Dr Spin is reporting that "On her second day of providing instructions to the jurors prior to their deliberations, Maisonville said they didn’t have to accept that every single email or text was written by either Amero or Alkhalil in order to convict one of both of them. She said during the search, police seized a number of BlackBerry PGP (pretty good privacy) devices. Police were able to recover messages from some of the devices. She recounted how evidence led by Crown showed that Vancouver Police, along with a SWAT team and local officers executed a search warrant at a Montreal penthouse shared by Amero and Alkhalil in August 2012."
So once again, the evidence for this trial came from the Montreal police not the CFSEU in BC.
2nd Update: I stopped in again Thursday morning. Larry Amero was there as well as the jury. I didn't recognize Larry at first. He wore black rim glasses, had his hair in a bun and wore a Mr Rodgers sweater. He looked like a total nerd. I guess that's part of the courtroom theatrics. The judge continued reading 275 pages of evidence to the jury and said she probably wouldn't be finished until Friday where upon the jury would then begin their deliberations.
The judge's instructions to the jury were lame. How can a preplanned, premeditated murder not be referred to as an execution? She is an inferior judge. That's a term the Supreme court judges use for the other judges of the lower courts. It is arrogant, derogatory and false. Peter Leask was an idiot. When this judge refuses to administer justice she becomes an inferior judge.
I stopped in at Larry Amero's murder trial yesterday and noticed something dodgy was going on. The jury wasn't present and they were arguing about instructions to the jury before the final verdict.
Turns out the defense had submitted an application for a mistrial and the crown had just received it 8:30 AM that morning and asked to argue it 9:00 AM today so I came back today to check it out. Thankfully the application failed and the jury was scheduled to reconvene 11:30 AM today. Sounds like it was just a Hail Mary by the defense before the conclusion of the trial.
There is a publication ban in effect and I have to search through their website to find the publication ban and see what it covers. The Registration desk won't give it to you. We have to obey it but they make it pretty difficult for you to find it.
While I look for it, I'm going to make a comment because it falls within the realm of Natural Justice. After all, the court bows to natural justice or at least it's supposed to. If the judicial system fails to uphold justice then it is like salt that's lost it's flavor. It's good for nothing. It's to be cast aside and trodden under foot by man.
The crown or the defense may not necessarily agree with the judge's instructions to the jury just like they may not necessarily agree with the judge's decision or the jury's verdict. That's why they're in court. They don't agree on something and the matter needs to be adjudicated.
It is common knowledge that Robby and Dean have already been convicted in the murder of Johnny Raposo. Robby was already serving a life sentence before he "escaped."
That is public knowledge. Unless the jury has been living under a rock, they already know that.
It would be an absurd miscarriage of justice if the crown was not allowed to mention that fact in their closing argument to the jury. When my kids were in grade seven they used to be peer mediators. The school would get the grade sevens to break up fights between the younger kids. One time my kids did something and I was harping on them about it. All of a sudden they get in my grill and said you can't say that, that's past history. I was like say what?
Then they explained that they were taught in Peer Mediation that you can't bring up previous events in an argument because that's past history. That's when I laughed out loud. I understand the intent of what they were trying to tell the kids. They were trying to say, in relationships when people get in an argument you can't keep bringing up past events. We're not talking about that now. Now we're talking about this.
However, as I so eloquently pointed out to my kids at the time, if you're in court because you stole a car and you stole 15 cars before that, you can't say to the judge you're not allowed to bring that up because that's past history. The judge is allowed to bring that up because it's called a criminal record. Likewise in this case, the crown most certainly is allowed to bring up the murder of Johnny Raposo. It's their duty because in any criminal trial the judge always lists the accused's previous criminal offenses in their judgement.
It is also an obscene miscarriage of justice that the crown never submitted the encrypted blackberry evidence they had on Larry Amero from the Vincent Ramos case. They were forbidden to do so by the US Intelligence Agency that convicted their CI instead of the criminals that were using his encrypted blackberries. Yeah I went there because that matters.
It is also an obscene miscarriage of justice that Larry Amero hasn't been charged in all the other murders they had evidence of his involvement in from the encrypted Blackberry including but not limited to the Surrey Six which they have completely screwed up beyond any semblance of justice.
All I'm going to say is that Larry Amero is a b*tch and so is his little donkey Jamie Bacon.
