Tuesday, March 9, 2010

Another Example of Crown & Judge Corruption in Ontario Courts...



Wow, it must be so great to be above-the-law!! Everyday we see examples of people who have that privilege, and yet nobody says anything about it, nobody does anything about it, and it just continues to go on like it's expected..

Well, it's time to start asking those tough questions to the enablers of this corrupt above-the-law treatment. I can't blame the actual people who have the privilege... It's not their fault that they are able to exploit the Corrupt Leaders we have in our Justice System. Anyone who was in a similar situation would do the same, and how can you blame them?

It's the enablers that need to be weeded out, and in this case, we should start with Crown Attorney Marie Balogh and Ontario Court Justice Doug Maund. Let’s take a look at exactly what happened, and see if their actions justify them continuing to be our Crown Attorney and Ontario Court Justice going forward.

Here's the story from CBC.ca:

Jaffer pleads guilty to careless driving

Former Conservative MP Rahim Jaffer pleaded guilty Tuesday in an Ontario courtroom to careless driving and must pay a $500 fine.

Jaffer had been charged with impaired driving and possession of cocaine but those charges were dropped.

In an agreed statement of facts, a Caledon provincial police constable had clocked Jaffer going 93 km/h in a 50 km/h zone through the village of Palgrave, northwest of Toronto, on Sept. 10.

His breathalyzer test measured over 80 milligrams of alcohol.
So let’s review exactly what happened here...

Former Conservative MP Rahim Jaffer was:
  1. Speeding - Doing 93 km/h in a 50 km/h
  2. DUI – His Breathalyzer Test measured over 80 milligrams of alcohol (>0.8 BAC)
  3. Possession of Narcotics - Charged with Cocaine Possession
And his punishment for this was:
  1. 90 Day Driver's License Suspension
  2. $500 Fine
  3. $500 Donation to the Canadian Cystic Fibrosis Foundation
And that's it.

Isn't it great to have friends in high places like Crown Attorney Marie Balogh, and Ontario Court Justice Doug Maund, who have no problem at all bypassing the laws of our Justice System for their friends???! Or maybe I should call Jaffer their customer... I wonder how much it costs to buy their friendship and gain that above-the-law status that gets you off of not 1, but 3 separate charges that should have been applied in this case...

And the purchased reason they gave for letting him off, was the following:

Crown attorney Marie Balogh said in court that after a careful review of the case, it was decided to drop the other charges because there were significant legal issues and no reasonable prospect of conviction.
So let me see if I understand this correctly, as maybe I'm just crazy…

The charges were dropped because, "there were significant legal issues and no reasonable prospect of conviction". Really???

- SPEEDING -

He got "clocked" by the Cop for driving 93 km/h in a 50 km/h zone. Yet, his speeding conviction was dropped… Was the Police Officer incorrect?? Was his radar (if he was using one) inaccurate? Was he not actually speeding?? Was he truly doing 50 km/h in a 50 km/h zone, and the police officer thought he was actually doing 93 km/h???

How exactly did that charge get dropped? What “significant legal issues” impacted this charge? That’s what I’m wondering…

This was the basic charge/reason for him being pulled over by the Police Officer. I mean, if this is a question of the Officer being wrong or his radar being wrong, then I think this brings up a far more significant issue with the Police handing out Speeding Tickets. If the Police Officer can be wrong, and/or the Radar he uses can be wrong, then how exactly can anyone ever be justifiably charged with Speeding?? I mean, there are “significant legal issues and no possible prospect of conviction” when going by a Police Officer’s word and radar evidence, right Crown Attorney Balogh?

And now if we are disputing that Officer’s charge and therefore his word, then maybe every single charge that he’s applied in his entire career should be questioned, no? Is that not a reasonable next step in the deductive reasoning process? If he’s wrong about this, then what else has he been wrong about?

Also, is there no accountability for his incorrect actions? Is he being reprimanded for his errors? What is the process for accountability when a Police Officer is going around and charging people with crimes while having “significant legal issues and no reasonable prospect of conviction”….

Let’s move on…

- DRUNK DRIVING -

He blew over 80 milligrams (0.8 BAC) on a Police Breathalyzer test, and therefore had his license suspended on the spot for 90 days…. And yet, he was not convicted for Drunk Driving??? Not even that, the charges were dropped due to “significant legal issues and no reasonable prospect of conviction”?? Really??

So how does that work exactly? Were there "significant legal issues" with the Breathalyzer Test used by the Police?? I mean, that is the only piece of evidence in dispute over this charge, no? Is the Crown Attorney saying that Breathalyzer Tests are not the “end-all” in terms of convictions for Drunk Driving? I’m surprised, as for 99.9999% of Ontarians who have been charged with Drunk Driving using the Breathalyzer Test evidence, there were no “significant legal issues” in those cases…

Is this something that’s been missed in the past? The Officer felt confident enough with the test to suspend Jaffer’s license for 90 days immediately.. But I digress… There is an issue with the Breathalyzer now it seems.

I guess that means that every single conviction that has ever been applied in Ontario using the Breathalyzer results as evidence, should be reviewed and convictions overturned, no? I mean, the Crown is saying that there are "significant legal issues" with the Breathalyzer test, right?

Let’s move on to the final charge, the possession of narcotics.

