Flood Watch
IF YOU HAVE ANY STORIES, PICTURES OR VIDEOS? EMAIL THEM TO ME AT oldmaison@yahoo.com


CARTOON OF THE DAY!!!!!!!
IN PRAYERS TO STOP THE 2014 FLOODS IN NEW BRUNSWICK!!!!!!!!!



Saturday, January 03, 2009

CANADA JUNIOR IS GOING TO THE GOLD MEDAL GAME IN GAME WINNING SHOUT OUT!!!

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Spring is a long time away in Fredericton!!

img_2061

I haven't saw this one in years!!! Give it a shot!!!

download


Hey??? Maybe that's what happened last year when I took this picture???


00097

Rocco Anthony Mediate and Michael Phelps made the year 2008 good for people with ADHD!!!!

Who can forget the U.S. Open!!!

Here's a blog I wrote on this issue.

Click below -


Tiger and Rocco


I never heard of this guy - Rocco!!!

While watching the guy, I said- That guy has ADHD big Time!!!

His eyes were going all over the place and he was chatting away while walking to his next shot.

He was against Tiger Wood. Tiger was concentrating on his game while Rocco was just having some fun.


00061


At the end, he lost in extra holes.

20080617-021610-pic-192635942

Then there's Michael Phelps who won all the medals in the swimming division at the China Olympics.

040820_michaelPhelps_vmed_3p.widec.jpg

Here's a story which was on CTV!!!

Kicking ADHD meds was key to Phelps' success

Updated Thu. Dec. 11 2008 10:06 AM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

Olympic swimming superstar Michael Phelps' struggle with ADHD as a youngster was one of the challenges in his life that helped lead him to the podium in Beijing, he tells CTV's Canada AM.

The 23-year-old from Baltimore, Md. has a record for the most gold medals won at a single games, with eight in Beijing, and has a total of 14 career gold medals -- the most won by any Olympian.

In an interview Thursday to promote his new book "No Limits: The Will to Succeed," Phelps said his decision in middle school to stop taking medication for attention deficit hyperactive disorder, and face his struggle head-on, was a key to his success later in life.

"I said 'mom, I'm done. I don't want to do it anymore. I don't want to take it anymore and this is something I can do on my own'," Phelps said.

Here's the rest of the story -

GOOD ADHD STORY!!!


Yes, only in New Brunswick that the Government will order the drugging and the killing of our children.

Thank God these individuals weren't born in New Brunswick!!!

COPS SHOULDN'T BE INVESTIGATING COPS!!!


Pictures 055
Originally uploaded by Oldmaison

R. v. LeBlanc, 2006 NBPC 37 (CanLII)
Print: PDF Format
Date: 2006-11-24
Docket: 05571102
Parallel citations: (2006), 311 N.B.R. (2d) 224
URL: http://www.canlii.org/en/nb/nbpc/doc/2006/2006nbpc37/2006nbpc37.html
Noteup: Search for decisions citing this decision
Reflex Record (related decisions, legislation cited and decisions cited)
Decisions cited

* R. v. Godoy, 1999 CanLII 709 (S.C.C.) — [1999] 1 S.C.R. 311 • (1999), 168 D.L.R. (4th) 257 • (1999), 131 C.C.C. (3d) 129

Citation #2006NBPC37









IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF NEW BRUNSWICK



JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF SAINT JOHN







Date: November 24th, 2006 Docket: 05571102





Between:









Her Majesty The Queen



- and –



Charles Joseph LeBlanc













Before: Judge William McCarroll



Date of Hearing: November 2nd, 20th, 21st, 2006



Date of Decision: November 24th, 2006







Appearances:



Catherine McNally - Agent for the Crown



Harold Doherty - Agent for the Defendant









McCARROLL, Prov. Ct. J.





Police work is difficult on the best of days. June 9th, 2006 was not a good day. To say that all hell broke loose for a few terrifying moments at the Trade and Convention Center on that day would not do justice to the situation. No amount of training could have prepared three of Saint John’s finest, standing at the entrance to the meeting rooms of the Center, for the onslaught of masked and noisy demonstrators racing towards them with sticks and signs, intent on pushing their way through the glass doors to the interior of the conference hall. Only the strength and courage of the three officers who stood up to the onslaught prevented a more serious situation from developing inside the meeting room. These officers are to be commended for their courage and determination.



Caught up in the middle of all of this was the defendant, Charles LeBlanc. There was no evidence whatsoever that he was in any way involved with the group of protestors. Mr. LeBlanc is a “blogger”. I’m sure that many, if not the majority of Saint Johners, are not familiar with this word. This is not surprising, since the word, to my knowledge has not yet found its way into a dictionary. I went to the computer in an attempt to find a definition.



The Google website defines “blogger” as a person who writes weblogs, and a blog as a shortened version of weblog.



