ollie Posted December 17, 2004 Report Share Posted December 17, 2004 As it pertains to the Canadian legal system, is a defense lawyer obligated to refuse a client that he or she knows is guilty? I think not but I am trying to convince somebody of this. Any pointers to resources would be appreciated. Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StoneMtn Posted December 17, 2004 Report Share Posted December 17, 2004 There is a really long answer to this, but the standard is that a lawyer is precluded from being a party to a fraud perpetrated on the Court. That does not mean the lawyer cannot defend that client, but that lawyer cannot lead evidence that is false or allow his client to lie to the Court. If that happens, the lawyer is best to get off the record with no explanation to the Court. (Giving an explanation to the Court could prejudice your client's case in future, and that would be contrary to the Canons of Ethics lawyers must swear and uphold.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ollie Posted December 17, 2004 Author Report Share Posted December 17, 2004 Thanks StoneMtn. I was hoping you'd be around to answer this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Velvet Posted December 17, 2004 Report Share Posted December 17, 2004 Funny how far StoneMtn is able to take this whole "I'm a lawyer" thing. I reality he works at an Orange Julius in the Eaton's Centre. He's the manager. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StoneMtn Posted December 17, 2004 Report Share Posted December 17, 2004 Actually, I've been demoted to bus-boy. (Head Office heard I was a friend of Velvet's and it caused them some "concerns".) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arcane Posted December 17, 2004 Report Share Posted December 17, 2004 If the court thinks you're smart, you can be denied legal counsel. Happened to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PalacePrincess Posted December 17, 2004 Report Share Posted December 17, 2004 that's crazy arcane! how is that even possible?! yeesh! mmmmm....orange julius...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StoneMtn Posted December 17, 2004 Report Share Posted December 17, 2004 If the court thinks you're smart, you can be denied legal counsel. Happened to me. On what possible grounds? Are you suggesting that you were declined legal aid for some reason or are you actually saying that you were told you are precluded from being represented by a lawyer? That sounds very strange to me, but I do not practice criminal defence so I am sure there is a reasonable explanation. I would be very interested in seeing the judgment that was handed down that day, if you felt like PMing me the date on which this occurred and your actual name (only if you want). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arcane Posted December 17, 2004 Report Share Posted December 17, 2004 The system is quite thoroughly broken. The sad thing is, now that it has happened to someone (that is, me), it can used as case law against someone else (that is, to deny them legal counsel). No, I'm not a lawyer. Not even close. The court was aware of it, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booche Posted December 17, 2004 Report Share Posted December 17, 2004 Smart-ass Its a big difference. Contempt falls into play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arcane Posted December 17, 2004 Report Share Posted December 17, 2004 are you actually saying that you were told you are precluded from being represented by a lawyer? Yes. A lawyer was with me in the courtroom when the judge made the decision, too. We needed two weeks to bring her up to speed on the case. The opposition argued that I'm a freakin' rocket scientist, therefore I can act as my own lawyer. As a result of not being allowed that two week prep period, the trial dragged out three weeks longer than it should have ... at the expense of the Ontario taxpayers. And, of course, I lost. I'm a freakin' rocket scientist, not a lawyer. (Actually, I'm not a freakin' rocket scientist. The opposition went to far as to claim I had a postgraduate degree I don't actually have. I just write stuff for a living.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arcane Posted December 17, 2004 Report Share Posted December 17, 2004 Smart-ass Its a big difference. Contempt falls into play. You're making a very wrong assumption. There was no contempt involved. The argument was strictly that I'm smart enough to represent myself in a court of law. Period. Because I write for a living, the judge decided that I could prepare my own legal documentation. She also decided that because I'm good with written words, I must be good with words in general, therefore I could present a good verbal case. My lack of knowledge of the law never seemed to enter the picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mercenary Posted December 17, 2004 Report Share Posted December 17, 2004 I was in the court room at the time supporting Arcane... she wasn't being a smart ass (in fact, she had the lawyer that WOULD have handled the case - if the judge allowed a 2 week delay) speaking FOR her.Simply put - because the "court" (based upon the sagely advice of the opposition) believed that Arcane was smart enough to represent herself - she was REQUIRED to do so and denied the time required for a lawyer to prepare and be available for the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arcane Posted December 17, 2004 Report Share Posted December 17, 2004 This case was absolutely riddled with violations of legal statutes and an utter lack of professional accountability. I'd have an appeal in the bag if I could actually afford to launch one (this is the opinion of a legal professional specializing in cases like mine). The necessary transcripts alone have been estimated to cost $50,000.There is no way that a judge would force me to represent myself in an appeal (then again, this case showed how insane our judges can be). An appeal is a long, dry and boring thing that is argued entirely on the original judge's adherence to points of law. That is, an appeal really requires a law degree or equivalent knowledge.The upshot is that a judge is effectively God in the courtroom. If a judge acts like an idiot, tough noogies--there is an appeal process in place, and if you can't afford it, too bad for you. It's not like you can ask to speak to the judge's manager. