Canada doesn't extradite to U.S. anymore... - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Canada doesn't extradite to U.S. anymore...

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
lokiare
Jun 09, 2011 4:06:35 www.realnewsreporter.com/?p=5087

Canada refuses to extradite a whistleblower to the U.S. because the company he is blowing the whistle on manipulated the courts to file criminal charges...
#2
pluisjen
Jun 09, 2011 4:14:18 This is going to be fun.
#3
homicidal_squirrel
Jun 09, 2011 5:47:21 The Canadian courts have it right.
#4
draco1119
Jun 09, 2011 11:34:17 The DoJ under AG Holder is a morass of crap. It was actually BETTER under Bush... If not by much.
Dropped charges of voter intimidation? That was Holder.
Quashed an FBI investigation of co-conspirators of an ongoing federal trial? Holder again.
Fired some career US Attorneys? That was Bush. Who, by the way, was legally allowed to do so.
#5
bone_naga
Jun 09, 2011 11:39:51 Well that's why countries hold extradition hearings.

On the other hand, there's probably more to this than the article says (not that I would suggest than anyone declaring the US to be a corporate police state in his opening line might have an agenda). The idea that "police friends" of the corporation magically added criminal charges to the countersuit is ridiculous. For one, how were criminal charges added to the countersuit, which would be part of a civil case? Second, if they are charging him with crimes, then there is evidence that he broke those laws.
#6
draco1119
Jun 09, 2011 11:52:52
Well that's why countries hold extradition hearings.

On the other hand, there's probably more to this than the article says (not that I would suggest than anyone declaring the US to be a corporate police state in his opening line might have an agenda). The idea that "police friends" of the corporation magically added criminal charges to the countersuit is ridiculous. For one, how were criminal charges added to the countersuit, which would be part of a civil case? Second, if they are charging him with crimes, then there is evidence that he broke those laws.

The criminal charges were in addition to the civil case.

As to evidence... that's the way it's SUPPOSED to work. Not necessarily the way it always does.
#7
LFK
Jun 09, 2011 13:02:25
Well that's why countries hold extradition hearings.

On the other hand, there's probably more to this than the article says (not that I would suggest than anyone declaring the US to be a corporate police state in his opening line might have an agenda). The idea that "police friends" of the corporation magically added criminal charges to the countersuit is ridiculous. For one, how were criminal charges added to the countersuit, which would be part of a civil case? Second, if they are charging him with crimes, then there is evidence that he broke those laws.

The thing is they can sink his suit without evidence, just by tying him up with charges, bail, court dates, and generally tarnishing his name. They do a big press release on how the guy who was suing Cisco was arrested for 500 years worth of charges, then quietly never mention that he was aquitted on all counts.
#8
draco1119
Jun 09, 2011 13:50:35
Well that's why countries hold extradition hearings.

On the other hand, there's probably more to this than the article says (not that I would suggest than anyone declaring the US to be a corporate police state in his opening line might have an agenda). The idea that "police friends" of the corporation magically added criminal charges to the countersuit is ridiculous. For one, how were criminal charges added to the countersuit, which would be part of a civil case? Second, if they are charging him with crimes, then there is evidence that he broke those laws.

The thing is they can sink his suit without evidence, just by tying him up with charges, bail, court dates, and generally tarnishing his name. They do a big press release on how the guy who was suing Cisco was arrested for 500 years worth of charges, then quietly never mention that he was aquitted on all counts.

Or never even formally charged with said crimes. The prosecutor can easily just quietly drop the charges before the guy ever even makes it inside a US courtroom.
#9
bone_naga
Jun 09, 2011 14:25:13
As to evidence... that's the way it's SUPPOSED to work. Not necessarily the way it always does.

If they arrest him without evidence he then has grounds for a civil suit against that department for wrongful arrest. If he can tie it to smearing his name due to his current civil case he can add defamation of character too. And if they drop the charges before he ever sees court, well then how disruptive is that to his current case?
#10
LFK
Jun 09, 2011 14:33:13
As to evidence... that's the way it's SUPPOSED to work. Not necessarily the way it always does.