I reprinted the following definitions from the Google website:

“Blog is short for weblog. A weblog is a journal (or newsletter) that is frequently updated and intended for general public consumption. Blogs generally represent the personality of the author on the web site.”



“A blog is basically a journal that is available on the web. The activity of updating a blog is “blogging” and someone who keeps a blog is a “blogger”. Blogs are typically updated daily using software that allows people with little or no technical background to update and maintain the blog.”



“A “web log” or online diary. Blogs have been identified as an increasingly popular source of online publication, especially regarding political information, opinion publication and alternative news coverage.”



“A collaborative space either stand alone or within a website that visitors can post comments, link to, add to, or just read on a weekly, daily, hourly basis. Used extensively on journalism sites for breaking news, etc……”



Apparently the defendant is quite well known for his blog. In fact, Sergeant Connell, the police security planner, utilized the information obtained on the defendant’s blog to gather intelligence about the potential for protest during the Atlantica conference. Sergeant Connell did not expect that Mr. LeBlanc would himself cause any problems at the conference.



However, on June 9th, 2006 while Mr. LeBlanc was taking photographs of the demonstration at the Trade and Convention Center, he was arrested for willfully obstructing Sergeant John Parks.

The Facts





On June 9th, 2006, the Saint John Trade and Convention Center played host to the “Atlantica” Conference. Delegates were in attendance from the Atlantic Provinces and the New England States.



Because of the nature of the business being discussed, organizers feared the arrival of protestors, and took precautions to prevent a breach of the peace. Two police officers were assigned to attend at the Convention Center on each day of the meetings. These officers received their orders directly from senior police officers within the Saint John Police Department, and were at all times acting in the capacity of on duty officers, whose main assignment was to keep the peace, protect the public and property.



On June 9th, 2006 Sergeant John Parks and Constable Tanya Lawlor arrived at the Center at 7:00 a.m. They took up positions in the area of the glass doors leading into the meeting room.



Organizers of the conference had taken great pains to ensure that the expected protestors would not disrupt proceedings. The foyer of the Center had been cordoned off on both sides with metal posts and drapery. Entry to the meeting room was to be through a rather narrow space between the two cordoned off areas. It was made clear to delegates that name tags were required at all times in order to gain entry to the meeting room. Even paid up delegates were turned away if they were not in possession of their name tags. The hallway entrance to the washrooms was behind the cordoned off area, so that only delegates with name tags could access the washrooms.



On the far end of the hallway leading to the washrooms was the business office of the Center. An emergency door was at the end of this hallway. It was locked from inside, leaving the only entrance point to the meeting room the space between the cordoned off areas.



Between 12:30 and 1:00 p.m. on June 9th, a younger looking man wearing a name tag came from inside the meeting room, and headed down the hallway in the direction of the washrooms. Within minutes there was a howling mass of masked and unmasked young people running through the same hallway toward the glass doors of the Center. They were yelling, banging things, carrying signs and were clearly intent on gaining access to the meeting room.



Only 3 police officers stood between this howling mass of humanity and the glass doors into the Center. The third officer, Constable Cooper had only arrived seconds before to see if either Sergeant Parks or Constable Lawlor wanted to take a short break. It was fortunate that he was there.



As the mob approached the cordoned off area, the poles and draperies quickly came crashing to the floor…..now there was no cordoned off area. Many of the female organizers of the event ran into the rooms and locked the doors…..they were terrified…..but who wouldn’t have been.



Sergeant Parks managed to grab a young protestor when he entered a room off the washroom hallway. He was placed under arrest and handcuffed by the officer. In the meantime Constable Lawlor and Constable Cooper were trying to survive the onslaught and at the same time protect the public and the Center from damage. There is no question that the officers feared for their own safety……but courageously stood between the howling mob and the now locked glass doors to the meeting room. Constable Lawlor feared that they would be pushed through the glass doors by the weight of the surging mob. The officers held their ground, called for help and waited for other officers to arrive, while holding back the mob of 30-40 people. Fortunately the City Police had prepared for this possibility, having briefed the general duty officers working on this day, and within minutes, almost every officer on duty in the city had arrived at the Center. A powerful line of police officers was soon in place and the protestors were moved away from the doors with apparently little resistance.



The evidence reveals that the defendant had been in the public foyer of the Trade and Convention Center during the morning of June 9th. In fact, Constable Lawlor’s attention was directed towards Mr. LeBlanc because he appeared to be on a first name basis with some of the delegates. He was taking pictures with his small digital camera in the public foyer area outside the cordoned off area. He was there on and off throughout the morning.



Sometime during the morning a group of protestors arrived. They caused no trouble and left shortly after they had arrived. There was no evidence to suggest the defendant was in any way connected with the demonstrators.