- POSSESSION OF COCAINE -

Possession of Cocaine!!!

They don’t say much about this charge in the story, but it is mentioned as one of the charges that were dropped.

So, Jaffer is drunk and speeding along doing almost 50 km/h over the posted limit. He gets pulled over by the Police, who smell alcohol on his breath, and get him to take a breathalyzer, which he fails horribly. They then proceed to search him and his car, and low and behold, they find Cocaine.

So, they charge him with possession of cocaine as well, in addition to the speeding and drunk driving.

Now, all of a sudden in court, there are “significant legal issues and no reasonable prospect of conviction” in regards to this charge??

How could that be? Did the Cocaine suddenly disappear on the way from the incident to the Police station?

Is that what the Crown is insinuating here? Is she saying that the Police Officer who arrested Jaffer, snorted all of the coke on his way back to the station? Or maybe he kept it and sold it later? Or maybe the coke was stolen from the evidence locker by the other Police Officers?

What possible legal issues could there have been with the Cocaine? Either they found it, or they didn’t. If the Officer charged him, then he must have found the coke, no? Or maybe the Officer is Corrupt and he lied about finding the Cocaine. He also seemed to lie about the Speeding charge, and also about the Breathalyzer test results….

Is this Officer still with the Police Force? Jeez… With Officers like him protecting us, who needs enemies, no?

I guess at this point, it truly is a question of Corruption. Either the Police Officer who charged Jaffer was Corrupt and made up a whole bunch of stories and conjecture in order to charge this innocent fellow for no reason. Or, it is the Crown Attorney and the Ontario Court Justice who are Corrupt, and who dropped all of these charges because they are friends with Jaffer, or because he paid them off to do so.

I mean, simply, it has to be 1 of those 2 things.

Either way, this is just another example of Corruption run rampant again in Ontario.

And I have a feeling that in this case, it’s not the Police that are at fault, it is the Crown and Judge.

To quote the Judge:

"I'm sure you can recognize a break when you see one," Ontario Court Justice Doug Maund told Jaffer.
A “break” you say?? What exactly is that suppose to mean? You gave Jaffer a “break” on his charges? I didn’t realize that Ontario Court Justices were in the business of giving people “breaks”… Does he also give breaks to all other Drunk Drivers out there who are brought before him in court? What about the Speeders? What about the Drug Addicts and Drug Dealers? I mean, is this truly someone that we want behind the bench of our courts? A person who gives breaks to criminals?

Oh, he doesn’t give breaks to all criminals, you say… Really, then how does he decide when to apply the breaks? Oh, I get it, when it’s a friend of his, or if he and the Crown get paid off, then he applies the breaks… That’s what you’re saying…

People of Ontario, I submit this to you… How you use this information going forward is up to you… But, I do suggest that having a Crown Attorney and a Judge that can be so easily bought and/or corrupted (like in this case), is not the type of Justice that I want my hard earned tax dollars going towards… And it’s definitely not the Ontario that I want, that I pay a fortune to live in…

Am I alone in this?

--jackandcokewithalime

8 comments:

David Wozney said...

The word “Crown”, referred to in the phrase “Crown attorney Marie Balogh”, refers to the “Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”.

The provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick expressed their desire to be federally united into one Dominion under the Crown of the “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland”, not the Crown of the “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”, according to the British North America Act, 1867.

macbeth said...

how can we, the general public, act out against this in a positive way?

greta write up and I agree with all of it.

J.D. Hilton said...

Orangeville Crown Attorney Marie Balogh didn’t just sell out all Canadian citizens in cutting a deal with Jaffer’s lawyer, she cut a deal for herself. The deal could not have happened without collusion within the office of the crown. Watch Marie Balogh carefully, as her present tenure in a modest little courthouse, will, once the dust has settled, rise to some unmerited appointment and boost in socio-political status. She is feathering her own nest. Meanwhile police and RCMP are struggling to keep a level playing field for all citizens and this underhanded opportunist is picking and choosing which case will benefit her social climbing. Shame on you Ms. Balogh.

Anonymous said...

I know the story. The arresting officer, female not male, was "selected" to serve as security at the Vancouver Olympics and did not show up in court for this reason.This was arranged with the influence of Jaffers wife Helena Geurgeus, mp in an ajoining riding.The court, the judge and the OPP were all in on it, corruption all around.

Anonymous said...

tree is many story of coruption like this in ontario unfurtunetly,and we work soo hard to pay so much tax for this kind of justice..they are all thiefs they know each others so well,we are the one stupid and work like enimals end of the day..

Anonymous said...

There's a big difference between "law" and "justice". The outcome of Jaffer's trial is a farce.

Anonymous said...

I think your problem is that you don't even get the legal system and how it works. Maybe you should try earning a law degree first before you give some phony legal opinion that just shows a complete lack of understanding. You Orangeville Ontarians are all just making it worse by trying to get involved in legal issues that you don't even understand at all. People in Orangeville are all to dumb to understand anything except the simple concept of eating oranges, and that's why they're all totally wrong about the legal system and need to stay away from it. You people need to just stay away from these cases, because it's really none of your business anyway.

Anonymous said...


All these people care about is getting away with it. They think they can do the cruelest thing in the world to a criminal, just as long as they do enough to get away with it. These people are too dumb to deserve to hold a job and should not get paid any money.