🚀 go-pugleaf

bmosher@fraser.sfu.ca (Barry Mosher) writes:

>> It is my understanding that those wishing to plead guilty to the
>> charge of civil contempt could do so, and 6 people took advantage of
>> that.

>No, not as far as I've heard  - can you back up this claim?

Didn't you notice that the original case had 50 people charged -- not
44.

The newspaper article I read said that 6 people chose to plead guilty
to civil contempt -- and 44 chose to plead not guilty to criminal
contempt.
 	
>> The actions of blockading the road may have been civil contempt, but
>> the actions of violation a court order was criminal contempt.

>There are certainly laws regarding blocking roads but they do not imply
>civil contempt.  The judge has said he ruled them in criminal contempt of 
>court because they wanted to sought to put the court in disreput.  

The court issued a court order telling them to stop blockading the
road. Everytime the road was blockaded, the court order was read out
by an employee of MB. The blockaders violaed the court order by
ignoring it -- and were then arrested. Ignoring a court order
knowingly brings the court into disrepute.

>>>Another complaint is the severity of the sentences when car thieves,
>>>drug users, and tax evaders get suspended sentences!  It's my
>>>opinion that the court is strongly biased in this case.

>> Of course the court is biased against those who violate court orders.

>I wish the court would issue an order against stealing cars, using drugs,
>and evading taxes.  

How obtuse can you be.

>Actually, I don't think the court should have such
>wide powers  - it can be abused you know :)

>> People who fail to show up for court can and will be jailed.

>This appears to be a bit off topic doesn't it?  

Not at all. A summons to appear in court is not much different than a
court order.

>Perhaps it is the fact that
>44 people have been tried, convicted, and sentenced by one judge all 
>at the same time that has confused some people and has them believing that
>all 44 people did the same things and believe the same things.

I'm sure the "Friends...
 would love to be tried separately and bog down the court for years,
but lets be honest, they conspired to blocakde the road together, to
violate the court order together, they were arrested toghether and
they were tried and sentenced together. Too bad the "Friends..." don't
get there way. 

>>Those who violate a court order should know what the penalties are and
>>consider the consequences.

>>The penalties imposed were a long way from the maximum penalties.

>What is the maximum?  Please answer this.

>>My guess is that the next batch of protestors will face even harsher
>>sentencing, and will deserve it.

>Why should the next sentences be harsher?  Did they do it twice?  Did they
>do it after the conviction and sentencing of the others?  No.  What is your
>reasoning here?

All they have to do is plead guilty to civil contempt.

They know they violated a court order. It was read out to them before
each batch was arrested. They know the defence of tree-hugging is not
valid.

They are wasting the courts time and BC taxpayers money by continuing
to attempt to turn each trial into a circus so they can continue do
there stunts.

They knew they were vilating the court order.

They should quit crying and take their medicine.