When the protestors arrived in force around 1:00 p.m. there was no evidence the defendant was with them, in fact I’m satisfied he was not. He was, however, in the foyer when all hell was breaking loose and the barricades had come down. There was now a completely open space in front of the entrance to the meeting room. It was within this open space that Mr. LeBlanc was taking pictures for his blog. He was arrested by Sergeant Parks a short time later after the police reinforcements appeared to have the situation under control.



During Mr. LeBlanc’s arrest and handcuffing, while on the floor, his camera was removed from his hand to more easily allow the police to lock the handcuffs. Constable McCaig was clearly responsible for the removal of the camera, and the strap which encircled Mr. LeBlanc’s wrist. In his initial testimony, Constable McCaig made no mention of the camera. Upon returning to the witness stand after the C.B.C. video was played, Constable McCaig explained that until he saw it on the video, he had no recollection of removing the camera from Mr. LeBlanc. He did not hold onto the camera…….simply removed it to assist in the handcuffing and then left it on the floor. I find no problem with his actions.



Mr. LeBlanc’s camera was picked up by Sergeant Parks, who held onto it and transported it to the police station where Mr. LeBlanc was being held. Sergeant Parks took it upon himself to turn the camera on and upon seeing a picture of himself on the camera, deleted it. He testified that he was very uncomfortable seeing his picture on Mr. LeBlanc’s camera and that was why he deleted it. On cross examination it was suggested that Sergeant Parks had deleted all of the pictures on the camera, but he denied it. Suffice to say, from a personal standpoint I can understand Sergeant Parks’ actions in deleting the picture. From a legal standpoint however it is unacceptable. The camera was never seized as evidence……..legal access to the contents of the camera would be permitted only through a search warrant. No warrant was ever obtained by Sergeant Parks, so he had no legal right to erase a picture from Mr. LeBlanc’s camera.







THE LAW

Turning my attention to the law as it relates specifically to the charge of willfully obstructing a peace officer in the execution of his duty, it is clear that to be successful the crown must prove the following, beyond a reasonable doubt:

(1) the actions of the defendant were willful;

(2) these actions amounted to an obstruction;

(3) the officer was acting in the execution of

his duty………that is, he must not be exceeding the

powers given to him by statute or common law;



The word willful, in legal terms, connotes an intention to bring about the proscribed consequence. It implies that the defendant knew what he was doing and intended to do what he did, i.e. obstruct Sergeant Parks.



The obstruction in this case would be that the defendant willfully refused to leave when, and, in this case, if, Sergeant Parks ordered him to do so.



Considering the third element of the charge, there is a considerable body of law. I would like to deal with it in some detail as this prosecution centers around the common law powers enjoyed by the police to preserve the peace as it relates to the protection of life and property.



The common law right has long been recognized by the courts in this country. The accepted test for evaluating the common law powers and duties of the police was set out many years ago in the English case of R. v. Waterfield, [1963] 3 All E.R. 659 (C.C.A.). The so called Waterfield test has been adopted with approval over the years by numerous Provincial Courts of Appeal, as well as the Supreme Court of Canada. As recently as 1999, in the case of R. v. Goday, 1999 CanLII 709 (S.C.C.), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 311, Chief Justice Lamer adopted the reasoning in Waterfield as the accepted test for evaluating the common law powers and duties of the police when he said;

“If police conduct constitutes a prima facie interference with a person’s liberty or property, the court must consider two questions: first, does the conduct fall within the scope of any duty imposed by the statute, or recognized at common law; and second, does the conduct albeit within the general scope of such a duty involve an unjustifiable use of powers associated with the duty.”



In reaching my decision in this case, I found the 1973 Supreme Court decision of Knowlton v. the Queen (1973), 10 C.C.C. (2d) 513 to be helpful. The fact situation in that case is somewhat similar to the present case. Briefly stated, the facts in Knowlton are as follows:



After visiting Ottawa a few days before, and having been the victim of an assault, Russian Premier Kosygin was to visit Edmonton, Alberta on October 24th, 1971. Sergeant Grandish of the Edmonton City Police Force was assigned to provide security for the Premier while he paid a short visit to the Chateau Lacombe Hotel. For this purpose, and with the assistance of 25 police officers, Sergeant Grandish cordoned off an area in front of the entrance to the hotel which included part of the sidewalk. Immediately prior to the arrival of the Russian Premier, the Sergeant was summoned by 2 officers who were posted in the area of the cordoned off sidewalk. Upon arrival he met Mr. Knowlton, who insisted that he be allowed to take photographs from within the cordoned off area. Sergeant Grandish told Mr. Knowlton he would be arrested if he did so. Ignoring the sergeants warning, he entered the restricted area and was arrested, and charged with obstruction. Two levels of court found him not guilty, while the Supreme Court overturned those decisions and found him guilty.

