A Quiet, Respectful Protest
It was brief. It was quiet. You would be hard pressed to have a more…
I hope not. I held out a belief that it did not and I was rudely awakened, naive guy that I was, that yes it very well might.
And it is our naivety and faith in the goodness of people in “the system” that allows much fraud to exist and grow unabated.
The Department of Justice (DoJ) in Canada appears, maybe, possibly, to have some bias towards protecting public policy more than individual rights. Unfortunately this happens at the expense of justice and truth.
In Canada, as in the USA, there are rules and standards for the DoJ to supposedly ensure that the purpose of a prosecution is to discover the truth, NOT to seek conviction in spite of the truth.
Its simple. Seek the truth. If the truth is convict, then convict. If its innocent, then its innocent.
Part of that process is that the DoJ is supposed to provide to the defence any facts, evidence, case law or anything that would assist the defence’s case. The DoJ is not suppsoed to hide such things in order to get a conviction first and foremost.
Ah yes, any process is only as good as those people willing to honour the rules and not serve ulterior motives.
It seems that in the USA it is too common that DOj prosecutors HAVE in fact suppressed evidence etc. that would have proven the innocence of the accused. I’m sure its no different in Canada.
Here’s a detailed story (and series) about the issue in the USA Today newspaper:
One case quote used at the end of the article:
Outcome: In 2003, a federal judge threw out Wilson’s conviction and blasted both the CIA and the Justice Department, writing that “in the course of American justice, one would have to work hard to conceive of a more fundamentally unfair process. .. than the fabrication of false data by the government, under oath by a government official, presented knowingly by the prosecutor in the courtroom with express approval of his superiors in Washington.”
The catch of course is that a single court decision “gave immunity” to prosecutors for breaking the law. In other words prosecutors are free to lie, cheat, cover up, hide evidence and they can never be held accountable for it. hmmmm
Just how and why does one court case decision do that? Does no one challenge that finding?
Do you think that that is an INVITATION to wrong doing? For sure.
Canada, it appears, is not much different. We’ve had a few recent situations in the news but the in depth reporting has not been done yet to fully uncover the extent of the problem.
I would bet (and I’m not a betting man) that this is frequent practice in Canada and it doesn’t matter if it is a criminal case or public policy issue.
[free] For instance tax law is public policy. When you work privately, that is private property and you have a right to keep it private. It is not subject to federal law or federal income tax. But the taxman likes to pretend otherwise. Not because he’s right but because he ignores the law to pursue your private property. And federal prosecutors are only too happy to ignore the law when prosecuting on tax matters, with the judges following along and playing the same game of let’s pretend. (watch for our education series on this issue coming soon to the members area).
Did you know that many judges were prosecutors and they have immunity too? Hmmm.
I can see the good reason for immunity and I can see the horrible reason for immunity. So what is the answer?
If lawyers have proven themselves, as a profession, to be liars throughout history can we really trust them to do the right thing, when there is no way to hold them accountable when they do the wrong thing?
Does that sound harsh? Let me put it another way…..people throughout history have proven quite consistently that when in positions of power or opportunities for wealth or gaining social position they are willing to lie, cheat or steal without regard for the effect on others…maybe we should have proper checks, balances and deterrents in place and enforce them.
The law profession is well known to run on ego, money, prestige, power and influence. they have been given free rein and look where we are. Maybe its time for a bigger leash and a little re-training.[/free]
Is it really very smart to give them immunity? Just a second. Who gave them immunity? Oh yes, their fellow lawyers.
You see, I’m still a bit naive. I really have to watch that.
If you have any stories about your experience of DoJ misconduct leave us a comment