Thanks for this very interesting episode. You might find interesting a recent conference regarding men's rights and the difficulties experienced in Australia and various legal analyses. The channel is Bettina Arndt. The conference from August was "Restoring the Presumption of Innocence" Great speakers including Augusto Zimmermann, Law professor and former WA law reform commissioner who is an outspoken critic of Australia’s domestic violence laws.
I attended the conference. I flew from Auckland to Sydney for the weekend. Every speaker was passionate and the information they presented was astonishing (but unsurprising to many.)
The issue is that the complainant has no penalty. The kid gets to pay legal fees and have the stress defending himself. The girl with herfeminist enablers have no penalty.
I was on a jury for an SA trial years ago. It was clear that the complainants and even the Crown were unenthusiastic about proceeding. There was a woman at the prosecution table who did not appear to be part of the Crown's team, so I assumed was some sort of victim advocate and appeared to be the impetus for proceeding to trial. Makes me think about Mr. Bury's comment a while ago about Crown's who are afraid to tell a complainant that a case will not go to trial. Not guilty regarding one complainant, directed not guilty for the other.
Isn't it a case of the Crown opening a door by entering (a portion) of a message thread? Then they must accept the unabridged and verifiable message thread.
There are huge benefits to the ongoing trend of more and better communication occurring in the moment. But using the criminal justice system to drive this trend forward risks having a harsh and disproportionate impact on a relatively small number of unlucky individuals that the criminal justice system makes examples of. And it's also important for the criminal justice system to recognize that real human communication is slow with frequent errors/misunderstandings, and it can also be a bit distracting when concentration on other activities is required. A more or less continuous baseline of some sort of basic communication to make sure everything's going OK as the moment progresses is essential. But real human communication does require some level of assumptions and guesses based on patterns of previous statements and behaviors. If the criminal justice system is to avoid holding people to an impossible ideal of instant perfect effortless communication, then previous statements and patterns of behavior do need to be considered in some form.
There was a case on the East Coast where a Muslim Uber driver screwed his passed out drunk fare in the back seat and was found not guilty based on alleged prior consent, contrary to the SCC ruling that consent had to be ongoing, and contrary to the notion someone that piss drunk can't consent to begin with. I don't know if the Crown appealed.
Great idea to demand all the texts. In essence, you're demanding a thorough investigation - which you previously said police don't have to do, contrary to my position - Remember? 😅
Maybe it's because I'm not a lawyer, but... If a guy shows up at my door with a pizza, I'm not obligated to buy it. If I order a pizza and he shows up I am... unless I can show I canceled the order.
Do you have any past cases like that, where your client's texts were kept out and he was convicted? That would be great, use those texts to bring a private charge as noted below. Set precedent and alter the universe!! 😂 Do it!!That would really entrench things, and maybe prompt the Crown to advise the complaiant that if the accused is convicted, bere's what can happen . . . .
Intent goes to men's rea. If he texted and said I look forward to r*ping you tonight, would they judge allow it? I mean, these cases are all he said - she said and come down to who you believe. Anything that speaks to the parties wishes or intentions has to be relevant. If judges persist not allowing such evidence, then file a private charge against the Complainant for Counselling to Commit a Crime or Conspiracy to Commit a Crime or inducing someone to commit a crime and get it in that way!! 😂 Yeah it's novel but so what?!?!
You can also di a Mandamus Application to force the police to do their job as a cheaper alternative, and once you get one favourable ruling you're in for all future cases 😂!!
Thanks for this very interesting episode. You might find interesting a recent conference regarding men's rights and the difficulties experienced in Australia and various legal analyses.
The channel is Bettina Arndt. The conference from August was "Restoring the Presumption of Innocence"
Great speakers including Augusto Zimmermann, Law professor and former WA law reform commissioner who is an outspoken critic of Australia’s domestic violence laws.
I attended the conference. I flew from Auckland to Sydney for the weekend. Every speaker was passionate and the information they presented was astonishing (but unsurprising to many.)
@@gregdiffenthal2384 great effort from you. I've been viewing the videos. As you say, astonishingly.
Wow you guys should have your own Broadway Show🎉
The issue is that the complainant has no penalty. The kid gets to pay legal fees and have the stress defending himself. The girl with herfeminist enablers have no penalty.
I was on a jury for an SA trial years ago. It was clear that the complainants and even the Crown were unenthusiastic about proceeding. There was a woman at the prosecution table who did not appear to be part of the Crown's team, so I assumed was some sort of victim advocate and appeared to be the impetus for proceeding to trial. Makes me think about Mr. Bury's comment a while ago about Crown's who are afraid to tell a complainant that a case will not go to trial.
Not guilty regarding one complainant, directed not guilty for the other.
Good poscast guys!! I saved this one!!
Isn't it a case of the Crown opening a door by entering (a portion) of a message thread? Then they must accept the unabridged and verifiable message thread.
Great podcast
Thx 🙏
This needs to be animated
Similar to my son's case. We were not able to obtain messages.
There are huge benefits to the ongoing trend of more and better communication occurring in the moment. But using the criminal justice system to drive this trend forward risks having a harsh and disproportionate impact on a relatively small number of unlucky individuals that the criminal justice system makes examples of.
And it's also important for the criminal justice system to recognize that real human communication is slow with frequent errors/misunderstandings, and it can also be a bit distracting when concentration on other activities is required. A more or less continuous baseline of some sort of basic communication to make sure everything's going OK as the moment progresses is essential. But real human communication does require some level of assumptions and guesses based on patterns of previous statements and behaviors.
If the criminal justice system is to avoid holding people to an impossible ideal of instant perfect effortless communication, then previous statements and patterns of behavior do need to be considered in some form.
Everything you say also applies to the US, especially Minnesota!
"She does it better than you do!" lol! I love Ben from the peanut gallery :P
Where's the charges against the complainant for Public Mischief (filing a false complaint).
There was a case on the East Coast where a Muslim Uber driver screwed his passed out drunk fare in the back seat and was found not guilty based on alleged prior consent, contrary to the SCC ruling that consent had to be ongoing, and contrary to the notion someone that piss drunk can't consent to begin with. I don't know if the Crown appealed.
14:43 Based. 10/10 recommendation. The cherry-picking needs to stop.
Great idea to demand all the texts. In essence, you're demanding a thorough investigation - which you previously said police don't have to do, contrary to my position - Remember? 😅
Maybe it's because I'm not a lawyer, but...
If a guy shows up at my door with a pizza, I'm not obligated to buy it.
If I order a pizza and he shows up I am... unless I can show I canceled the order.
Do you have any past cases like that, where your client's texts were kept out and he was convicted? That would be great, use those texts to bring a private charge as noted below. Set precedent and alter the universe!! 😂 Do it!!That would really entrench things, and maybe prompt the Crown to advise the complaiant that if the accused is convicted, bere's what can happen . . . .
I keep everything. 😂
Intent goes to men's rea. If he texted and said I look forward to r*ping you tonight, would they judge allow it? I mean, these cases are all he said - she said and come down to who you believe. Anything that speaks to the parties wishes or intentions has to be relevant.
If judges persist not allowing such evidence, then file a private charge against the Complainant for Counselling to Commit a Crime or Conspiracy to Commit a Crime or inducing someone to commit a crime and get it in that way!! 😂 Yeah it's novel but so what?!?!
You can also di a Mandamus Application to force the police to do their job as a cheaper alternative, and once you get one favourable ruling you're in for all future cases 😂!!
I guess you mean "mens rea"...
@@Kris_MObviously. The point is - how do you get it in front of a judge that refuses to hear? An action plan if you will.