures related to their dismal track record on constitutional challenges to Covid-related measures and charges. Beyond that, they don't much interest me. I did find their founder John Carpay's disgusting attempt to have a PI surveil Chief Justice Glenn Joyal an astonishing low in Canadian jurisprudence, but it's good to kknow where they set their bar. :)
" I do have legal training." Of COURSE you do. And I changed my granddaughter's bandaid last week, so I'm a surgeon.
By the way, Anon @ 12:46 PM, I'm curious -- by stating that you "have legal training," are you claiming to be working as an actual lawyer somewhere? Because if so, I'm curious about what the partners at your law firm would think about one of its lawyers explicitly bragging about sending business to other lawyers. I'm wondering if there are any ethical considerations involved in cruising social media and arbitrarily deciding whose transgressions you think are worth bringing in lawyers from other firms without reporting that sort of thing to your own firm.
Feel free to leave a name and employer so we at least know who we're dealing with here.
There's nothing arbitrary about my being here to review your posts. If you don't wish to acknowledge this as an error, or otherwise clarify how "Ezra is lying", I will forward this to "Rebel News" forthwith.
As for my name and background, you have no more right to that than I have a right to yours. I don't care who you are, and it will not benefit you to know who I am.
Knock yourself out, Patrick. Good luck with that, and be sure to stop by here afterwards and post a copy of the junior high school, tattletale-level missive you sent to them. I guarantee I will permit its publication.
Post a Comment