Procedural Fraud

11 Nothing prevents any of you from

12 getting this audio transcribed yourselves in any formal

13 or informal way. This is how it’s done in the courts

14 and this is how it’s done here.

page 343

Source

So let me get this straight. 

The complainant files a grievance with the CHRC; doesn’t have to pay a dime for the whole prosecution of the case. The respondent has to pay his way, and is surely headed toward a loss since all Section 13 cases have 100% conviction rates.

Then to add further procedural malice, the Tribunal decides to wave the basic legal protocol of having transcripts available to not only the respondent but to the public at large too. 

But wait. It gets better

Apparently, now, there’s nothing precluding either side from transcribing the audio at their own expense (of course). 

What does this mean? 

It means the CHRC can access taxpayers dollars to transcribe the audio, but the respondent has to shell out even more money to keep a level playing field, and to ensure that he has all the means necessary to mount an effective defense. 

And what’s worse, the CHRC uses Tribunal transcribing services to do the job without sharing it with the defense.  In other words, thing are so incestually cozy with the CHRC that the Tribunal is effectively providing the transcript to one side and not the other, violating in the most fundamental way possible natural justice. 

This is how it’s done here.” 

Yeah, no kidding, “judge”.

 

3 thoughts on “Procedural Fraud

  1. Pingback: SoCon Or Bust » Blog Archive » The Spy Who Shagged My Internet Connection

  2. Pingback: SoCon Or Bust » Blog Archive » Corruption Knowing No Bounds

  3. In fact, the Courts prohibit private recording/transcription. For good reason.
    Differing versions may result.
    The HRC, in this too, moves away from orthdox, tested and fair procedure.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Solve : *
30 ⁄ 6 =