Tuesday, March 21, 2017

Peter Leask Strikes Again - Update



The Vancouver Sun is reporting that "Citing an 'extremely shorthanded' judiciary, a B.C. Supreme Court judge Monday urged two lawyers to attempt to complete a two-week rape trial in five days, suggesting the prosecutor not call two Crown witnesses and limit questioning of the complainant."

"B.C. Supreme Court Justice Peter Leask, who lives and usually sits in the Lower Mainland, also said he would rather be home than in the Interior. 'Full disclosure: I live in Vancouver,' the judge said. “Kamloops is a wonderful place, but I like sleeping in my own bed.” The trial relates to allegations of ongoing sexual assaults of a teenaged girl by her stepfather in Adams Lake dating back to the mid-1970s. The stepfather is facing four charges, including rape and sexual intercourse with a female under 14 years old."

Peter Leask wants to fast track a rape trial and deny two witnesses because he is inconvenienced by having to hear the case in Kamloops when he lives in Vancouver. Fire Him! We all remember Peter Leask. He is the one that gave a Hells Angels associate house arrest for trafficking cocaine. He also let a full patch Hells Angel off when the police caught him red handed loading 52 kilos of cocaine onto a truck from His storage locker. The fact that Peter Leask is still a BC Supreme Court judge is a crime against humanity and proves things need to change.

Canada dot com printed an article by Georgialee Lang discussing why we need to elect judges in Canada like they do in the United States. Georgialee Lang is a Vancouver based lawyer who has her own blog called the Law Diva. She even has a religious affiliation.

Personally I'm not completely sold on the need to elect judges although I am not opposed to it. What we really need is a mechanism in place to get rid of bad judges because right now we have none. The fact that Peter Leask is still on the bench until he faces mandatory retirement at age 75 clearly shows the system is broken and needs to be fixed. I'm not the only one that thinks so.

Update: The Vancouver Sun is reporting that after Peter Leask denied the Crown's two star witnesses, the crown was forced to stay the rape charges. That is obscene. The Times Colonist is reporting that a complaint against Peter Leask has been filed with Canadian Judicial Council and well it should. When one bad cop does something wrong it makes all cops look bad. Likewise when one bad judge does something wrong it brings the entire judiciary into disrepute.

21 comments:

  1. Down here we also have the option of impeachment and removal. I'm pretty sure that something would have happened to a judge that let off a full patch HA caught with 52 kilo's (over 114.4 lbs to us who still insist on the inch system) of cocaine, never mind all that judges other douchebaggery.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The learned judge eh????

    Yes to a timely application of law in our court system tho









    ReplyDelete
  3. Peter Leask needs to be removed from the bench because of the statements he made at this trial. It is no different than other judges who have been removed for comments in rape trials. In my opinion Leask doesn't seem to think rape is a serious offence. He needs to go and now.

    As to electing judges, that would not be a good thing. there is much to much money involved in their campaigns and they run for political parties. Once they start accepting money to run their election campaigns justice can be bought and sold. the current system although not perfect is a whole lot better than what they have in the U.S.A. for more on how badly the election of judges business can be just check out Legal Schnauzzer. which chronicles the goings on in Alabama and their "justice" system or whatever you'd like to call it. Judges there appear to be able to be bought with little regard for "justice".

    ReplyDelete
  4. You actually have a point here, but the difference is, when you catch corrupt judges, guess where they go....with some of the douchebaggery Leask and others have pulled in BC, they wouldn't be on the bench long enough to do as much damage, Leask would have trouble getting re-elected dog catcher, a decent opponent would only have to call attention to his foibles.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Some accountability vs. no accountability. You say electing them wouldn't be a good thing, but yet you can't seem to suggest what would, so I guess nothing changes?

    You aren't helping.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Judges bought and paid???


    Canadian judges elected???

    Not for this Canadian citizen


    Politics does comes with a smell and not always a good one

    ReplyDelete
  7. Petitions were circulated after the other 2 judges made unacceptable comments in rape trials. lets hope they get started in B.C. also.

    If the crown's two witnesses were denied, one does have to wonder, what is really going on. Some male judges must don't seem to get the concept of rape and that it is illegal. who was the defendant and who was their lawyer?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am curious as to the result of the petitions.

      Sometimes petitions seem to work to a degree - but only on those who rely upon "public support" (i.e. politicians who are elected).

      Judges, like many senior admin. personnel, seem to think the are untouchable and act as such.

      Delete
    2. the two judges, one in Alberta and one in the Maritimes are no longer judges.

      In these cases the msm had reported on the cases. Then the petitions started. I don't think it hurt to have those petitions going around. the judicial boards which were "looking into the matter" knew full well they would not get away with keeping these judges as judges. The politicians wouldn't have wanted to keep them on either. Women do vote and so do the families of some of those women. Its 2017 and its not cool to ask a rape victim why she didn't keep her knees together. I think a petition against Leask would be in order and might have some effect, if for no other reason, he might retire early and take up gardening.

      Delete
    3. Perhaps start a petition then on CitizenGo or Change.org.

      Historically, rape was met with very severe penalties - often capital punishment.

      However, the "sexual revolution" of the '60's and feminists changed all that. Rape was reduced and combined with "sexual assault" which could be anything from comments to simple touching.

