It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Toronto: The Ghomeshi Trial

page: 1
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 09:01 AM
link   
The Toronto Star has begun its coverage of the trial of Jian Ghomeshi in its usual tendentious style, with the headline The case against Ghomeshi. I will be greatly surprised if tomorrow's headline reads, in the spirit of fairness, The case against Ghomeshi's accusers.

There is little chance of that happening.

However, I will follow the trial as best I can from my bunker, and remark on it if anything of interest comes to mind.

One thing of interest that came immediately to mind as I looked at the front page of the newspaper, was the name of the presiding judge, William B. Horkins. I met Judge Horkins many years ago when he was practicing criminal law. He represented me in a case, the details of which I will not go into. He did a satisfactory job although I was quite bitter about the outcome of the case at the time. Mr. (at the time) Horkins succeeded in having charges against me dropped, but the surprise introduction of a "peace bond" left me quite disgusted at the end of the process. It left me under a pall where I worked and grated on me for a long time.

Eventually I realized the wisdom of it and the practical realities that determine the path a criminal defense attorney must sometimes take through a case.

However the end of the case was only the beginning of a long ordeal of harassment, being forced to quit my job and being in actual fear of my life. The case brought economic catastrophe to my life and a precipitate drop in my standard of living. I withdrew socially. I still bear the scars of the experience and am quite convinced I would have been killed if I did not have recourse to people with real hard power.

I think I can empathize with both Mr. Ghomeshi and also with those bringing charges against him, in the situation. To a large extent I've been there.

Those unfamiliar with this case might want to check out my thread, Sex Scandal or Libel at the CBC?, for background information and issues:

www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 30-1-2016 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-1-2016 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 09:25 AM
link   
a reply to: ipsedixit

Thanks for the post . I was wondering about this case and when it would be finally seeing some court action .I just wanted to tag the post and check in as new news comes out . Are you going to be observing from the court room ?



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 09:28 AM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

I'm really tempted to do that, but it would mean a long trip downtown on only a chance of getting a seat. I'll think about it.



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 09:39 AM
link   
a reply to: ipsedixit

Didn't he also have a counter suit against the CBC ?



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 09:45 AM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

He did file a lawsuit against the CBC but I don't know the status of that.



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 11:10 PM
link   
I was trying to make up my mind whether or not to attend the trial and decided to seek advice from a woman who lives in our house. Her and I have a distant relationship despite having shared accommodations for decades. She's very social. I am a loner. She's a pie eyed socialist. I am a cynical near ward of the state with a penchant for gnawing on the hand that feeds me.

We were converging in the hallway, she, just back from a mysterious trip to Europe that I only found out about through another person. I am definitely out of her loop.

I said, "Do you think I should attend the Ghomeshi trial?"

She stopped in her tracks and looked suspiciously at me for an inordinate amount of time before responding. She said, "Am I missing something here?"

Like a dullard, I said nothing.

"Why would you want to go to the Ghomeshi trial? Aren't there any good movies playing?"

"Uh . . ." She doesn't know that I have written about the case.

"Honestly, I can't make head nor tail of you sometimes. Why are you interested in the Ghomeshi case?

"Uh, ah, uh . . ."

"You're going down there to watch victims of that monster bearing their souls to the court, humiliating themselves, enduring the agony of testimony before spectators and the press, in the very likely vain hope of receiving justice and the restoration of their personal dignity."

"Uh, I just wondered if you thought it would be a good . . . "

"I've heard enough", she said abruptly, and walked past me into her room, closing the door firmly behind her.

Now what do I do?

She's the one who subscribes to the Toronto Star.



posted on Jan, 31 2016 @ 12:24 AM
link   
Ha! Jian Ghomeshi made a living as a wolf in sheep's clothing.

I first heard of this guy when gamergate went down and he wrote this: Jian Ghomeshi to #Gamergate: Our culture’s toxic masculinity crisis on display .


When do we get to talk seriously about misogyny and violence against women? A list of opportunities we should take


You read that title correctly . . . toxic masculinity . . . and now he has been exposed.

Hahahaha good stuff!

-FBB
edit on 31-1-2016 by FriedBabelBroccoli because: 101


//Edit

I should note this article came out after Ghomeshi engaged in an anti-gamergate campaign for cbc.
The endless coverage of that fit of crazy seems to be shinning a light on many of the activists involved
in these sorts of actions.