If they arrest him without evidence he then has grounds for a civil suit against that department for wrongful arrest. If he can tie it to smearing his name due to his current civil case he can add defamation of character too. And if they drop the charges before he ever sees court, well then how disruptive is that to his current case?

Potentially very. It can tie him up for years, run him out of money, and bury him in paperwork.
#11
lokiare
Jun 09, 2011 14:43:43
As to evidence... that's the way it's SUPPOSED to work. Not necessarily the way it always does.

If they arrest him without evidence he then has grounds for a civil suit against that department for wrongful arrest. If he can tie it to smearing his name due to his current civil case he can add defamation of character too. And if they drop the charges before he ever sees court, well then how disruptive is that to his current case?

Potentially very. It can tie him up for years, run him out of money, and bury him in paperwork.

There was a case over some reporters wanting to report on BGH that was (and as far as I know are still) injected into cows to increase the production of milk. They wanted to report on the negative aspects. They went back and forth because the news corporation didn't want to air it. The reporters got in under the whistleblowers laws, but then the corporations did some finagling and the same thing happened. They weren't arrested but their lawsuit was thrown out of court and they were basically blacklisted from working in the media... They even had evidence. They had a contract that was written up telling them if they didn't do the report then they would keep their jobs...
#12
bone_naga
Jun 09, 2011 14:46:49
Potentially very. It can tie him up for years, run him out of money, and bury him in paperwork.

If they don't have evidence, they won't make it past the grand jury. If they don't pursue an indictment, he puts in a motion to have the charges dropped. In the meantime, he makes bail and is free to pursue other endeavors. And again, they would be setting themselves up for a massive lawsuit if they did this without evidence, not to mention possible criminal charges if they prove a relationship between this and the corporation.
#13
LFK
Jun 09, 2011 15:58:30
Potentially very. It can tie him up for years, run him out of money, and bury him in paperwork.

If they don't have evidence, they won't make it past the grand jury. If they don't pursue an indictment, he puts in a motion to have the charges dropped. In the meantime, he makes bail and is free to pursue other endeavors. And again, they would be setting themselves up for a massive lawsuit if they did this without evidence, not to mention possible criminal charges if they prove a relationship between this and the corporation.

If it were a 60 minute procedural drama, maybe, or if the gov'm'nt just threw up its hands and said "you got us, we were bluffing," but with 97 charges you think they have nothing that they can pass off as evidence? They can easily freeze any civil suit until after the grand jury, which might be years as they wade through thousands of pieces of made up evidence asessing for relevance. That's not even touching on stretching the "due and expedient process" to it's full and scheduling hearing dates months and months apart. By the time the dust settles he's too broke to sue and no lawyer on the planet will touch the case; even if he is in the right the whole thing is toxic.
#14
bone_naga
Jun 09, 2011 17:29:45 Broke? If he can't afford a lawyer the government must provide one for free. And actually I bet some lawyers would take a case like this pro bono just to build a reputation for standing up to "the man". I'm not sure what the rules are for freezing a civil suit or how easy that would be, probably depends on what state the suit is in and what state he is being charged in.

And yeah, they probably do have evidence, that was kind of the point I made. Now unfortunately that hold expedient process thing doesn't hold up in practice as well as it does in theory, especially with that many charges. Still, if he's innocent I think he should put up a fight and rope the government into the lawsuit when he's done.
#15
draco1119
Jun 09, 2011 17:40:44
Broke? If he can't afford a lawyer the government must provide one for free. And actually I bet some lawyers would take a case like this pro bono just to build a reputation for standing up to "the man". I'm not sure what the rules are for freezing a civil suit or how easy that would be, probably depends on what state the suit is in and what state he is being charged in.

They don't have to provide one for the civil trial.
And yeah, they probably do have evidence, that was kind of the point I made. Now unfortunately that hold expedient process thing doesn't hold up in practice as well as it does in theory, especially with that many charges. Still, if he's innocent I think he should put up a fight and rope the government into the lawsuit when he's done.

