News - Stories and Rants
Thursday 2 October 2014
Mikel a Rock Horse???
Oh Mikel, you just fail to understand the basics. The Fredericton City Police used fraudulent, criminal,defamatory and libelous accusations against Charles, to obtain evidence in support of a search warrant to enter his home, seize his equipment and shut down his blogsite to then falsely charge him with an unconstitutional, indictable, criminal offence carrying a five year jail sentence, and you wonder why Charles is angry? You, my son, have the brains of a rocking horse - driftwood - and you just seem incapable of understanding the extent to which the police went to lock him up and shut him down. The Fredericton City Police LIED and COMMITTED FRAUD to criminally charge a member of the public, under false pretenses. This repeated act by them was intentional, conspiratorial, abuse of process, breach of trust and an abuse of office - but you think Charles is the one with the problem.
This latest fiasco - shutting down his blogsite (which is theft of intellectual property and the right to free speech), and threatening him to remove evidence of municipal corruption, just confirms their agenda is the same - hiding corruption by the City and FPFarce regardless of the public interest. Mikel, you are a moron.
You don't seem to understand that New Brunswick has manipulated the law (including the Rules of Court in civil procedure) and created case law that is diametrically opposed to the constitutional rights of every Canadian. You haven't lived the lack of justice system in New Brunswick, so you should stop pontificating over what you clearly have no real knowledge or understanding of - or the lives it destroys.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments
(
Atom
)
I agree. Mikel - think more, read more, write less garbage. You don't understand the corruption in this province.
ReplyDeleteBrilliant summary. Wot yer got ter say Mikel? Ding ding, round two...
ReplyDeleteHey idiot, repeating something over and over again doesn't make it true. And nowhere did I wonder why Charles is angry. I was helping him get his first computer back when you were getting drunk and apparantly banging your head against the wall to get rid of any brain cells you had left. You are one of those drunken pinheads who egg on people with bricks and tell them to go throw it through a window because you haven't got the guts to do it yourself.
ReplyDeleteOnly a retarded monkey (sorry to retarded monkeys, you are rightfully distressed to be included in the company of real idiocy) thinks that a form nobody sees can be considered 'libel'. Whether it was 'fraudulent' we dont' know, as there was no investigation, but because you are sitting on your crapper with a toilet paper gown on doesn't make you a judge.
There was nothing 'illegal' about what the police did, thats just stupid. Charles likes to tout out Bernard Richard's report, but glosses over the fact that Richard states pretty plainly that the force easily had the information necessary to charge him with Section 300.
They dropped the charge mainly because of the publicity. If your head wasn't so full of baloney you'd know that a provincial court doesn't have to accept the verdicts of courts in other provinces. Thats why New Brunswick is still the only province to fine and jail panhandlers when every court and every other province has long ago said that panhandling is a charter right.
You seem too stupid to be able to tell reality, but for other readers, again, the city lodged a complaint. It was GOOGLE who shut down his blog. And they didn't take his property, he was hosting his blog with them. There was nothing stopping Charles from backing up his blog so he could put it up elsewhere. Most people know to back up their work.
And the lawyers were giving him legal advice. Charles complains that he has no lawyer and so doesn't get legal advice, then when lawyers explain the rules of court to him, you are dumb enough to think that is 'corruption'?? Thats the stupidest thing I ever heard and I"m embarrassed to be called the same species as you.
As I've said numerous times, but you seem too idiotic to be able to comprehend, its perfectly clear that Charles charter rights have been infringed, and not just by the Fredericton police force, but also the Saint John police force and the province. But I suspect you may actually be a police officer, maybe one involved, since clearly you simply want to egg on charles so that he is completely ineffective in everything he tries to do. Only a tin foil hat wearing lunatic thinks the system is corrupt because the process of discovery has rules that prohibit people publicizing information.
And charles should think hard about who his friends are. In the past he's been burned by almost all the people he thought were his friends just because they talk nice to him. Supporting charles doesn't mean blindly accepting every crazy thing he does. Nobody needs friends like that.
Wow Mikel, that stuch a raw nerve. Unfortunately there are too many very intelligent people in the City, and in this province, who know the truth and read the paperwork. You are doing many victims of corruption in New Brunswick a great disservice with the claptrap you write. As for Charles, he is a great judge of character and most certainly doesn't indulge people he doesn't trust. Mikel, you need to get a life.
ReplyDeleteMikel says: "There was nothing 'illegal' about what the police did, thats just stupid. Charles likes to tout out Bernard Richard's report, but glosses over the fact that Richard states pretty plainly that the force easily had the information necessary to charge him with Section 300."
ReplyDeleteBernard Richard's report actually described the falsified information, submitted by the FPF to the ISP, as "egregious conduct" and made it very clear it was totally unacceptable that the police had purposely tampered with the form for their own purposes. That statement sounds more like Mikel "glossing over the facts", not Charles.
Mikel, you do seem to be wrong and I cannot fault the information in the original post - the FPF lied on a form to the service provider and changed it to get information they were not legally allowed. How is that not a criminal act? How is that acceptable? Many of us have followed this story and it is very clear, if the police had evidence for a legitimate 300 charge they would have done it. They did not because 300 relies on Charles believing what he says - which they knew he absolutely did. 301 is unconstitutional because it doesn't allow a person to say things they believe in.
