|
|
|
What ever happened to Sgt. Dennis Mahoney-Bruer?
- Thread starter CruisnGrrl
- Start date
Well it's been 4 years for this to come to trial, at this point, which isn't really all that out of line for a complex case. You have hearings, rescheduling, disclosure, additional disclosure, etc...... The Toronto Drug Squad case took something like 10 years. I still want to make it to this trial but I don't know if I can. When you work at an educational institution it's tough to get time off at peak work season and hard to justify, when I'm not even sure that it will even take place.
MarcosSantiago
Well-known member
Ttt
Can anyone verify that the set trial date is still September 16? It's tough for me to get time off, at this time of year, but I'd like to make the trial if I can. I booked time off on a previous couple of occasions, only to hear that it had been rescheduled. Sure don't want to do that again.
Wow i just read through this thread, i ALWAYS hear commercials on the radio at work about stonewalls, if this guy actually owns that restaurant in Hamilton, i hope he goes to jail and loses everything. We don't need more ****** people in this city!
Heres hopeing he gets convicted and all the people he harrassed get some sort of compensation, i know its highly unlikely but would be nice to see some real justice.
Heres hopeing he gets convicted and all the people he harrassed get some sort of compensation, i know its highly unlikely but would be nice to see some real justice.
Overall I believe there were almost 200 tickets that came into question, as a result of this.
They were trying to avoid court challenges that could have put this ridiculous piece of legislation into question.
Same thing happened with a good friend of mine. He lawyer'd up and when news broke out of this crooked cop, the OPP sent someone down to make it all go away. The only thing they couldn't do was remove the suspension on the license, said it's an MTO thing. He refused to sign until the suspension was lifted and everything was back to how it was before this bogus charge (he admitted to doing 120-130, his 1998 Acura couldn't go more than that anyway). He had everything paid for including lawyer fees, storage, towing and he had his lawyer add loss of wage, but that never came through. He had to sign a document saying he wouldn't pursue further legal action against the OPP. They did ask about what tow company and storage facility his car was sent to, etc.
He was def getting kick backs from towin companies. Good money maker for both parties, it only makes sence.
Well it has been a long time since I last sat in on a criminal case (least time I was a witness for The Crown) and I need my procedural fix. It sounds like it's a slam dunk, but that's largely from speculation. It's always better to hear the evidence, then come to a conclusion, and I realize that my position on HTA 172 tends to make me biased in this case. When you've been one of the people pointing out how ripe for abuse this law is, then something like this comes up, you tend to want to say, "See?! I told ya so!!" :lol:
^^^ Yup. That's what scares me most about a law like this. The damage is done on a the whim of the word of one officer. If someone shat in his cornflakes that morning or he's got something going on with ABCXYZ Towing, then you're ****ed.
Last edited by a moderator:
Under what conditions can / do they close a court?
A request from The Crown or the defence, with some valid reason. I was only present for my own testimony, last time around, because the defence didn't want to have us effect each others' testimony.
Perhaps some misconception here a "closed court" is almost NEVER permitted, unless it would put a witness at danger, (life threatened), undercover officer with protected identity, or confidential informant etc. National security concerns etc. This is where the ONLY persons permitted in the court room is Crown, Defence, Judge, and court reporter, and of course the defendant. I doubt the threshold would be met for a case like this to permit a "closed court"
What they are more likely to do is what Rob experienced, which is they "exclude" all witnesses" They do this so that one witness doesn't hear what other witnesses have testified to. This is much more common practice.
What they are more likely to do is what Rob experienced, which is they "exclude" all witnesses" They do this so that one witness doesn't hear what other witnesses have testified to. This is much more common practice.
Makes sense. Thanks for the clarification.
What absolutely churns my stomach about the McGuinty/Bryant/Fantino Axis Of Evil was the blatant hypocrisy of the Protection Of Liability amendment that was slid in the HTA alongside 172, making all police officers, services, and Crown officers completely free from liability. No matter what the outcome of the trial, or even if there was a trial.
Apparently you were not the only one that could see how ripe for abuse the new legislation was.
And I had no idea he was part owner of Stonewalls! Crap, they had some decent pizza and was a block from my last place. Ate there alot...shiiiiiiiiiite.
|
|
|
|
|