Concerning Citizen de Champlain
•
by Adasko
It has been a hard few days for the whole Ministry of Justice, and I quite understand the fuss about citizen de Champlain. Whereas he was not charged, it was not my doing (as Attorney General). I was requested to solve the case fast and I presented my charges and some evidence. Whereas it was not strong evidence from the point of view of positive law, a trial would only be right (e.g. Nuremberg trials were not based on positive law, but natural law) I believed that it would tighten the definitions in the Criminal Code and make a useful precedent. However, the Ministry of Justice did not agree with me. Chucky protested my suggestion, saying that the evidence is not enough for a trial, and suggesting that I will basically not be supported by the Ministry of Justice. As such, I was forced to make a settlement, at first I wanted a harsh one, one that would really punish de Champlain. 10 gold, 3 months of Congressional ban and a 5 gold bail. However, Chucky disagreed, and finally the proposal was toned down to the present 5 Q1's 1 month + 2 Q2 bail. The past shall not be undone, however this makes a suggestion for changes. I admit, I have made a mistake while writing the criminal code, leaving prosecution in the hands of the Minister of Justice. So far the posts were merged, and as such there was no difference, however now I see the need for such.
The office of the Attorney General should be separated from the office of the Minister of Justice, and the Department itself and elected via Congress. The Attorney General should not be a political position controlled by the traditionally biased executive. That is why:
a) The Criminal Code should be amended to give the right to prosecute to the Attorney General
b) The Attorney General should be established as a separate office not to be held by Cabinet Members.
Finally, as I said before I was forced into a position that was not to my liking, and seeing the public react, I have no other choice than to resign my post as Attorney General, as this is the honourable thing to do. Prosecution should not be controlled by biased politicians, and until it is, I will not stand to see this procedure continue. To all eCanadians dissatisfied by the Executive's treatment of mr. de Champlains case: I am sorry.
In National Unity,
Adasko
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
Voted
Ty for your side. Voted as usual.
Voted and agreed. Justice does not mix with politics.
Likewise, justice should be blind to race, colour, creed. Voted.
i thank you for your maturity in this, this was not your fauly imho,
and i didnt agree with the verdict, in this case, with what has happened, i cant really blame you, you had orders and followed em,
i hope ecanada will learn from this and move on to be a better country for it
If those were the punishments meted out to him, I could picture a whole lot fewer of us being irate over this. Wish you had your way though this does kind of point the finger of blame at...
<3 adasko
Really, the PM actually forced you to let him off easy? The guy is a French spy for gods sakes...Why would Chucky want him off easy?
Over IRC, we had an... enlightening conversation. I had... no idea whatsoever that Chucky had ordered Adasko to investigate. I thought Adasko did it out of his own free will. I was never told by Chucky. Secondly, I was never told of these facts by Chucky, that it was indeed Mr. Norris who ordered Adasko to start negotiations rather than go to court. I had rubber-stamped the procedure, thinking Adasko had done this all out of his own will. I'm mistaken. I'm now convinced that Chucky played with us to get this over with.
again we see what a poor leader chucky is
IMPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP PEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAC CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HHHMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMEEEEEEEEEEEEEENNNNNNNN NNNNNNNNNNNTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It would appear that the fix was in and the out come was tainted. There is no justice I see, all you need are the right friends.
If SdC has a one month congressional ban, why is he currently listed on the UN card in Quebec? Am I missing something?
It was one dog month
CHUCKY! You got some explaining to do!
Thanks adasko for bailing out as soon as you see that people start disliking you, so what is this? You felt that you weren't getting enought popularity so you decided to **** on me to make you look better?
I'll give an explanation for congress spencer.
1) the system is made that the president appoint the AG, so that is not of my ressort, if you're not happy change the constitution.
2) I asked adasko to make an investigation so we could make a trial and close the discution instead of having it linger around all this time.
3) The only evidence that adasko ever brought to me was his battle log, If he's sorry for the work he did back then. that's not my problem!he should have brought some more convincing proof to me.
4) and yes I didnt agree with the gold donation, why would you ask? Because I thought that this would bring the fact that you can actually pay your way out (with gold) of justice. So the wealthier you are, the easier it will be. And THAT was what I saw wrong in that.
I wouldn't bother chucky, this is quite obviously a ultra right wing coup.
Did chucky told you to write this as well?
And Adasko, congratulations on giving the loony right more ammunition.
Thank you for being honest Adasko.
Without comment on the merits:
i just finished listening to Adasko on the radio: AcaciaMason's podcast. Adasko says the evidence against Sdc was very weak and the government might well have lost its case. This sounds to me a different than the "throw Chukky under the bus" impression i get from Zblewski's transcript. Perhaps it would be useful for the people involved in government to tell us clearly if the case was considered "weak" when the settlement was reached.
Legal cases can be weak for a number of reasons. Doesn't necessarily affect whether the behaviour was reprehensible.
When i read the settlement i thought Sdc was in fact given the right to run for congress under "bail". I confess to thinking that clause was "awkward" but there it is. Maybe i am mistaken.
Finally i see there is a proposed amendment to the Department of Justice Act. That is the wrong statute to amend. The criminal code determines who decides on criminal prosecution: the Minister of Justice. These issues and the issue of political interference were recently dealt with, at great length, by the Supreme Court.
Thank you for doing the right thing, the extent of this fiasco did require your resignation but your arguments are sound. There needs to be a separation of executive and judicial branches and I for one will welcome you back into the system when the issue settles.
Uh oh!
Citizen de Champlain? Never heard of him. Got to quit feeding the disenchantment monster and helping those who love to exploit it.
hb741 makes an excellent point. After seeing the recent Anne Coulter fallout in Ottawa, it's all too easy to see that bad press is good press for some.
I can count nearly a dozen articles in the last two days that either a) have Sdc in the title, b) have posted his picture in the article, c) have dedicated a portion (or all) of their argument to SdC.
Perhaps this is making a faulty correlation, but now I see SdC with the most votes of any other congressional candidate. No one may have heard of him a couple months ago when he was in another country, but everyone knows of him now, and many have voted in his favour.
I think Rylde did it best by indirectly addressing the man of the hour without promoting him.
Still, a good article Adasko. Your business was official, but unfortunately a leech like SdC could take blood from a stone.