Although it's hard to notice, I've been trying really hard not to trash Larry because I know his Godson. His Godson is a really good man. Larry Amero is not. I'm not going to kick the cat but it's not the entire club. Larry Amero is a bad apple. He doesn't even ride. He just sells drugs, takes juice and hires people to kill rivals. That's all he does. Well that doesn't impress me. Larry Amero is a suburban princess from Walnut Grove. F*ck him. He's just a Surrey Jack.
Publication ban update:
OK the court registry gave me a hack to find the publication bans on Larry Amero's trial and I'm going to post it before I forget it for future reference. When you're at the court there's a sign posted that says publication ban in effect and gives you their website www.courts.gov.bc.ca to find them. So I go to the website which redirects you to www.bccourts.ca Go to the left drop down menu and click on Media, Publication Bans & Policies. Then you click Supreme court.
After that you click, Publication Bans and then Publication Ban Search. That takes you to the search page. Only the search box wouldn't work. I typed in 6011 which is the Vancouver registry. Then I typed in R. v Larry Amero just like the example and it says no results found and i'm like WTF. How the hell am I supposed to find it?
This is the hack the registry gave me:
Remove the dates in the to and from sections. Leave them blank. Just like how you leave the location blank in the CSO search. Then in the Registry box, instead of putting the number for the Vancouver Registry, put in the file number which in this case is: 27393 Leave the case name blank and click search - voilà. All the publication bans are then listed.
To condense that list just cut and paste Larry Ronald Amero into the Case name box then click search again. Voilà. All the publication bans that specifically apply to Larry Amero are now listed.
6ixaktv what they heard.
We can then look up the publication ban to determine what we can and can't post on social media. That is everyone's right and if people start doing that, the courts will be more accountable to the people who pay their wages. Peter Leask was an idiot. History has recorded that.
A few years ago Dr Spin claimed criticizing court judges was illegal. I said bullsh*t and did it anyways. Neil Hall mentioned that in his book. David Toner and his wife Sandra had a trauma support group for families of victims of criminal violence called FACT - Families Against Crime and Trauma. They had a retired court judge on their Board of Directors named Wallace Craig.
Judge Wallace Craig said that not only is if legal for a tax paying citizen to criticize a bad decision from a court judge, it is their moral duty. So here we are.
Back to the publication bans that specifically relate to Larry Amero. If you click on the links to each specific ban under ban details in the final column, you will see exactly what they do and do not cover. The first one, which was the most recent made ban, states that "The identity of a juror or any information that could disclose the identity of a juror shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way." That's pretty simple. Why would I do that? I wouldn't. I'd never publish the identity of a juror.
The second one states that "The evidence taken, information given or the representations made and the reasons given at a show cause (bail) hearing shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way until a preliminary hearing is held and the accused is discharged, or if the accused is ordered to stand trial, the trial has ended." That one specifically applies to a bail hearing and expires when the trial has ended.
Most publication bans, except those protecting the identity of witnesses, expire. That's why I was able to post the Janice Edwards transcript about Diane Rock being gang raped on the Pickton Farm. Gang raped implicates more than one suspect which is why the judge changed his instructions to the jury
and said the jury could convict Pickton even if he wasn't the only suspect or even the main suspect, just an active participant. Which they did.
The third ban sates that "Information including evidence taken, submissions made and rulings or reasons given in this proceeding including during any voir dire applications or pre-trial conferences shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way until further order of the Court. For more details about the specific nature of the publication ban, please contact the Criminal Registry."
That one just applies to the voir dire or pre-trial conference. Everybody knows that. Everyone knows you can't publish evidence the jury hasn't had a chance to see. For the most part, evidence the jury hears and arguments the crown or the defense makes may be published by anyone. This is why it's so important to look up the ban and see what it actually says.
The final ban which was the first one made states that "The evidence, representation made and the reasons given at a show cause (bail) hearing shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way until a preliminary hearing is held and the accused is discharged, or if the accused is ordered to stand trial, the trial has ended."
Once again, that specifically applies to the bail hearing which happened a long time ago. You can't publish any evidence, arguments or reasons given at a bail hearing until the trial has ended. So there you have it. All those doom and gloom publication ban signs at Larry Amero's murder trial basically mean nothing. Any evidence the jury hears and any arguments the crown or defense makes while the jury is present may be published now. So mote it be.