The Supreme Court adopted the two part Waterfield test and found that the first parts of the test had been met because the officers were statutorily empowered to preserve the peace, order and public safety. Considering that they were dealing with a Head of State who sadly had been assaulted in the nations capital only a few days before, the court found not only did the police have the authority to do what they did, but in fact had a duty to do so.



As to the second part of the test, the Supreme Court found there was no unjustifiable use of the powers associated with the duty imposed upon the police officers. This, in spite of the fact that the police did not inform Mr. Knowlton of any legal justification for the interferences with his right to free access to public streets…..In that regard, the Supreme Court justices placed considerable weight on the fact that Mr. Knowlton was aware that the Russian Premier had been assaulted in Ottawa and so would be aware of the duty of the Edmonton Police to ensure the security of Premier Kosygin at some cost to public freedoms. Also the fact the Mr. Knowlton could have applied for a press pass which would have granted him access to the cordoned off area, but chose not to do so, weighed heavily against the claim that the police used measures which were unjustifiable against him in carrying out their duty to protect the Russian Premier.



Comparing the Crown’s case against Mr. LeBlanc and the Knowlton case there are obvious differences which militate in Mr. LeBlanc’s favor.



Mr. LeBlanc was never advised by the police that he would be arrested if he did certain things – He was simply plying his trade, photographing a demonstration for inclusion in his blog when he was arrested.



Unlike the Knowlton case, there was no clearly marked area where the pubic was not permitted at the time of Mr. LeBlanc’s arrest…….barricades that had been in place earlier in the day, had been destroyed by the protestors. There was no suggestion that Mr. LeBlanc was involved in this. For all intents and purposes, Mr. LeBlanc was ostensibly in an area accessible to, and in fact, open to the public when he was taking his photographs. Members of the so called main stream media were taking photographs and filming in the same area without interference from the police. I believe it’s fair to say that the defendant was doing nothing wrong at the time he was approached by Sergeant Parks and placed under arrest. He was simply plying his trade……gathering photographs and information for his blog along side other reporters.



Why Sergeant Parks singled him out, I can only speculate. It is clear from the C.B.C. video that contrary to what Sergeant Parks testified to, Mr. LeBlanc was off to his right some distance, not behind him. It’s likewise clear when reviewing the tape in slow motion, that contrary to what Sergeant Parks testified to, the defendant was not moving towards him just prior to his arrest. It is inconceivable to me after viewing the tape, how Sergeant Parks could have perceived the defendant, down on one knee, some distance from the protestors, taking pictures, as a threat. Other people were in the immediate area of the defendant, some taking pictures and at least one of whom was a masked protestor, who was not even approached by the police.



It is clear from the video that immediately upon turning the previously arrested Mr. Webber over to another officer, Sergeant Parks for some reason, went directly towards the defendant, grabbed him in the upper chest area, pushed him towards the far wall, and pinned him there. In his testimony, Sergeant Parks said that he did not touch the defendant until they were at the far wall. Sergeant Parks justified his arrest of the defendant, not only on the basis that the defendant was behind him and that he posed a threat with his camera, and that he was moving towards him, but also because he refused a direct order from Sergeant Parks to leave the area.



After viewing the video many times at normal speed and slow speed, the conversation the officer said he had with Mr. LeBlanc prior to his arrest was not in any way apparent to me. Perhaps that would explain why Mr. LeBlanc kept yelling and questioning the officers as to why he had been arrested and what he had done wrong, as Sergeant Parks and two officers were kneeling on top of him applying handcuffs.



Sergeant Parks said the defendant was resisting somewhat and had to be taken to the floor in order to apply handcuffs, yet the photo marked Exhibit “D” clearly shows Sergeant Parks and Mr. LeBlanc strolling arm and arm from one side of the foyer to the other with no sign whatsoever of resistance from the defendant.



It is an important factor as well that at the time Sergeant Parks quickly moved towards Mr. LeBlanc and grabbed him, pushed him some distance to the wall and pinned him there, the police were there in numbers and had the situation apparently under control. None of the protestors that I saw in the video were attempting to cross the police line. They were just taunting and yelling loudly at the police officers. They did not appear to be posing a threat to the police or the public at the time of Mr. LeBlanc’s arrest. The police who had formed a solid line between the protestors and the glass doors to the center were very cool, calm and collected and behaved in a very professional manner. I mention this because it further enforces my belief that at that time, there was no apparent reason to arrest Mr. LeBlanc.



It may well be asked if Mr. LeBlanc’s chosen occupation as a blogger had any bearing on my decision in this case. The answer to that is yes and no. The fact that the defendant was a blogger explained why he was at the Trade and Convention Center taking pictures, while a riot was going on. It could also explain why he was on a first name basis with some of the delegates. It would explain why he was so upset at being arrested, as he obviously considered himself to be a legitimate member of the media who had done nothing wrong.