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StoneMtn Posted December 17, 2004 Report Share Posted December 17, 2004 Well, due to my burning curiosity I attempted to find this judgment. That is very difficult to do, however, without knowing anyone's name. I was unable to find it. That being said, I also contacted a friend who is former Crown Counsel. He suggested that Arcane may have been seeking an adjournment of the trial after having already caused great delay in the proceedings. Apparently a judgment such as this does occur if there have already been at least two delays caused by the accused. I have no idea if that is the case. My curiosity is killing me, so if Arcane feels comfortable sending me a PM with her actual name, place of trial, and date I would love to look this one up. (Not all cases are reported, but this one sounds precedent-setting so I would think it is reported.) I really can't comment on this in a vacuum. I am very curious, though, and would really love to see that judgment. Of course, I would not post her actual name on this board if she chooses to give it to me. I would merely talk about the judgment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arcane Posted December 17, 2004 Report Share Posted December 17, 2004 I made a request for adjournment because the opposition obstructed my access to information and as a result, I couldn't get the necessary evidence in time. I demonstrated this to the satifaction of a judge, who instructed the opposition that they did not have the right to tell me what materials would be relevant to my case and to get out of my way. That having been said, I was NOT given an adjournment. HOWEVER, unbeknownst to me at the time, the opposition SIMULTANEOUSLY filed for an adjournment due to lack of availability of their legal consel. This adjournment was granted. So no, I didn't cause a delay in the proceedings. The opposition did, by several months, to ensure that they would have their legal counsel present. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mercenary Posted December 17, 2004 Report Share Posted December 17, 2004 Yup... all carefully explained with the benefit of the person who WOULD have been the lawyer had the judge allowed a 2 week delay.I actually saw the judge "instruct" the other side in the fact that they did NOT have the right to determine what was relevant to Arcane's case for disclosure.Overall, I can sum up the overall experience: I came... I saw... I left disgusted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arcane Posted December 17, 2004 Report Share Posted December 17, 2004 (Not all cases are reported, but this one sounds precedent-setting so I would think it is reported.) I'm not sure if this one will be reported as I think the opposition will try to suppress it. I can, however, dig up a case with some *very* similar elements, including the same lawyers and a witness in common (really). Ironically, this is the case that tied up the opposition's lawyer for my original date. The opposition lost that one. I think this is one of the reasons that the opposition pulled every trick in the book to have me denied legal counsel. The lawyer that would have represented me won the previous case against them, in no small part because she ripped apart the witness' testimony. [The opposition has tried over 20 times to get "my" lawyer thrown off of cases against them.] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arcane Posted December 18, 2004 Report Share Posted December 18, 2004 I should add: No, this wasn't a criminal case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarcO Posted December 18, 2004 Report Share Posted December 18, 2004 Booche you're a pretty girl ya honky honky! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lazlo Posted December 18, 2004 Report Share Posted December 18, 2004 I think I have to side with MarcO, he's the only one making any valid points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booche Posted December 18, 2004 Report Share Posted December 18, 2004 Your momma's so stupid she thinks a quarterback is a refund.(Actually, that was meant for MarcO) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lazlo Posted December 18, 2004 Report Share Posted December 18, 2004 Appreciated none the less Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
p.p. Posted December 18, 2004 Report Share Posted December 18, 2004 hey Arcane... you're being offered free professional advice. If I were you I'd find out how to get in touch with StoneMtn and give him your info. I don't think you've got anything to lose, and he's probably the coolest lawyer I know (well I'm not too sure if I know him but...). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StoneMtn Posted December 18, 2004 Report Share Posted December 18, 2004 Thanks for the compliment p.p. (I notice you posted at 4:21 pm, so perhaps you were feeling mellow and complimentary...) I notice you live in Vancouver, and I don't think we do know each other. Upstream is occasionally kind enough to send some bands up this way, so feel free to PM me if you're ever heading up the Sea-to-Sky Highway for a show! SM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now