Won't happen. The gov't has unlimited resources to throw at him. And (I believe) the prosecutor has immunity from prosecution or lawsuits. International pressure might help, though.
#16
bone_naga
Jun 09, 2011 17:44:01 If the civil trial is frozen, then his lawyer isn't working during that time and doesn't need to be paid.

As for the government having unlimited resources, no not really. People do sue the government and they do win. And you don't have to sue the prosecutor, you sue the city, state, or whatever level of government that he works for.
#17
draco1119
Jun 10, 2011 7:55:08 Now THIS is a police state!
#18
bone_naga
Jun 10, 2011 13:24:02
Now THIS is a police state!

Now that's something the Supreme Court needs to rule on. Although it sounds like the reason it hasn't been challenged previously is because no one was actually convicted by it. Fortunately, the ACLU appears to actually be doing something useful by taking up that cause.
#19
draco1119
Jun 10, 2011 13:47:57
Now THIS is a police state!

Now that's something the Supreme Court needs to rule on. Although it sounds like the reason it hasn't been challenged previously is because no one was actually convicted by it. Fortunately, the ACLU appears to actually be doing something useful by taking up that cause.

My favorite was the guy who was told that he couldn't have a court reporter and informed the court that he would record it himself. So the JUDGE had him arrested for violating her privacy. How exactly does a public official (the judge) have ANY privacy in a public forum (the courtroom)?!
#20
lokiare
Jun 10, 2011 18:25:29
Now THIS is a police state!

Now that's something the Supreme Court needs to rule on. Although it sounds like the reason it hasn't been challenged previously is because no one was actually convicted by it. Fortunately, the ACLU appears to actually be doing something useful by taking up that cause.

My favorite was the guy who was told that he couldn't have a court reporter and informed the court that he would record it himself. So the JUDGE had him arrested for violating her privacy. How exactly does a public official (the judge) have ANY privacy in a public forum (the courtroom)?!

Wow, your right that is police state...

I plan on setting up a youtube channel and recording everything I do and having it stream to youtube so if something like that happens to me it'll be known...