      Delete
  8. As Dennis says, a mechanism to get rid of problem judges is needed. The ballot box is only one potential avenue? OK, lets hear another. :crickets:

    Politics and the election of judges is indeed fraught with the potential for trouble, but what do you have right now? Oh that's right, trouble. The problem is, the deck is stacked against you the Canadian citizen. "They" don't want change, or accountability, or to be punished for their misdeeds. Not judges, not cops, not politicians. And unless you guys grow the stones to be outside their houses with pitchforks and torches after the sun goes down, you aren't getting any change unless you can vote them out. Witness the whole Presidential election down south. Hillary was "supposed to" win. The Dems wanted her. The Republican "establishment" wanted her, look how hard "his own side" tried to get rid of him. But in the end all that didn't matter, the American people decided otherwise.

    The ballot box or the cartridge box, those are your choices. You guys need to crack a history book, then learn the lesson that's right in front of your face.

    Force of Arms my friends. At the end of the day that, or the potential for it, is the only thing that people drunk on power respect. There is no police force out there that is capable of facing 100 to one odds, and the politicians know that. That's why the first thing they want (after your vote) is your guns. Not for your safety. For THEIR safety.

    So yeah, don't be like those Americans, don't have judges elected to the bench. Keep bleating about the need for reform while the Peter Leask's and the other betrayers of the public trust sleep comfortably in their own beds knowing you will, and can do, nothing. Who would judge the judges and decide if they had done wrong? Other judges? Sort of like the police investigating themselves....that will work out well....

    Suckers.....

    ReplyDelete
  9. Just saw a CBC news report released our learned judge and the case before him


    Perhaps this will raise an awareness to his trials and decisions

    ReplyDelete
  10. Oh my, "raise awareness". Another politically correct socialist catchphrase like all the others you guys have been fed for 50 years since Trudeau the Elder. I'll bet Leask is shaking in his boots and reconsidering the error of his ways, I mean, now that this is all out in the open and all.... :rolleyes:

    Your mechanism for enforcement is non-existent. Even if you were to get him turfed eventually, how much damage has he done already, a couple decades worth? If you make enough noise MAYBE eventually they will EVENTUALLY put him out to pasture with a full pension the likes of which the average Canadian cannot hope for.

    You get the government (and Justice system) that you are willing to accept. What are you going to do about it? About the crooked land deals, about the theft of BC Hydro, and all the rest. NOTHING. And they know it. They have little to nothing to fear from you.


    ReplyDelete
  11. Why would or should the government fear me


    What action do ya suggest to effect change in the system


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The fact that you would ask means you don't get it.

      Let me be clear. Either your government works for you and respects you, or it does not. Either you and your fellow citizens are it's masters, or it is yours.

      Free men do not ask permission to bear arms. Slaves do, however light their chains may be, and if permission is granted after jumping through a number of hoops that exist only to discourage them, their master always wants to know what they have and where it is. Registration = confiscation. "Give up your right to protect yourself, we will do it for you."

      Delete
  12. lol Raising awareness isn't a communist plot to take over the free world. That's the purpose of this blog. Sometimes that's all we can do.

    As I've said before, I'm not completely sold on the idea of electing judges but I'm not opposed to it either. Like Trailrunner said it's better than nothing which is what we have now.

    EAF made an interesting point about opening pandora's box with regards to Judges' election campaign and donors. I didn't really think of that.

    The key thing is that we need a mechanism in place to get rid of bad judges. Right now there is none. Making it a lifetime position until mandatory retirement at age 75 is problematic as well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. there is a mechanism, its just long and "painful". but it can be done. Making bad judgements isn't necessarily one of the grounds for getting rid of a judge, but if there were concerted efforts and as in this case with the rape case, Leask is the most vulnerable he has ever been.

      Having read up on some of the "antics" of elected Judges, I think our Canadian method is still better than electing them. too much money, too much political interference. and then when you have for profit jails you really have a problem. there have been cases of elected judges sending people to jails owned by those who financially supported them. If you're concerned about bad judges just wait until the judges' financial backer owns a prison.

      Delete
    2. The Canadian method is inherently flawed and is certainly not better. It needs to change.

      Delete
    3. Allow no money to be involved in the election of judges. THAT is where the corruption starts. Keep the playing field level, same amount of airtime for ads for all candidates. A simple listing online of the candidates or the candidates website's is all that should be allowed. Maximum of $1000.00 on posters, bumper stickers, etc.. Anyone who breaks that is guilty of an offense with a mandatory 1 year in jail per offense.

      The moment money enters into it, the moment people can make campaign donations, you are DONE and e.a.f.'s worst predictions will come true.

      But then some judge will rule that by limiting people from donating to someone's campaign you are limiting their right to political speech....

      And the game rolls on. We have met the enemy and he is us.

      Delete
    4. Perhaps neither method is the best.

      Or, perhaps a combination would be better.

      (It's like the tired olde attempted argument of punishment vs reform for prisoners in jails. Why not simply both? End of argument and best of both worlds.)

      Delete
  13. Once you give a politician control over something, they never EVER give it back. EVER. Despite all their whining, crying, pleading, and messages and false promises to the contrary. Control and power are the golden calf altar that they worship at, and they never waver from it's core tenets or principles.

    ReplyDelete