Join the new world

What is the erep statute of limitations?

I am glad to see that the court backed its legitimacy, I hope your work proceeds well.

lame..

There's a Supreme Court?!

The court accepted a case by CSIS against Matthew Gallaugher?

What....no?

Once again I say...The court is a joke

It picks and chooses the cases it wants to win

the court accepted for trial a matter begun by Csis agains one kyoto Tokugawa.

The Court neither wins nor loses. It simply decides.

Oh, The court "Decides" alright...

It "decides" what cases to accept.
It "decides" what will be reviewed as evidence"
It "decides" to declare Mistrials when the case isn't going the way the government/court justices would like...since they are basically one and the same..

All under the guide of one olivermellors, who can always be counted on to play the role of "government shill" when any legal advice is required, and who's views are viewed by the same government as "gospel"

To clarify further people not familiar with procedure:
No one has proposed a case against Matthew Gallaugher and it is not the court's responsibility to bring up charges.

I wonder why CSIS chose not to bring a case against Matthew Gallaugher?

He was working with "MAYHEM". He divulged that he was a CSIS agent. He served the role of providing fake and misleading info to CSIS on behalf of "MAYHEM"

Yet they choose to go after the guy who chose to openly criticize CSIS for basically corrupt and incompetent behavior

Typical eCanada...crucifies the whistle blower

Do whistle blowers on whistle blowers get crucified or do they get set free by some kind of double-negative rationale?

I hope this spy novel doesn't end with him biting a cyanide capsule hidden in a hollow tooth. Such a common trope.

Aren't you guys getting ahead of yourselves? Weren't you going to begin by establishing your legitimacy first?

Master Auron if your only 3 days old how did you know the courts were introuble to begin with?

I read through his articles, in his entry yesterday he said they were reviewing the legitimacy of their institution. Then in his past media he also talks about the troubles, which is where I got a bit more of the story behind why they questioned their legitimacy.

@rolo As you know, the moment your trial was halted, it was not halted by the court. In fact it was an outside agent. I can state that at the time it was halted I was prepared to vote not guilty due to the lack of evidence presented by the AG. Is there evidence against you, perhaps but at that moment from what was presented, the case against you had massive holes. If they do try to bring the case forward, you cold find yourself in a position to fight the case based on what transpired. Please stop attacking the court as some of us are trying our best to work on things.

@ Petz

The court allowed "Steve" to find a convenient excuse to halt the trial and then declare a "mistrial" when the odds weren't looking good for the "crown"

When "someone" interfered, the question of what actual damage that person did still remains. There was no jury to taint, and no legitimate reason not to continue the trial from that set point..

This despite Steve (cough saltydog, cough) basically saying STFU to the defense during the entire course of that farce called a "trial"

If rolo is found not guilty by the court, then you know something definetly isn't rigth in the system.

Chucky, the courts aren't supposed to fulfill your fantasy, the are supposed to find the truth.

Gentlemen: re rolo trial

1. it ended when the court lost a judge, so there were not sufficient to continue.

2. a new case was started. As indicated in this article, the question of how it should be dealt with is "on the horizon". We have a couple of cases to deal with this weekend. However, i note rolo's desire to continue with the trial. We will likely be confering about this sometime next week. Await news.

The court "losing a judge" is not the problem of the Defense, this excuse was combined with some lame justification of "interference" as well

It's a thread written in text, are you saying a replacement judge cannot be appointed and simply re-read the thread - gimme a break..

Seems sort of convenient that a judge can simply resign if the trial doesn't look good, and justify a retrial

Court is a waste of time

FFS, it's been 6 months and you still can't get your act together

the rolo case is on the horizon. I see your strong insistence that the court go ahead and try you. I presume you wish the present judges - and we do now have four - simply re read the transcript and decide. Perhaps that will be exactly what is done. If it isn't too much trouble, give us a few days to deal with the trials this weekend and we will then turn our attention to giving your case the attention it deserves. I guess I will be writing more articles.

Well, olivermellors...I dare you

That case was left just before my closing arguments

I'm willing to bet you find some BS reason not to do so though

J'ai hâte de voir ce que la Cour fera de ma plainte. J'espère qu'elle la considèrera. Sinon, je me questionnerai sérieusement sur la force obligatoire des lois adoptés par le congrès pour régir le eCanada. À mon avis, il est évident que certains membres du HC ont contrevenu au Funding Cap. Évidemment, lorsque j'ai dénoncer ce vol, le moment et le contexte n'était pas vraiment opportun (le eCanada venait de se faire voler 3 000 gold), tandis que près de 8 000 CAD parait très peu. Cependant, j'estime que s'il y a eu non respect des procédures établit par la loi, les premiers responsable devrait en subir les conséquences.

Ce cas est pertinent, si l'on se penche sur la juridiction et la compétence de la Cour envers une organisation publique, comme les CAF. Est-ce que la cour peut s'ingérer en vertu de la Funding Cap Act dans la gestion interne des CAF, malgré que le CoC des CAF soit silencieux à ce sujet? À mon avis, il est évident que oui, et la cour ne devrait pas se soutraire à sa compétence et à son obligation.

Maintenant, je peux comprendre que le fait que le dénonciateur est quitté le eCanada peut poser problème pour la cour. Cependant, je suis d'avis qu'il est de l'intérêt publique qu'une décision soit rendu ici. Et j'affirme ceci malgré qu'il est possible que la Cour affirme que j'ai tord.

Merci de considérer ce message et je tiens à féliciter Olivermellors pour son effort de publiciser les affaires judiciaires en cours. C'est grandement apprécié. : )

bonsoir max
en effet, la cour demande présentement si il y a citoyen(s) qui veut(llent) poursuivre cette plainte. Pour des détails plus amples je vous conseille le prochain numéro de ce journal. 🙂