you like to attack people for their beliefs

You are also closed minded.

And just so you know, your opinion is neither research nor evidence

I've done research on vaccine damage for 15 years since my son was destroyed by them.

GOOGLE VACCINE DAMAGE, and get educated about the lies and the criminal negligence causing death and damage that is a result of faulty and fragulent products that our governments allow these companies to use experimentally on us.

Its obvious you people do no research and would rather talk nonsense

If you do some research, you will find MS is caused by vaccines.

Anyone who can GOOGLE vaccine damage can read about the dangers for weeks.

The U.S.A.'s vaccine compensation court has conceded roughly 5 cases of autism, 3 of MS, and is viewing ALS as caused through vaccination. They statethat vaccines cause the conditions that cause these demyleinating disorders.

I won't bother posting anything more

I been eatin' chicken most of my life and don't see that the dna or protien or any of that stuff has eaten my brain away.

If you do some research, you will find MS is caused by vaccines. ... Anyone who can GOOGLE vaccine damage can read about the dangers for weeks.

And a 3 way too!

You’ve asked that question before…

I suppose there isn't any protction in place so the witness' testimony can't be used as evidence against them in a seperate trial.
Read msg #2… you should consider getting checked for Alzheimer’s, or possibly ADD... if it's neither of those, just try to improve your reading skills.

If a witness is subpoenaed to testify, then they have to give their evidence as per the Captain's comments.

However, an accused is not required to testify in their own case and they usually don't.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/criminal- this one proves your original one wrong. Guess that would mean you were the one who was saying that you got to be the arbiter of what words mean.

btw, are you a lawyer Captain?
You seriously have to ask?

Or are we required to give testimony that would or could incriminate ourself? [sic]" is easily answered online, and is summed up as kinda and yes.

Uh, we have freedoms and rights in the charter. They are two very separate things.

Your tax dollars do buy cigarettes, but the little ones are on their own to figure out how to get them with their allowance.....

It seems, that unless it is court ordered, that the little one are allowed to smoke. There is something about it being against their human rights to deny them smoke breaks....

Maybe if winnipeg has such a problem then your mayor should create a bi-law or two to toughen things up or declare the city under martial law. I think he has that right and definately has the duty to protect the citizenry,as does the province and the federal government

Simply they have inalienable rights we have freedoms granted by parliament. Ours are revokable theirs are not.

Depending upon whether police took an initial statement from you and how they took that statement (and some other factors) if you choose not to answer in a criminal matter, the Crown may apply to the Court to have your original statement entered into evidence for the truth of what it says even though you refuse to testify in court.

Sigh. Why here instead of google?

Sue- you can't use common meanings of words when in a legal context and the word has a specific legal meaning

despite your mislabeled antifreeze in your car. I've told you my legal opinion is you're currently committing a criminal act and that you'd be liable for at least crim neg cause death

and who filmed it lifting off ..?

emulsions on film, cannot stand extreme temperatures... it either starts melting or freeze up..

Again, severe, but BRIEF. Humans adapt. You can make it incredibly severe but you then create a person who is not capable of returning to normal society after being institutionalized/traumatized for so long.

Mandatory minimums do not rehabilitate offenders.

And if we don't rehabilitate offenders we have to warehouse them repeatedly. They become a drain on resources as opposed to ever contributing to society. It's lose lose.

So- because the kids have a shitty home, we're going to make jail even worse than home?

Do you suggest we only feed them once every two days if they're in jail?

despite your mislabeled antifreeze in your car....my legal opinion is you're currently committing a criminal act and that you'd be liable for at least crim neg cause death should your bottle trick work, but you still stick to it

Punishment to truly work, generally has to be severe and brief- humans are easily institutionalized and adaptable. Give a man 3 years, and the next time, he's like "pfft, I could do a nickel with my eyes closed."

But I suppose Susan, you're just happy neither girl will be joy riding in your car.

One, a 14 year old girl who was involved with CFS but never apprehended who hung herself in her closet, and the other, her 15 year old friend who had a new born, and CFS involvement again who committed suicide as well, though I'm not sure of how.