Now let the show begin, I can not wait to watch this guy get his come-upance
//edit
edit on 31-1-2016 by FriedBabelBroccoli because: 202



posted on Jan, 31 2016 @ 08:34 AM
link   
Lawyers and Cases, Part 1

Far and away the most important person that will be attending the Ghomeshi trial is Justice Horkins.

I can't believe it. It's so perfect for this thread.

It is mind bogglingly serendipitous that I should have had the experience of being a client of his, his employer I should say, years ago.

There is so much to be said about this. How is it that I, a nobody, a less than nobody, a nobody to the umpteenth negative index, an obscure commentator on a website that is, frankly, populated by, uh, eccentrics, should have come into contact with the person who is at the center of the most notorious criminal case in the nation's history since, uh, who was that guy who molested hockey players?

Robert Pickton? Clifford Olson?

Nevermind. I need to stay focused on the now and I need to adopt a more professional tone.

I'd never heard of Justice Horkins, Mr. Horkins at the time I met him.

I needed legal assistance so I consulted with members of my family who exist at a far remove from me in every way, particularly financially. They are very well off and successful. They sent me to talk to a high priced corporate lawyer who listened to my story as a favor to a corporate client.

That was a strange experience. It took place in an opulent, wood paneled office. I felt like a Syrian refugee asking for a stay of execution.

The surprisingly young attorney sitting behind the expensive desk listened to me with attention, wary, but smoothly correct in every nuance of our conversation. After hearing what I had to say, he recommended that I talk to Mr. Horkins.

I knew then that Mr. Horkins had been calculated to be the very best representation that a person of my limited means could afford. I was ushered out politely and started the next leg of my journey.

One of the problems that lawyers have, and I could detect it in the young corporate lawyer I consulted with, is to determine how much of the story they are listening to is true. This is very disconcerting to the person telling the story. One is used to telling people things and being believed. Telling people things and then having to prove them is a considerable burden.

When I told my story to Mr. Horkins, I felt a degree of skepticism coming from him that even surpassed that of the corporate lawyer.



posted on Jan, 31 2016 @ 08:47 AM
link   
a reply to: ipsedixit

Hey ipsedixit!

Ignore the woman (who just came back from Europe)...she is living in a different world to you (in her head). Her opinion should mean nothing to you...don't take it personally!
Says the girl who's irked you called us "eccentrics", lol.


You have a personal interest in this story (in regards to Justice Horkins), right?
So go.
It doesn't matter if 'Miss Nobody Important' decides to judge you for attending, you have your own reasons.

I did jury duty when I was younger and I'm fascinated by court cases. I watched the Jodi Arias trial, live...daily for a while. Some of us weirdo's are interested in the law...the process...the final verdict.

Oh, by the way...you're a good writer, well spoken! Some of the best people I know are here...in their bunkers, lol.

jacy



posted on Jan, 31 2016 @ 09:22 AM
link   
a reply to: jacygirl

Thank you my dear. You made my day.

I'm not sure if I will go. I would like to hear the testimony first hand, for sure. I don't know. Reporters from the Toronto media will be there. What if they accost me, I mean the ones from The Star? I don't want to be "kettled" by them and pushed into an alley and dispatched.

Maybe I'll go in disguise. I have experimented with a blond bouffant wig and women's clothing. With the appropriate application of makeup I could pass convincingly for a combination of David Ferrie and Jada Conforte.

www.youtube.com...

grandsubversion.com...



People would think my beard was a scarf or fluffy collar.

If I go, I will be be completely unobtrusive, as befits the gravity of the proceedings.
edit on 31-1-2016 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2016 @ 09:34 AM
link   
a reply to: ipsedixit

Ahh...hahahaha.....sorry, but when I worked in a grocery store, there was a lady customer who had blonde hair...and a full beard. Honest.
(was that you?) It's okay if it was because I was always very nice to her, I mean you...lol

Sometimes you just have to find a way to laugh, friend.

If you're interested you should go. Then you can report back to us here, yes?