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 lokiare Jun 09, 2011 4:06:35	www.realnewsreporter.com/?p=5087 Canada refuses to extradite a whistleblower to the U.S. because the company he is blowing the whistle on manipulated the courts to file criminal charges...
#2 pluisjen Jun 09, 2011 4:14:18	This is going to be fun.
#3 homicidal_squirrel Jun 09, 2011 5:47:21	The Canadian courts have it right.
#4 draco1119 Jun 09, 2011 11:34:17	The DoJ under AG Holder is a morass of crap. It was actually BETTER under Bush... If not by much. Dropped charges of voter intimidation? That was Holder. Quashed an FBI investigation of co-conspirators of an ongoing federal trial? Holder again. Fired some career US Attorneys? That was Bush. Who, by the way, was legally allowed to do so.
#5 bone_naga Jun 09, 2011 11:39:51	Well that's why countries hold extradition hearings. On the other hand, there's probably more to this than the article says (not that I would suggest than anyone declaring the US to be a corporate police state in his opening line might have an agenda). The idea that "police friends" of the corporation magically added criminal charges to the countersuit is ridiculous. For one, how were criminal charges added to the countersuit, which would be part of a civil case? Second, if they are charging him with crimes, then there is evidence that he broke those laws.
#6 draco1119 Jun 09, 2011 11:52:52	Well that's why countries hold extradition hearings. On the other hand, there's probably more to this than the article says (not that I would suggest than anyone declaring the US to be a corporate police state in his opening line might have an agenda). The idea that "police friends" of the corporation magically added criminal charges to the countersuit is ridiculous. For one, how were criminal charges added to the countersuit, which would be part of a civil case? Second, if they are charging him with crimes, then there is evidence that he broke those laws. The criminal charges were in addition to the civil case. As to evidence... that's the way it's SUPPOSED to work. Not necessarily the way it always does.
#7 LFK Jun 09, 2011 13:02:25	Well that's why countries hold extradition hearings. On the other hand, there's probably more to this than the article says (not that I would suggest than anyone declaring the US to be a corporate police state in his opening line might have an agenda). The idea that "police friends" of the corporation magically added criminal charges to the countersuit is ridiculous. For one, how were criminal charges added to the countersuit, which would be part of a civil case? Second, if they are charging him with crimes, then there is evidence that he broke those laws. The thing is they can sink his suit without evidence, just by tying him up with charges, bail, court dates, and generally tarnishing his name. They do a big press release on how the guy who was suing Cisco was arrested for 500 years worth of charges, then quietly never mention that he was aquitted on all counts.
#8 draco1119 Jun 09, 2011 13:50:35	Well that's why countries hold extradition hearings. On the other hand, there's probably more to this than the article says (not that I would suggest than anyone declaring the US to be a corporate police state in his opening line might have an agenda). The idea that "police friends" of the corporation magically added criminal charges to the countersuit is ridiculous. For one, how were criminal charges added to the countersuit, which would be part of a civil case? Second, if they are charging him with crimes, then there is evidence that he broke those laws. The thing is they can sink his suit without evidence, just by tying him up with charges, bail, court dates, and generally tarnishing his name. They do a big press release on how the guy who was suing Cisco was arrested for 500 years worth of charges, then quietly never mention that he was aquitted on all counts. Or never even formally charged with said crimes. The prosecutor can easily just quietly drop the charges before the guy ever even makes it inside a US courtroom.
#9 bone_naga Jun 09, 2011 14:25:13	As to evidence... that's the way it's SUPPOSED to work. Not necessarily the way it always does. If they arrest him without evidence he then has grounds for a civil suit against that department for wrongful arrest. If he can tie it to smearing his name due to his current civil case he can add defamation of character too. And if they drop the charges before he ever sees court, well then how disruptive is that to his current case?
#10 LFK Jun 09, 2011 14:33:13	As to evidence... that's the way it's SUPPOSED to work. Not necessarily the way it always does. If they arrest him without evidence he then has grounds for a civil suit against that department for wrongful arrest. If he can tie it to smearing his name due to his current civil case he can add defamation of character too. And if they drop the charges before he ever sees court, well then how disruptive is that to his current case? Potentially very. It can tie him up for years, run him out of money, and bury him in paperwork.
#11 lokiare Jun 09, 2011 14:43:43	As to evidence... that's the way it's SUPPOSED to work. Not necessarily the way it always does. If they arrest him without evidence he then has grounds for a civil suit against that department for wrongful arrest. If he can tie it to smearing his name due to his current civil case he can add defamation of character too. And if they drop the charges before he ever sees court, well then how disruptive is that to his current case? Potentially very. It can tie him up for years, run him out of money, and bury him in paperwork. There was a case over some reporters wanting to report on BGH that was (and as far as I know are still) injected into cows to increase the production of milk. They wanted to report on the negative aspects. They went back and forth because the news corporation didn't want to air it. The reporters got in under the whistleblowers laws, but then the corporations did some finagling and the same thing happened. They weren't arrested but their lawsuit was thrown out of court and they were basically blacklisted from working in the media... They even had evidence. They had a contract that was written up telling them if they didn't do the report then they would keep their jobs...