As a person who has personally, repeatedly experienced and witnessed the extensive corruption in this province, and its courts, I take exception to your comment: "Only a tin foil hat wearing lunatic thinks the system is corrupt because the process of discovery has rules that prohibit people publicizing information." I, for one, know how deeply entrenched the corruption is in this province and your comments clearly come from a place of ignorance, ego and unfounded faith in the system.
There is a vendetta against Charles and you know it. You seem to have an ego problem - which seems to prevent you from accepting valid criticisms of your comments. Your comments at 22:45 pm are incredibly vulgar, hostile, ego driven and attack another person's right to express their opinion. Your comments undermine what little credibility you had.
Mikel has credibility???? Only to the voices in his head.
ReplyDeleteGood golly - Mikel has actually lowered the tone of the whole blogsite!
ReplyDeleteThere WAS, probably IS a vendetta against Charles and I DO know it, and I've said that too many times to even count. That doesn't mean that everything charles says or does is right. First, whether you have experience with corruption in New Brunswick has ZERO to do with Rule 70 of a simplified lawsuit civil case (and I wasn't even talking about other issues, only charles case). The rules for discovery are quite clear and have been spelled out in virtually every civil court system in the civilized world. All you have to do is go type it into wikipedia or a law dictionary or google. People may not like McInnes Cooper, but what they said is correct (and if it isn't, we'll find out soon enough). So all you are arguing is that Charles do everything in his power to NOT succeed. What is next, are you going to argue that the system is corrupt because people have to meet in a courtroom?
ReplyDeleteMy comments were in pretty much proportion to being called a moron by a person who regularly posts pretty much the same comment every time I post without EVER reading my explanation, which are expressed by the same right everybody has-and its interesting to note that that post telling me not to express my views seem perfectly fine to you, but my criticisms of them is 'an attack on anothers right'. My criticisms of him are equally within my right. I didn't threaten him or break any laws, if charles doesn't want to post them, that is up to him.
Obviously some have never even READ Bernard Richard's report. He writes of all the conditions which show that Charles didn't believe what he wrote to be true. I could post it here, but its pretty long, just go to page 31 and its all right there. You don't have to argue with me, go take it up with Bernard Richard. He is the one who says that Section 300 would have been more appropriate, and he is the expert. If you think you are a smarter lawyer than him, well you haven't shown it so far.
As for the form, again, just because you THINK something doesn't make it true. That seems almost elementary. So here's from Bernard Richard's report: "The investigation itself is not terribly unusual from this time forward."
" There is no reason to believe that, in this case , the search went beyond what was
required for the investigation being conducted or, for that matter, that anything was found that might have compromised Mr. LeBlanc’s privacy but there was a distinct possibility of that happening. "
"The only possible alleviating consideration to be given for this "poor cut and paste job" is the inevitable conclusion that a search warrant requested for the same purpose would have undoubtedly been approved and this would have met the ISP’s policy concerning release of personal information. All other requests to or through the Crown to obtain the necessary evidence, including a search warrant to enter Mr. LeBlanc’s premises and seize his computer, were approved. There is no reason to believe that a request to obtain Mr. eBlanc’s IP address would have received a different treatment. In all other respects, the investigation met the highest of standards and does not give rise to any particular concerns"
So yeah, it COULD mean what you say, but we don't KNOW that. Thats what an investigation is for, and none was conducted, and I said long ago that such an investigation SHOULD be done. However, like Bernard says, the search warrant would have been granted regardless, so the theory that this was intentional doesn't hold up. Making a mistake on a form is NOT criminal. It MAY have been, but we simply don't know.
ReplyDeleteAnd these are pretty moderate views. If you want legal or political change, you don't make up crap, you state what is wrong with the system and how to change it. Charles says he wants to show the system is corrupt, well, say what you want, but if he wants to convince anybody that its corrupt then disregarding an order to follow basic rules of court is not the way to go. But I notice that Charles seems intent on reposting the form yet again, so we'll just have to see what happens. But when the media covers it, he can't fall back on 'well, I dont' have a lawyer'-because he got legal advice straight from McInnes Cooper.
And like I've said before, my name is right at the top of my comments, you can't miss it. If you don't like it, then by all means don't read it. Its pretty easy to NOT read something, you just don't read it.
mike makes no sense he sounds like a troublemake or is it that Charles put him up to this to get more hits on his site
ReplyDeleteGood grief Mikel, you want to shove your opinions down other people's throats and seriously attacked another in your incredibly rude comments on Friday night. You obviously don't want to see the truth and nobody can make you see the clear and obvious - your comments and quotes from Bernard Richard's report confirm to many of us that it is you that doesn't understand the full implications and that Richard was paid $40,000 for a whitewash to hide the fact that the municipal police committed criminal acts in their "bad cut and paste job." You have a right to express your opinion but many of us disagree with your slanted, tunnel-vision view of things. You are completely wrong on many issues - that is my right to believe and express. As for your name - who cares if you post under it? If you posted as anonymous nobody would care and many of us would still think you write nonsense.
ReplyDeleteMikel: do us all a favor and get your own Blog.
ReplyDelete