Bryant charged VI

remind wrote:

http://wiselaw.blogspot.com/2009/09/micael-bryant-did-police-rush-to.html http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2009/09/02/toronto-bryant-cyclist... To be fair everyone else appears to be saying it for Bryant.

So, remind, neither of your two articles has any statement by Bryant, and neither of your two articles mentions the word "carjacking".

[b][i]Are you still sticking by your claim that Bryant told a "blatant lie"? I'm still sticking by my claim that Bryant hasn't said a single word.[/i][/b]

martin dufresne wrote:

So why not cool it with the accusatory bold and italic, Unionist!... It didn't "start with Sineed" as you wrote; it started at the highest level of one of the most respected newspapers in the country, as speculation as to what Bryant may have felt.  

So, Bryant gets called a "liar" when he said nothing at all. And I get told to "cool it" because of the font that I use. Martin, there's very good analysis and condemnation of our "just for the rich" justice system being made by many posters in this thread. When total BS is concocted and then repeated, however (such as "Bryant lied!!!"), it just looks very dumb. It certainly doesn't make the argument any more convincing.

"bryantfacts on Twitter"

"Name Bryantfacts
Bio This account is maintained by Michael Bryant's team. The purpose of this account is to quickly correct inaccuracies as they appear with factual responses."

Awesome: They have the arrogance to inform us that witnesses' "assertions are already dismissed by police"!!!! Whatever happened to prosecutors and judges?

martin dufresne wrote:

I submit she is completely right and deserves an apology from YOU!  

Ok, martin.

Remind, you are completely right, and I apologize to you. I also apologize to you, martin.

Now, I've watched the video and can't see a damn thing. Thank goodness for all those balloons and editorial comments!

remind wrote:

Good point cue, blatent lie on [b]Bryant's team's[/b] part, there is no way that it can be skewed as a carjacking.

[emphasis added]

Thank you very much for editing your post, remind. That's all I was really looking for. Now it's unobjectionable.

I'm glad that Unionist is making us think about this one.  It's bringing better clarity to the going-ons.

Hope the heat stays on.

BTW, at the risk of thread drift, I heard today on Radio-Canada that Spanish Judge Baltasar Garzón is being subpoenaed before the Spanish Supreme Court for having dared to go ahead and started investigating, on his own and without State authorization, crimes against humanity committed under Franco's regime. Still a few eyewitnesses around, so can't have him starting to ask questions, especially when he has been a thorn in Spain's relationship with the U.S. by clamoring about Guantanamo detainees.

From Wikipedia's Baltasar Garzón entry:

"(...) On October 17, 2008, Garzón formally declared the acts of repression committed by the Franco regime to be crimes against humanity, and accounted them in more than one hundred thousand killings during and after the Spanish Civil War. He also ordered the exhumation of 19 unmarked mass graves, one of them believed to contain the remains of the poet Federico García Lorca.[7][8]

On November 17, 2008, Garzón said that he was dropping the case against Franco and his allies after state prosecutors questioned his jurisdiction over crimes committed 70 years ago by people who are now dead and whose crimes were covered by an amnesty passed in 1977. In a 152-page statement, he passed responsibility to regional courts for opening 19 mass graves believed to hold the remains of hundreds of victims.[9](...)"

But I see that Garzón's efforts against Guantanamo's torturers are starting to be discussed here.

martin dufresne wrote:

Who needs eye witnesses when they have a perfectly good old boys system in place to protect fat-cats from the mice?

Yes, isn't it strange that no editorialist is insisting on specially brought in Crown Prosecutor Richard Peck's blatant conflict of interest, pointed out by writer here, post #4,  in the "Bryant charged IV" thread, on September 3?

(CV of Richard Peck, QC - Taman Inquiry)

•Special Prosecutor Richard Peck, speaking at the Taman Inquiry, answering questions about another special prosecutor in another case. A special prosecutor who was normally a defence lawyer. Read. Weep. (http://www.ngnews.ca/index.cfm?sid=158585&sc=503)]

Hmmm? Is he the same Dick Peck [url=http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2009/08/28/bc-jack-crone... this case[/url] defending a fat-cat bank exec from charges of possessing a shitload of child pornography, and advocating for a hard-line crackdown on the internet? It sounds like Peck is out standing in his field.