I was born in Toronto and don't live far away now. Are you really a Canadian, cuz you haven't said "eh?" yet!
jacy



posted on Jan, 31 2016 @ 09:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: jacygirl
a reply to: ipsedixit

Ahh...hahahaha.....sorry, but when I worked in a grocery store, there was a lady customer who had blonde hair...and a full beard. Honest.
(was that you?) It's okay if it was because I was always very nice to her, I mean you...lol


It wasn't me. Her job was to keep your eyes away from the candy counter.


Sometimes you just have to find a way to laugh, friend.


So true.


If you're interested you should go. Then you can report back to us here, yes?


Yes. I have a very finely tuned sensitivity to anomalies. I don't have confidence that the local press will observe the proceedings with the same degree of acuity.


I was born in Toronto and don't live far away now. Are you really a Canadian, cuz you haven't said "eh?" yet!
jacy


I am Canadian. I was born just south of Detroit, Michigan. Maybe that accounts for the lack of "ehs", eh?

My dear cousin from Detroit says "huh?".
edit on 31-1-2016 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2016 @ 10:07 AM
link   
a reply to: ipsedixit

Aww, I see. Of course you won't "eh?" unless you were hatched here!

My British parents are likely rolling in their graves, as I go back and forth between Canuck-talk and Yorkshire dialect!

(My mother actually claimed that all Canadians were either 'farmers' or 'peasants'. I'm not a farmer, so I guess I'm a peasant.)

If you do decide to keep us up-to-date with the trial, I will read. (Hey it's local for once!)

Your friendly peasant neighbour,
jacy



posted on Jan, 31 2016 @ 10:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: jacygirl
a reply to: ipsedixit

Aww, I see. Of course you won't "eh?" unless you were hatched here!


A lot of people don't realize it, but part of "here" is just south of Detroit, Michigan.


My British parents are likely rolling in their graves, as I go back and forth between Canuck-talk and Yorkshire dialect!

(My mother actually claimed that all Canadians were either 'farmers' or 'peasants'. I'm not a farmer, so I guess I'm a peasant.)


Wow, a Geordie, right, and you've learned to speak English too! Very clever.



If you do decide to keep us up-to-date with the trial, I will read. (Hey it's local for once!)

Your friendly peasant neighbour,
jacy


This trial will be very interesting. I hope to be pertinent and correct.



posted on Jan, 31 2016 @ 10:26 AM
link   
a reply to: ipsedixit

Lol...I often tell Americans (online) that I am further south (into the States area) then THEY are (depending on their locale of course).
Usually when they ask me how cold it is here. In August.

*sigh* Well at least you didn't call me a "Yorkie" .


Trial should be interesting. I will be paying attention now too.



posted on Jan, 31 2016 @ 10:38 AM
link   
a reply to: jacygirl

I was in the UK in 1975 and was up in that area, roughly Yorkshire, (I just got the Yorkie joke! Ha, ha. Oh my. Reminds me of how Oscar Peterson disliked being referred to by hipsters as a "Spade Cat".) and wow, never have people been so divided by a common language (as one wit once said).
edit on 31-1-2016 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2016 @ 10:55 AM
link   
a reply to: ipsedixit

Hmmm....methinks there is a big difference between "spade" cat and "spayed" cat!!!
Everything is so politically correct these days.

I was in that area in 1970.
Are we old?




posted on Jan, 31 2016 @ 11:15 AM
link   
a reply to: jacygirl

I'll have to close it off for now but personally, I am beyond old. I have entered my second teenagehood and am learning to play guitar. I have to go practice now, à toute à l'heure.

(The lady who went to Europe is older in years than I am but has just recently emerged from emotional childhood into self assured immaturity.)
edit on 31-1-2016 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-1-2016 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2016 @ 07:54 PM
link   
I've decided not to go to the trial tomorrow.

During the "process" against former Attorney General Michael Bryant I tugged the tiger's tail pretty hard and managed to emerge unscathed. This Ghomeshi case is different. This is a trial, not a "process". Commenting on it in any more than the most banal way is to tempt censure from the court and possibly charges.

I simply can't risk that.

I hesitate even to voice hypotheses about what I believe will happen. A couple of hours ago I read an article in The Winnipeg Free Press from the wire service of The Canadian Press that outlines the charges against Ghomeshi in more legal detail than I have seen in The Toronto Star.

www.winnipegfreepress.com...

This article points out an oddity in those charges.