Personally, when we have 14 year olds committing suicide, I think that's clear evidence the systems, both justice and CFS aren't working.

Now we have a system that tells them they will not be punished for their crimes

First you tell the parents/guardians that they are not allowed any effective means of control over a child then you expect them to be responsible for the actions of the child you wouldn't let them gain control of.

locking up young people in prison for fairly minor offences (such as vandalism or stealing) can make the problems that lead to them committing crime become worse and introduce them to a life of criminality by being exposed to other offenders

Could be she should sit down give him some titty and talk through his fears then tell him how special he is and how the rest of the world is obviously wrong in their way of living.

When your "solution" causes all other kinds problems, its not much of a solution.

Looks like the lawyer said it; and I never saw a retraction in the paper stating the lawyer was misquoted.
That’s either a comment from a facetious and sarcastic individual, or from someone who reads at a fourth grade level.

The boy's lawyer said he's not out of control, he just repeatedly finds himself in the middle of sticky situations.

But do you really think asking a kid who's parents are on social assistance to pay for damage the kid caused is going to work? So his little brothers and sisters go without food for a week because Mom had to pay for a window?

Seriously- the child hasn't been convicted of anything yet!!!

Legal Dictionary

Main Entry: 1crim·i·nal
Pronunciation: 'kri-m&-n&l
Function: adjective
1 : relating to, involving, or being a crime
2 : relating to crime or its prosecution criminal action> —compare CIVIL 4, PENAL

Main Entry: 2criminal
Function: noun
1 : one who has committed a crime
2 : a person who has been convicted of a crime

It looks like "sticky situations" was the word choice of the reporter. The article quotes extensively about what was said in the courtroom and each direct phrase that was quoted was placed in quotation marks. The phrase sticky situations is not put in quotation marks, so it seems unlikely that the defence lawyer used those words herself.

Just out of curiosity, Susan please enlighten us as to what you would say on behalf of this client were you representing him. It is easy to be critical. I don't see you offering up a better alternative.

Maybe not all people connected with the legal system are stupid.

What are you going to do, send a twelve year old to the Federal Pen.?

Getting back to this thread; should a company be required to raise the wages of exisiting employees by whatever the rise in minimum wage is?


Absolutely and they should also be made to pay all personal expenses for each individual employee such as housing and medical costs, clothing, food etc. There should be abolutely no reason why every company shouldn't pay for every expense of its employees as well as give them whatever wage they desire. after all why would a company want to profit........

We are talking about the North here. Life is a little more free there.

Murray Clearsky, 53, was given a month-long conditional sentence this week, which allows him to remain free in the community of Waywayseecappo, located about 300 kilometres northwest of Winnipeg.

The whole point of having a justice system is to serve the public interest, to keep law and order. He will help with the H1N1 concerns of his community (think of it as community service) and the rest of the time he will be under curfew.

How will he help the concerns of his community?

Third drunk driving conviction: Wayway chief spared jail time to attend to band's H1N1 needs :

The chief of a Manitoba First Nation has avoided a jail sentence for his third drunk driving conviction because of his community's battle with the H1N1 flu virus.

Murray Clearsky, 53, was given a month-long conditional sentence this week, which allows him to remain free in the community of Waywayseecappo, located about 300 kilometres northwest of Winnipeg. Crown and defence lawyers cited "special circumstances" in not seeking custody for Clearsky.

"" said Crown attorney Shaun Sass. "Given these special circumstances, it's not contrary to the public interest to let him serve his sentence in the community."

The Crown had originally planned to seek between 14 and 30 days behind bars. Defence lawyer Jay Prober told court Clearsky has a vital public role to serve, which would be severely impacted if he were locked up at this critical time.

Clearsky was charged in December 2007 after his erratic driving caught the eye of RCMP officers doing a highway checkstop in western Manitoba. Clearsky nearly crashed into a vehicle and almost drove into the ditch while fishtailing down the highway, court was told.

Police immediately recognized him and caught a strong smell of alcohol from inside the car. Clearsky's speech was slurred and his face flushed. He was verbally combative with police and had to be restrained and lodged in the holding cells for several hours until he could sober up.