Assuming for the purposes of my decision that Mr. LeBlanc was a legitimate member of the media, did this grant him any special exemption from following the directions of the police? The answer to that is clearly no. Provided the police are acting in the execution of their duties and not exceeding their common law powers, Mr. LeBlanc and any other member of a so called mainstream news organization would be obligated to follow the instructions of a police officer, again provided the officer was acting within the scope of his authority. Members of the media are no different from any other citizen in this regard. A legitimate order from a police officer must be followed by every citizen. If I were satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Sergeant Parks was acting within his authority and had not exceeded his common law powers when, and if, he ordered the defendant to leave the Trade and Convention Center, the result in this case would have been different.



The onus on the Crown is a heavy one. The defendant is presumed innocent. The Crown must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant has to prove nothing.



The conflicting evidence in this case presents me with difficulties in arriving at a conclusion the accused is guilty as charged. There is such a discrepancy between the evidence of Sergeant Parks and the CBC video, that I find it unsafe to convict Mr. LeBlanc. I am not even satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that if Mr. LeBlanc was in fact ordered to leave by Sergeant Parks, he heard or understood the order. I have pointed out other serious inconsistencies between the evidence of Sergeant Parks and the video earlier on in this judgment. Considering the evidence in it’s totality with all of the inconsistencies, I am not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Charles LeBlanc willfully obstructed Sergeant Parks in the execution of his duty.



Having come to this conclusion, it is not necessary for me to consider the Stay of Proceedings Order requested by the defence in it’s pre-trial document on the basis of Charter of Rights violations. Needless to say, the issues of arbitrary arrest and the unwarranted destruction of evidence on the defendant’s camera would have weighed heavily in favour of a Stay of Proceedings.



In conclusion I wish to say this; it is very easy in the cool, clear, light of day for this court to calmly and coolly analyze and make decisions about the actions of police officers who were making split second decisions in the heat of the moment. But this is what the court is obliged to do. In spite of my findings in this case, there is one conclusion I have come to beyond any doubt. These courageous officers acted above and beyond the call of duty in preventing a serious breach of the peace. If these young masked invaders had succeeded in gaining access to the main meeting room where probably hundreds of delegates were in attendance, God knows what would have happened.



William J. McCarroll

Judge, Provincial Court of New Brunswick

THE NEW BRUNSWICK GOVERNMENT SHOULD ORDER THE RELEASE OF MARK LEBLANC!!!


IMG_6122
Originally uploaded by Oldmaison
Does anybody know the real story in this case?

I don't know this Mark LeBlanc but he could end up dead like Ashley Smith.


IMG_5376




I wish the mainstream media would do their homework.

They do a little piece and that' is that!!!

Free Mark LeBlanc!!!!

Here's a comment on this issue. It's from a blog I wrote this week.

Click below for blog -

FREE MARK LEBLANC

Here's the comment -

Charles states that he's using this case to highlight his own, so those people 'shaking their heads' should try rereading the article since it makes perfect sense.

We can point out the usual flaws in Charles logic-because somebody is on probation it's hardly the courts fault if they break that probation. It's not the courts fault he's making death threats, and its not the liberals fault that if bouncers tell Charles to leave he'd refuse to do so and get into an altercation that could result in his death.

But few people are championing the rights of the incarcerated nowadays, so good for charles for at least paying attention. Not many people could care less, at the Irving article about it, the comment "give the guy rat poison and we'll all be better off" got more thumbs up than thumbs down, and thats based on a three paragraph article.

Mark Leblanc is no saint, whether he's mentally ill we don't know. I couldn't find his original charge but we know that he's in prison for committing assault while on probation. I couldn't find the transcript, but there's assault and there's ASSAULT. There's getting drunk and beating up a guy-which happens virtually every friday night and which gets the most cheers from the crowd at a hockey game, and there's the real worrying assault. However, he wasn't charged with attempted murder so obviously he wasn't trying to kill the guy.

Personally, I think anybody uttering death threats is mentally ill, and its interesting that the province's new demands included an assessment for mental illness, which he agreed to, and which we can ask "why wasn't that done while he was in prison?"

The province though does also have an obligation to protect society, so the death threat is pretty important. What is telling here is that the judge wouldn't even let him explain the circumstances, so we don't know whether it was serious or some comment taken out of context.

The final point is that at some time this guy has to be let out, or it has to be decided whether he's a dangerous offender. The province clearly wants to go that way, and claims it is justified simply because he has a 'five page rap sheet'. I couldn't find anything before the assault on Canlii so can't comment, but it should be pointed out that this is the same Mark Leblanc who DIDN"T originally have a lawyer because the lawyers were on strike. It took him eight months to get to trial.