"The Crown has elected to proceed summarily on the (sexual assault) counts that are before the court," said Brendan Crawley, a spokesman for the Ministry of the Attorney General.

Going the summary route means the prosecution, after looking at exactly what Ghomeshi is alleged to have done, must have been satisfied the sexual assault allegations were not so serious that, if proven against the first-time offender, would warrant punishment more severe than a maximum 18 months.

However, given that the sex charges involve incidents that happened in 2002 and 2003, Ghomeshi's lawyer would have had to agree to the summary proceedings given that charges prosecuted this way must normally be laid within six months of the alleged offense.


In the Bryant case the charge of "failing to remain" was left off the docket despite the blatant appearance of Bryant's having done so. The Crown was satisfied that there were mitigating circumstances in that case, but a jury never got to mull that over for themselves.

Now, in the Ghomeshi case, we have charges on the docket that we are told, technically, ought not to be there. Those charges "must normally", we are told, be laid within six months, but in this case, refer to events alleged to have taken place in 2002 and 2003.

It is very hard to convict someone of charges which are not on the docket, as we saw in the Bryant case, but it is surely much easier to convict someone of something that, technically, they should not even be charged with, if that charge is put on the docket, out of the normal way of proceeding.

What are these charges?

Here is the description given to the Toronto Star:

www.thestar.com...


At the end of the evening, he offered her a ride home in his yellow Volkswagen Beetle.

She alleges that as soon as they were in the car Ghomeshi reached over to the passenger seat, as if to kiss her, grabbed her hair and “yanked it hard.”

“I was completely shocked,” she said. “He asked if I like it rough. Quite honestly, I don’t remember what I said. I was so shocked.” She pulled back from Ghomeshi and he drove her home in silence.

She returned at his invitation to a taping of the show two weeks later, and then they went on a date to see a concert by singer-songwriter Kathleen Edwards. She recalls finding the CBC host charming and wondered if the incident in the car was an aberration. The concert over, he asked her back to his home in Riverdale for a drink. Once there, she alleges, without consent he grabbed her hair and pulled her down to the floor. Then, she alleges, he delivered three sharp punches to the side of her head while she lay on the floor.

“I was crying. Just crying. He stood there looking at me and said, ‘You should leave.’” The woman said she called a taxi and left the home. She told a girlfriend about the incident but did not consider making a police report.



Time period: July 2003
Ghomeshi was in the audience at a Toronto music and dance event in a park in Toronto in the summer of 2003. He ran into a woman he knew from the arts and culture scene. The woman, in her early 30s, had gone on a few dates with Ghomeshi but they had never been intimate.

They went for a walk when the event was over and, according to the woman, Ghomeshi attacked her while they were sitting on a bench. He began kissing her forcefully and then “put his hands around my neck and choked me.”

“He smothered me,” she said. She alleges Ghomeshi then grabbed her arms hard and “bit” her, then pushed her down on the park bench and “groped” her.

“I pushed him away. It really scared me. He was so aggressive,” the woman said. The next day, she said, Ghomeshi contacted her and “acted like nothing had happened.”

“There was absolutely nothing consensual about what happened to me,” the woman said in an interview with the Star.


This is pretty thin gruel. The "choking, overcome resistance" charge, described in the Star, is much the same.

I ask myself why Ghomeshi is being charged with these things, when these women were, allegedly, simply roughed up in cursory fashion, with no damage mentioned, other than wounded pride and no charges filed at the time.

I understand why the women came forward, in a group, but I don't understand why the Crown proceeded with charges like these.

What is the point of these charges?

These women weren't raped or worked over with rubber truncheons. They were, if the allegations are true, bullied, and the normal time limit for laying the charges on what appear to be puerile, teenage type offenses, has been exceeded by years.

What is the point of these charges? I can't figure it out.

I wonder what the status of Ghomeshi's lawsuit against the CBC is? I wonder if he will sue the CBC successfully after he wins his court case against the Bacchantes.

This is a technical case. unum annum poena

Well, one thing we can all agree on. Ghomeshi is certainly being well defended by an incredible criminal attorney. It says so in The Star.

edit on 31-1-2016 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-1-2016 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 12:25 PM
link   
a reply to: ipsedixit

Hey hun,
My computer froze last night, internet went off and I couldn't get back until now.

I will be back soon to get caught up, and leave a better reply lol.
jacy



new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join