Blood-alcohol tests revealed he was double the legal limit at the time of his arrest.

"He realizes he made a mistake. He was lucky there were no accidents or injuries," said Prober.

Clearsky is the father of three young children, has a Grade 8 education and has been chief at Waywayseecappo since 1986, his lawyer said.

He was convicted in 1983 of refusing a breath sample and given a fine. Clearsky was convicted of the same charge in July 2004 and given a $1,380 fine and year-long driving prohibition. He also has a previous conviction for possession of a dangerous weapon from 1987.

"I know I should have learned from the past. I apologize for what happened," Clearsky told court during his sentencing hearing. "I know it happened quite a while back. I've done a lot of thinking since."

He has been attending Alcoholics Anonymous meetings on the reserve since his arrest.

"I try to do the best I can on behalf of my people. They have a lot of trust in me," he said. "Nobody's perfect. But still, this shouldn't have happened."

Provincial court Judge Lee Ann Martin said Clearsky had failed his community.

"With your role as a chief of the band, the words that come to mind are 'Shame on you,'" said Martin. "You're in a position where people look up to you. People expect you to do better. When you're out in public you need to be stronger. You are the one who needs to be setting the example."

Clearsky must be in his home under a curfew at all times, expect when he needs to attend to reserve business. He must also abstain from alcohol and is banned from driving for the next year.

It hasn’t been produced or shipped, at least not enough to do the majority of the population… so we haven’t paid for it yet.

remember Bush after 911 and his supporters constantly on the tube insisting that they must go to war because Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Turns out they were WRONG and knew all along what they were doing, merely wanted to start a war and go into Iraq

She suggests that the powers that be, pharmaceutical companies stand to make a lot of money as do the investors.

And the kid who was punched in the face (allegedly) is 2 years older than the accused.

the report from the youth bail worker was positive

The kid hasn't been convicted of anything yet, and some of the charges were supposed to be dropped when he finished some classes, he just hadn't finished all the classes (There's a lot missing from the report, as usual).

The boy's lawyer said he's not out of control, he just repeatedly finds himself in the middle of sticky situations.

"I know it doesn't look good," Serena Puranen said. "I've never seen him enraged, I've never seen him upset. He's a 12-year-old who is generally quite scared."

He's 12 years old and in the past nine months has been charged with everything from vandalism to assault and breaching court orders.
The courts have been catching and releasing him for months and the Crown says he is out of control and should not be released on bail.
What to do?

If you're Judge Marvin Garfinkle, you hit him where it hurts. At a hearing last week, Garfinkle granted the boy bail, but only after he agreed to provide the court his most valued possession as security -- his Nintendo Wii.

The boy's release conditions include keeping the peace, appearing for court dates, living with his grandmother and participating in a bail management program. If he breaches any of the conditions, it's bye-bye Wii.

"He is pledging as a security, akin to a cash deposit, his Nintendo Wii," Garfinkle said. "And if he doesn't comply, he loses it."

The boy's first run-in with the law was last February when he allegedly used a rock-filled sock to smash the door windows of his elementary school. Days later, he chased a classmate and punched him several times in the face.

Police released him on an undertaking but it wasn't long before he was in trouble again, this time for breaching a court order he not attend his school. He is accused of breaching that order at least three times.

"It's almost as if he's taunting the school," said Crown attorney Susan Baragar.

In August, he allegedly hit another boy over the head with a pool cue. His latest arrest was Oct. 16 when he allegedly attacked a male student and female teacher at his new school following a game of dodge ball.

"While the youth is 12 years old, it is our submission he is clearly out of control and will not obey any rules your honour may lay down for him," Baragar told Garfinkle.

The boy's lawyer said he's not out of control, he just repeatedly finds himself in the middle of sticky situations.

"I know it doesn't look good," Serena Puranen said. "I've never seen him enraged, I've never seen him upset. He's a 12-year-old who is generally quite scared."

Over Taxed?.... how do you think we get the money for all the 'Free Healthcare"

self respecting lawyer