OIC Legal Action Tracker 18AUG20

[Metman2]

yes I did my very first cross, went ok...Arkadi was a real legal warrior in it... yes its over, yes we get to rebutt in our motion records and in our objections to Smith as an "impartial, non bias, objective expert, whos only there to assist the court and not to advocate for a particular party"

I followed the entire cross-examination (all three days' worth). It was quite the marathon.

[greatwhite]

But is this actually going anyplace? I read a the news yesterday that Drama Boy is still going ahead with the Ban as well as he is still working on the handgun ban.

[Metman2]

But is this actually going anyplace? I read a the news yesterday that Drama Boy is still going ahead with the Ban as well as he is still working on the handgun ban.

The legal process takes time. Despite what people may feel, this is not a kangaroo court where politicians can tell judges what to do. The government has its lawyers defending the OIC, and word has undoubtedly filtered back up to the politicians that their case is solid and that ours is weak. It's still early days, too early for Trudeau or Blair to sense any trouble. And even if they did, what would they do differently?

There is a procedure being followed here that goes basically:
1. Bad law XYZ passed by politicians.
2. XYZ is challenged in court.
3. Either
a) Court finds XYZ to be so bad it throws it out, OR
b) Court upholds XYZ.

"Court" could be several levels (federal, appeal, supreme). There have been numerous issues decided this way. The system isn't perfect but it still works. If it didn't hardly anyone would ever bother to mount any legal challenges. But it is a slow process by ordinary standards. And expensive, hence the appeals for support from those directly in the battle.

Outcome 3.a) sets a precedent that can impede future politicians from trying again.

I am convinced there is a much greater likelihood of victory on this path than putting our hope and trust in politicians to fix things for us.

[Jmcc]

I am convinced there is a much greater likelihood of victory on this path than putting our hope and trust in politicians to fix things for us.

^^ This ^^

Politicians/political parties come and go like ships at sea

A supreme court decision will out live us all...

I am regularly frustrated by how long decisions take, and how often criminals get off with a slap on the wrist. But i do firmly believe that 99% of our justice is impartial and follows the letter of the law.

We may or may not agree with the law, but the justices we have typically uphold it how it was written.
And this why I feel we have chance.

[hsatimmy]

I followed the entire cross-examination (all three days' worth). It was quite the marathon.

Mind posting info?

[randyhub]

Can Trudeau continue to do as he sees fit now the House is back can he be blocked, or can he continue to bypass the elected with the OIC?

[Patt08]

The legal process takes time. Despite what people may feel, this is not a kangaroo court where politicians can tell judges what to do. The government has its lawyers defending the OIC, and word has undoubtedly filtered back up to the politicians that their case is solid and that ours is weak. It's still early days, too early for Trudeau or Blair to sense any trouble. And even if they did, what would they do differently?

There is a procedure being followed here that goes basically:
1. Bad law XYZ passed by politicians.
2. XYZ is challenged in court.
3. Either
a) Court finds XYZ to be so bad it throws it out, OR
b) Court upholds XYZ.

"Court" could be several levels (federal, appeal, supreme). There have been numerous issues decided this way. The system isn't perfect but it still works. If it didn't hardly anyone would ever bother to mount any legal challenges. But it is a slow process by ordinary standards. And expensive, hence the appeals for support from those directly in the battle.

Outcome 3.a) sets a precedent that can impede future politicians from trying again.

I am convinced there is a much greater likelihood of victory on this path than putting our hope and trust in politicians to fix things for us.

Agreed.

[Cameron SS]

But is this actually going anyplace? I read a the news yesterday that Drama Boy is still going ahead with the Ban as well as he is still working on the handgun ban.

At this point the ban is a done deal. There is nothing more for trudeau to move ahead with. The OIC ban is in force until they repeal it or the court strikes it down. As for the compensation scheme they are still struggling to hire outside consultants to design the program, with no forseeable timeline on execution. With 4 premiers openly opposed to handgun bans, nothing else is really going anywhere.

In his first full year into this term he has tabled a laughable 12 government bills, 5 of which haven't made it past second reading and only two of which have been passed. Trudeau doesn't seem to be doing much of anything.

The court challenges on the other hand are proceeding generally as per the schedule. Injunction hearing in January with a ruling to follow shortly. And then on to the hearing proper, which will likely take at least another 12 months or more.

[Metman2]

Mind posting info?

Posting any details of the cross examinations at this time would be premature, to put it mildly.

[Kelly Timoffee]

The legal process takes time. Despite what people may feel, this is not a kangaroo court where politicians can tell judges what to do. The government has its lawyers defending the OIC, and word has undoubtedly filtered back up to the politicians that their case is solid and that ours is weak. It's still early days, too early for Trudeau or Blair to sense any trouble. And even if they did, what would they do differently?

There is a procedure being followed here that goes basically:
1. Bad law XYZ passed by politicians.
2. XYZ is challenged in court.
3. Either
a) Court finds XYZ to be so bad it throws it out, OR
b) Court upholds XYZ.

"Court" could be several levels (federal, appeal, supreme). There have been numerous issues decided this way. The system isn't perfect but it still works. If it didn't hardly anyone would ever bother to mount any legal challenges. But it is a slow process by ordinary standards. And expensive, hence the appeals for support from those directly in the battle.

Outcome 3.a) sets a precedent that can impede future politicians from trying again.

I am convinced there is a much greater likelihood of victory on this path than putting our hope and trust in politicians to fix things for us.

No, they just fire justice ministers for doing their job.

They will stop at nothing to advance this agenda.