Small scandal in Canada. Since we don't care about politicians getting a blowjob by a dude in an airport, we need something else to pass the time :)
A Quebec Court of Appeal judge formely advised a group of Hell's Angels when he was a lawyer, for matters dealing with their trademark. Hell's Angels are a criminal biker organization, and simple association with the group is a criminal offense in Canada.
Article (http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/802683--tories-defend-appointment-of-judge-who-as-a-lawyer-worked-for-hells-angels)
Opinion piece (French) (http://www.cyberpresse.ca/chroniqueurs/yves-boisvert/201004/28/01-4274894-malaise-a-la-cour-dappel.php)
The problem surfaced when the judge did not recuse himself from a case involving other Hell's Angels. The Quebec Court of Appeal Chief Justice removed him from the case.
So, naturally, the opposition is "outraged". They always are, anyway :D
They want to know how such a person (he was a former Conservative Party president) could become a judge.
Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong. He never commited a crime, and he never even represented them in criminal cases. Had a judge often represented organized crime members, I might have some worries. But this... Imho, it's not serious at all.
So, should a lawyer representing criminals be barred from ever achieving a position of judge in any kind of criminal court?
Heh, lawyers representing criminals?! Heaven forbid! :blink:
We can't have defense lawyers who are so lost to integrity as to work for criminals. And if we do, clearly they can never again be placed in positions of power and influence like a judge. How did such a thing ever come to be?
judgie fagits
Is this some kind of weird lawyer humor that I am not getting?
Quote from: Malthus on April 30, 2010, 09:56:15 AM
Heh, lawyers representing criminals?! Heaven forbid! :blink:
We can't have defense lawyers who are so lost to integrity as to work for criminals. And if we do, clearly they can never again be placed in positions of power and influence like a judge. How did such a thing ever come to be?
You know what would be better? There should be some mechanism by which we tell the criminals from the falsely accused non-criminals, after a presentation and careful consideration of all the available evidence... :hmm:
So he was never a member of the Hell's Angels, he just did lawyer-ing work for them? And that prevents him form being a judge?
That might be one of the more absurd things I have heard of before.
Quote from: Kleves on April 30, 2010, 10:03:34 AM
Quote from: Malthus on April 30, 2010, 09:56:15 AM
Heh, lawyers representing criminals?! Heaven forbid! :blink:
We can't have defense lawyers who are so lost to integrity as to work for criminals. And if we do, clearly they can never again be placed in positions of power and influence like a judge. How did such a thing ever come to be?
You know what would be better? There should be some mechanism by which we tell the criminals from the falsely accused non-criminals, after a presentation and careful consideration of all the available evidence... :hmm:
Next step, have each trade-mark lawyer subject their wannabe clients to this mechanism. ;)
Quote from: sbr on April 30, 2010, 10:04:24 AM
That might be one of the more absurd things I have heard of before.
Hey, it's the NDP and Bloc Quebecois. They do five more absurd things before breakfast each day. ;)
Using the same logic, all former prosecutors should have to recuse themselves whenever the state (or federal government) is a party.
Quote from: Malthus on April 30, 2010, 09:56:15 AM
Heh, lawyers representing criminals?! Heaven forbid! :blink:
We can't have defense lawyers who are so lost to integrity as to work for criminals. And if we do, clearly they can never again be placed in positions of power and influence like a judge. How did such a thing ever come to be?
that's what I thought :)
Representing organized crime on a regular basise might be problematic, but advising them once for legitimate business purpose, I don't get all the fuss.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 30, 2010, 10:11:15 AM
Using the same logic, all former prosecutors should have to recuse themselves whenever the state (or federal government) is a party.
that he recuse himself from a case, to avoid any kind of suspicion, I don't think it's such a bad idea.
But preventing a lawyer from ever becoming a judge because of one client he once had, I think it's stupid. But I had to ask to be sure...
Quote from: viper37 on April 30, 2010, 09:41:07 AMHell's Angels are a criminal biker organization, and simple association with the group is a criminal offense in Canada.
I hope having your red wings doesn't count
Well, there are a number of issues at play here. While the NDP and the Bloc are pushing the Hell's Angels connection because it is liable to be more newsworthy (and articles such as these are proof of the soundess of their analysis...), the sticky points are more diffuse...
Justice Lebel was removed from the case he was about to judge, because he did not inform anyone that he served as legal counsel (for a number of years, it seem, and not simply once) in copywright matters with the Hell's Angels (a group since then declared "a criminal organization"). He was therefore removed from the case by the Chief Justice.
Justice Lebel's nomination in 2009 is one of those rare instances where there was no clear consensus on his merits as a jurist, or his professional experience, leaving ample room for remarking his very clear ties with the Conservative party. Even today, as a judge, it seems his merits are...less than stellar.
I don't know about trademark lawyers, but there are some lawyers that have pretty much made their careers over representing HAs in criminal proceedings.
The lawyers that I can think of that fit that description I would NOT want sitting as judges.
I think that lawyers should not be allowed to become judges. In fact, I think that only I should be allowed to be a judge, and that I should judge everything, Solomon-style.
Quote from: viper37 on April 30, 2010, 10:22:29 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 30, 2010, 10:11:15 AM
Using the same logic, all former prosecutors should have to recuse themselves whenever the state (or federal government) is a party.
that he recuse himself from a case, to avoid any kind of suspicion, I don't think it's such a bad idea.
So lets say as a private lawyer I give legal advice to the AARP (American Associated of Retired People) on compliance with media and election law issues.
If I later become a judge, do I have to recuse myself anytime a retiree is a party to the lawsuit?
Quote from: Oexmelin on April 30, 2010, 10:51:50 AM
Justice Lebel was removed from the case he was about to judge, because he did not inform anyone that he served as legal counsel (for a number of years, it seem, and not simply once) in copywright matters with the Hell's Angels (a group since then declared "a criminal organization"). He was therefore removed from the case by the Chief Justice.
I don't get it.
As I understand this case, Person A, hired him to register a bunch of trademarks relating to the Hell's Angels.
Three years later person B appears before him as a defendant in a criminal case.
The only connection that person B has to Person A (the former client) is that Person B happens to be in the same motorcycle club. How is that grounds for recusal?
QuoteJustice Lebel's nomination in 2009 is one of those rare instances where there was no clear consensus on his merits as a jurist, or his professional experience, leaving ample room for remarking his very clear ties with the Conservative party. Even today, as a judge, it seems his merits are...less than stellar.
Ok so he was a crappy appointment. That's unfortunate. But not a reason to create special recusal rules for him.