WILL THE IRVINGS SEE THE LIGHT IN 2009?????


img_2045
Originally uploaded by Oldmaison

WHO IS JACK SCHITT????

WHO IS JACK SCHITT?

For some time many of us have wondered just who is Jack Schitt?

We find ourselves at a loss when someone says, 'You don't know Jack Schitt'!
Well, thanks to my genealogy efforts, you can now respond in an intellectual way.

Jack Schitt is the only son of Awe Schitt. Awe Schitt, th e fertilizer magnate, who married O. Schitt, the owner of Needeep N. Schitt, Inc. They had one son, Jack.

In turn, Jack Schitt married Noe Schitt. The deeply religious couple produced six children: Holie Schitt, Giva Schitt, Fulla Schitt, Bull Schitt, and the twins Deep Schitt and Dip Schitt.

Against her parents' objections, Deep Schitt married Dumb Schitt, a high school dropout.
After being married 15 years, Jack and Noe Schitt divorced.
Noe Schitt later married Ted Sherlock, and because her kids were living with them, she wanted to keep her previous name. She was then known as Noe Schitt Sherlock.

Meanwhile, Dip Schitt married Loda Schitt, and they produced a son with a rather nervous disposition named Chicken Schitt. Two of the other six children, Fulla Schitt and Giva Schitt, were inseparable throughout childhood and subsequently married the Happens brothers in a dual ceremony.
The wedding announcement in the ne wspaper announced the Schitt-Happens nuptials. The Schitt-Happens children were Dawg, Byrd, and Horse.

Bull Schitt, the prodigal son, left home to tour the world.
He recently returned from Italy with his new Italian bride, Pisa Schitt.

Now when someone says, 'You don't know Jack Schitt', you can correct them.

Sincerely,
Crock O. Schitt

Seven Years of War on Terror - Has Afghanistan Improved?


IMG_1825
Originally uploaded by Oldmaison
Charles,

"Seven years after terrorists struck at the symbols of American might - the World Trade Centre and Pentagon - and the war against terrorism began, Afghanistan remains in the grip of ever mounting violence. With the violence, that took some 3,800 lives including some 200 foreign troops in the first eight months of 2008, and has steadily been surging by the year, the US plans to induct more troops for combat operations. NATO and Afghan officials say violence overall in eastern Afghanistan has been up by 20% to 30% in the first eight months of the year compared with last year and rose about 50 percent in some areas, if compared with 2007. In the last week of August alone, coalition troops killed more than 220 suspected Taliban militants in southern Afghanistan yet not without collateral damage; several operations by foreign and Afghan forces against the militants have also resulted in over 500 civilian deaths, including 96 casualties in an air raid by the U.S.-led coalition in western Heart late August."

Ali Liaquat, Pakistan.
(Research Source: CRSS)

Local Blogger wins award!!!


imageService
Originally uploaded by Oldmaison
I created this guy and I get nuting!!!!

sigh....

Click below to see his award....

Blogger wins award

Friday, January 02, 2009

Lasting Impressions at St.Mary's does it again!!!!

img_2651img_2652

You got a message on a t-shirt, Jacket or Hat???

Lasting Impressions is the place to go!!!

Click below -


You got a message?

THE YEAR 2008 WAS WHEN THE SHAWN GRAHAM GOVERNMENT INTRODUCED FASCISM IN NEW BRUNSWICK, CANADA!!!!!

2193004279_227bb4d790_o2561750306_a441a92635_o

Many people will say that I'm just crazy on this one!!! But I don't see it any other way!!!

If this is not Fascism? What the hell do you call it???

The 2008 didn't begin on a good note because I was still very upset what happened at Sweetwaters in December.

It was a time of good will. I was twice invited to the Liberal Christmas Party in Fredericton.

I didn't want to go because the place was full of snobs.

To make a long story short? I was met at the door with three huge bouncers.

Someone from the Liberal Party ordered the bouncers to do me harm.

bouncers 2sweetwaters

To send thugs after a member of good standing of the Party to get him harm or possibility killed if pure Fascism!!!

There is no other word to describe this act!!!

In January, I went into a tirade against the Liberal Party. I wanted them to give me the name of the individual who ordered the thugs to do me harm but I got no answer.

This issue should have been settle immediately but it wasn't!!

I pushed and pushed with the Liberal Party. I wanted to know if they supported Fascism?

Finally in April, the Liberal Executives met to discuss my issue. The month was in April. Click below for blog -

The New Brunswick Liberals to become the first Fascist Party in Canada?

Of course, I received an apology but they insisted that nobody ordered the hit!!!


liberal
That's pure BS because I know better.

I was there!!! Someone gave the orders to the Manager behind a wall and I would have love to be Superman with X-Ray eyes!!!..lol

If I would have found out the name? I would have took the law into my own hands. You know ADHD style!!!

