Tuesday, January 27, 2015

Only in Harperland is a Verdict a "Matter of Opinion"

Nice House of Commons You Got Here
It'd Be a Shame if Something Happened to It

Dean del Mastro wants a do-over.  Presumably it has something to do with being on the wrong side of the verdict in the four charges brought against him for campaign spending violations in the 2008 election.

His lawyers want the judge to backpeddle and declare a mistrial instead of going ahead and sentencing their client to the fines and possible jail time he deserves.

As far as Harper's former parliamentary secretary is concerned the court's ruling wasn't a verdict, just a matter of opinion.

Judge Lisa Cameron's ruling "was not a final decision," he said. "I've in no way broken any of the laws governing elections."

"I know what the truth is. That's her opinion. My opinion is quite different."


Anonymous said...

I think we will find that our penitentiaries are full of people who also disagree with the opinions of the courts that sentenced them.

Be interesting to see if they get away with this ... wonder whether he will accuse his former legal team of incompetence?

The stench of desperation is overwhelming ... only question is whether they can get away with it. As they teach in law school, if neither the law, nor the facts are on your side, pound the table .... MISTRIAL ..... MISTRIAL ....

Owen Gray said...

Contempt of Parliament for these folks is just a matter of being out voted, Mound. And a judges decision is merely an opinion.

It's all about contempt -- for everyone and everything.

Anonymous said...

Conservative assclowns would not know the truth. They are quite simply simpletons and petulant little children.

the salamander said...

.. food for thought..

Del Mastro, as Parliamentary Secretary to Harper himself either is privy to a lot of info re CIMS, Robofraud, Ray Novak, why our environment is being trashed etc etc..
Perhaps even more startling.. was privy to nothing, nada.. just another greasy mouthpiece cabin boy a la Jason MacDonald, Flaherty, De Lorey, Kent, Clement.. or Baird and can now stumble off to oblivion and tell all or nothing.

Very much like Ken 'poutine' Morgan, that upstanding Proud True & Free Harper piglet recently spotted in Guelph, just dropping in from hiding out in Kuwait. Morgan either has nada to tell.. or everything

One is left wondering, exactly what do these kind of folks represent.. some new imbecile partisan creatures? Aolitical life form devoid of values? How odd to watch the evolution of these crustaceans and the parasitic genus Harper - Reformertory

bcwaterboy said...

Funny that the oft-used term in the early 00's by the Bush crew, "activist judges" who would dare challenge the sanctity of (multi) marriages of the republican white male has not yet been coined by the harper crew to describe something not in their favour. I guess calling a judges verdict a "matter of opinion" will apply to all the screeching about mandatory minimums.

Anonymous said...

There is one law for those who make less than 60,000 a year and one for those who make more.

The Mound of Sound said...

@BCW - I think they have test-marketed the "activist judge" thing already and found Canadians not particularly receptive to their smear jobs. Recall how Harper thought he'd put his credibility against Bev McLachlin's only to have that blow up in his face. As a people we love our Charter and respect our judges.

The Mound of Sound said...

@ Anon. You're right, in Canada you do get as much justice as you can afford far too often. You get the best lawyers and more of'em, the most research, the best trial prep and the best representation before the court in what's an adversarial (gladitorial) contest.

You also get the biggest homes, the most attractive companions, the fastest cars and the grovelling indulgence of the police and government apparatchiks.

For a couple of years I had some serious heart problems that had me in and out of cardiac care wards. When you first arrived there was a shopworn, "informal" chit chat with the medical staff and one question that always came up was what I did for a living. At the mention of "trial lawyer" I could sense a change. What that meant in practical terms I can't say although I did have one surgeon mention how happy he was at a successful outcome, admitting he'd been conscious of somebody suing his ass off if things had gone sideways.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for your reply to my comment regarding money. Anyong