#12 bone_naga Jun 09, 2011 14:46:49	Potentially very. It can tie him up for years, run him out of money, and bury him in paperwork. If they don't have evidence, they won't make it past the grand jury. If they don't pursue an indictment, he puts in a motion to have the charges dropped. In the meantime, he makes bail and is free to pursue other endeavors. And again, they would be setting themselves up for a massive lawsuit if they did this without evidence, not to mention possible criminal charges if they prove a relationship between this and the corporation.
#13 LFK Jun 09, 2011 15:58:30	Potentially very. It can tie him up for years, run him out of money, and bury him in paperwork. If they don't have evidence, they won't make it past the grand jury. If they don't pursue an indictment, he puts in a motion to have the charges dropped. In the meantime, he makes bail and is free to pursue other endeavors. And again, they would be setting themselves up for a massive lawsuit if they did this without evidence, not to mention possible criminal charges if they prove a relationship between this and the corporation. If it were a 60 minute procedural drama, maybe, or if the gov'm'nt just threw up its hands and said "you got us, we were bluffing," but with *97 charges* you think they have nothing that they can pass off as evidence? They can easily freeze any civil suit until after the grand jury, which might be years as they wade through thousands of pieces of made up evidence asessing for relevance. That's not even touching on stretching the "due and expedient process" to it's full and scheduling hearing dates months and months apart. By the time the dust settles he's too broke to sue and no lawyer on the planet will touch the case; even if he is in the right the whole thing is toxic.
#14 bone_naga Jun 09, 2011 17:29:45	Broke? If he can't afford a lawyer the government must provide one for free. And actually I bet some lawyers would take a case like this pro bono just to build a reputation for standing up to "the man". I'm not sure what the rules are for freezing a civil suit or how easy that would be, probably depends on what state the suit is in and what state he is being charged in. And yeah, they probably do have evidence, that was kind of the point I made. Now unfortunately that hold expedient process thing doesn't hold up in practice as well as it does in theory, especially with that many charges. Still, if he's innocent I think he should put up a fight and rope the government into the lawsuit when he's done.
#15 draco1119 Jun 09, 2011 17:40:44	Broke? If he can't afford a lawyer the government must provide one for free. And actually I bet some lawyers would take a case like this pro bono just to build a reputation for standing up to "the man". I'm not sure what the rules are for freezing a civil suit or how easy that would be, probably depends on what state the suit is in and what state he is being charged in. They don't have to provide one for the civil trial. And yeah, they probably do have evidence, that was kind of the point I made. Now unfortunately that hold expedient process thing doesn't hold up in practice as well as it does in theory, especially with that many charges. Still, if he's innocent I think he should put up a fight and rope the government into the lawsuit when he's done. Won't happen. The gov't has unlimited resources to throw at him. And (I believe) the prosecutor has immunity from prosecution or lawsuits. International pressure might help, though.
#16 bone_naga Jun 09, 2011 17:44:01	If the civil trial is frozen, then his lawyer isn't working during that time and doesn't need to be paid. As for the government having unlimited resources, no not really. People do sue the government and they do win. And you don't have to sue the prosecutor, you sue the city, state, or whatever level of government that he works for.
#17 draco1119 Jun 10, 2011 7:55:08	Now THIS is a police state!
#18 bone_naga Jun 10, 2011 13:24:02	Now THIS is a police state! Now that's something the Supreme Court needs to rule on. Although it sounds like the reason it hasn't been challenged previously is because no one was actually convicted by it. Fortunately, the ACLU appears to actually be doing something useful by taking up that cause.
#19 draco1119 Jun 10, 2011 13:47:57	Now THIS is a police state! Now that's something the Supreme Court needs to rule on. Although it sounds like the reason it hasn't been challenged previously is because no one was actually convicted by it. Fortunately, the ACLU appears to actually be doing something useful by taking up that cause. My favorite was the guy who was told that he couldn't have a court reporter and informed the court that he would record it himself. So the JUDGE had him arrested for violating her* privacy.* How exactly does a public official (the judge) have ANY privacy in a public forum (the courtroom)?!
#20 lokiare Jun 10, 2011 18:25:29	Now THIS is a police state! Now that's something the Supreme Court needs to rule on. Although it sounds like the reason it hasn't been challenged previously is because no one was actually convicted by it. Fortunately, the ACLU appears to actually be doing something useful by taking up that cause. My favorite was the guy who was told that he couldn't have a court reporter and informed the court that he would record it himself. So the JUDGE had him arrested for violating her* privacy.* How exactly does a public official (the judge) have ANY privacy in a public forum (the courtroom)?! Wow, your right that is police state... I plan on setting up a youtube channel and recording everything I do and having it stream to youtube so if something like that happens to me it'll be known...