Sure would have been an interesting court trial. One guy badly beat up because he sent three thugs after me.

Ok...getting upset here....Move on Charlie.....

The Liberal Executives of the riding of Fredericton Silverwood finally sent me an apology almost one year to the date this Fascist act happened.

Here's the letter-


apology

I should have received this apology weeks after the confrontation but I refuse to back down and demanded to appear in front of the Executives to voice my concerns.

But this case is over now so lets move on.

Now this past summer, my lawyer Harold Doherty finally received an answer to our complaint about my arrest in Saint John.


Pictures 055

The issue in hand is Cops destroying the evidence, Cops lying on the stand to convict the less fortunate and Legal Aid New Brunswick will not grant the accuse the right to a lawyer to the accuse.

It's impossible to win against lying cops of the Saint John Police Force.

We ran into a problem here because COPS SHOULDN'T BE INVESTIGATING COPS!!!

Especially since the Minister of Police Safety ...opppsss I meant Public Safety is a former Cop himself John Foran.

The R.C.M.P. investigated the issue but there was some very crooked action going on. We met with Minister John Foran.

John Foran asked my lawyer is he would write his concern in a letter?

My lawyer did just that!!

Here's the letter -


FAX 506.453-3870

August 8, 2008

Honourable John W. Foran

Solicitor General and Minister of Public Safety

Argyle Place
364 Argyle Street
Fredericton, New Brunswick
E3B 1T9


Dear Sir:

Re: Charles LeBlanc Complaint


This is to confirm the concerns expressed in my visit to your offices on Tuesday, August 6, 2008 in respect of the above noted matter.


1) The RCMP conducted investigation found no evidence of perjury.



The finding of no evidence of perjury, as opposed to insufficient evidence of perjury, with respect to Sgt. Parks, as alleged in Mr.LeBlanc’s complaint, is difficult to accept in light of the evidence produced at trial, the findings of the learned trial judge and the information submitted with Mr. LeBlanc’s complaint.



2) The Findings of the Trial Judge



In Mr. LeBlanc’s trial on charges of obstructing justice he was acquitted by His Honour Judge McCarroll.



R. v. LeBlanc, Citation #2006NBPC37

http://www.canlii.org/en/nb/nbpc/doc/2006/2006nbpc37/2006nbpc37.pdf



Page 16



It is clear from the C.B.C. video that contrary

to what Sergeant Parks testified to, Mr. LeBlanc was off to his right some distance, not behind him. It’s likewise

clear when reviewing the tape in slow motion, that contrary to what Sergeant Parks testified to, the defendant was not moving towards him just prior to his arrest. It is inconceivable to me after viewing the tape, how Sergeant Parks could have perceived the defendant, down on one knee, some distance from the protestors, taking pictures, as a threat.



Page 17



It is clear from the video that immediately upon

turning the previously arrested Mr. Webber over to another officer, Sergeant Parks for some reason, went directly towards the defendant, grabbed him in the upper chest area,pushed him towards the far wall, and pinned him there. In his testimony, Sergeant Parks said that he did not touch the defendant until they were at the far wall. Sergeant

Parks justified his arrest of the defendant, not only on the basis that the defendant was behind him and that he

posed a threat with his camera, and that he was moving

towards him, but also because he refused a direct order

from Sergeant Parks to leave the area.



After viewing the video many times at normal speed and

slow speed, the conversation the officer said he had with

Mr. LeBlanc prior to his arrest was not in any way apparent to me.



Pages 17-18



Sergeant Parks said the defendant was resisting somewhat and had to be taken to the floor in order to apply

handcuffs, yet the photo marked Exhibit “D” clearly shows

Sergeant Parks and Mr. LeBlanc strolling arm and arm from

one side of the foyer to the other with no sign whatsoever of resistance from the defendant.



Page 20



The conflicting evidence in this case presents me with

difficulties in arriving at a conclusion the accused is

guilty as charged. There is such a discrepancy between the evidence of Sergeant Parks and the CBC video, that I find it unsafe to convict Mr. LeBlanc. I am not even satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that if Mr. LeBlanc was in fact ordered to leave by Sergeant Parks, he heard or understood the order. I have pointed out other serious

inconsistencies between the evidence of Sergeant Parks and the video earlier on in this judgment. Considering the evidence in it’s totality with all of the inconsistencies,I am not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Charles LeBlanc willfully obstructed Sergeant Parks in the execution of his duty.



His Honour Judge McCarroll is an experienced trial judge and a former Crown prosecutor. His choice of language in describing the several inconsistencies between the CBC video and Sgt. Parks is unusually strong in not accepting the testimony of an experienced police officer. As the decision makes clear, Judge McCarroll studied the evidence carefully, viewing the CBC video recording several times. The inconsistencies he found in Sgt. Parks evidence were not peripheral facts in the case. They were central to the charge of whether Mr. LeBlanc committed obstruction of justice and to Judge McCarroll’s decision to acquit.



3). Sgt. Parks’ Deletion of Photos on Mr LeBlanc’s Camera



Sgt. Parks stated in his file notes and in testimony that he saw and deleted only one picture from Mr. LeBlanc’s camera. Constable Tanya Lawlor testified that Mr.LeBlanc had been on the scene throughout the day taking pictures. Mr. LeBlanc did not testify in court but informed investigating RCMP Officer Delaney-Smith that he had taken many pictures that day and that they had all been deleted. He also informed her that the Canon camera he uses does not permit you to unknowingly delete all photos.



The CBC video shows Mr LeBlanc taking pictures of the demonstration in the opposite direction from Sgt Parks before he is arrested. The last picture on the camera could not have been of Sgt Parks and he would have had to do a search of the camera in order to see a picture of himself. All photos were deleted and that can not be done accidentally with this type of camera.



You either have to delete all pictures one at a time and therefore intentionally or you have to press delete all in which case the camera asks you to confirm that you want to delete all and then you have to perform another 2 steps by moving the cursor over to the right and pressing OK. A bright green line then shows you the progression of the deletion process. Again, you can not unknowingly delete “all” on this Canon camera model. This information was presented to the first investigating officer Delaney-Smith.



4. A Second Officer Took Over the Complaint File



The RCMP investigation was initially conducted by RCMP Corporal Delaney-Smith. She spoke with me in addition to interviewing Mr. LeBlanc. I understood from my discussion that her report would be done in December. In the new year there was no news and at some point I was informed that the file was being handled by Staff Sgt. Gary Belliveau.



It is understood that there may be more than one officer involved in a file for any number of innocuous reasons. In the circumstances of this case though, with an experienced trial judge pointing out, in strong language, several clear inconsistencies between Sgt. Parks testimony and the CBC video evidence, and an investigation conclusion of NO evidence of perjury Mr. LeBlanc is suspicious that the RCMP may not have liked the first investigating officer’s conclusions and then changed them. I share Mr. LeBlanc’s suspicion.



If anyone wishes to speak to me concerning this matter I can be reached most quickly by cell at 447-1592 or by email at dohertylaw@rogers.com



Respectfully,


Harold L Doherty

Weeks later. I received a letter from the Minister and he totally disregard my lawyer's concerns.

Being Charles, I confront the Minister with my video. He didn't say much!!!



Click below for youtube video -


Minister John Foran is confronted by Blogger Charles LeBlanc


I quickly asked for a meeting with the Premier but Shawn Graham denied my request.

Cops are allowed to destroy evidence when they arrest people in New Brunswick and they have the backing of the Government.



johnforan


The media never covered this issue and I don't know the reason? I do understand if this would happen to someone else who wasn't on social assistance? This would be front page stuff but that's ok because I'm not done yet.

Not from a long shot!!!!

One Journalist covered the final verdict of the investigation. Randy McKeen from KHJ radio did a good job telling his listeners what is going on in the Capital.


randy_mckeen


You can listen to his words by clicking below -

Randy McKeen blast Police Fprce


If you don't have a video? Here's his views!!


Many of you know the name Charles Leblanc. For years he was a frequent letter writer to provincial newspapers and caller to radio and television talk shows. Several years ago he pitched a tent on the grounds of the legislature to protest what he felt was the over-prescription of Ritalin for children with A-D-H-D.



He’s also gained some notoriety by being banned from the legislature and for operating a blog that takes shots at politicians, bureaucrats, the Irvings and Rogers Television. Leblanc is the first to tell you he can be a pain in the butt and many politicians and most of the mainstream media clearly see him that way. Two years ago, Leblanc was arrested while covering a demonstration in Saint John for his blog. He was roughed up during the arrest and the pictures he had taken of the demonstration were deleted from his digital camera.



Leblanc was charged with obstruction of justice. He was denied legal aid and only got legal representation because Fredericton lawyer Harold Doherty agreed to take his case for free. The cards were clearly stacked against Leblanc. Despite that, he was acquitted and as the facts became known, it became apparent there was an obstruction of justice, but it wasn’t Charles Leblanc doing the obstructing.



He should never have been charged. In fact, he should never have been arrested and the evidence of that is as plain as day. The presiding judge certainly saw that. In handing down his decision, Justice William McCarroll noted that much of Saint John Police Sergeant John Parks' testimony was inconsistent with the video evidence. The judge’s language was strong and left no doubt he did not believe the officer’s sworn testimony.

IMG_2001


I mean anyone who knows Charles Leblanc knows that Parks had to be lying when he said he deleted only one picture from his camera. When Leblanc is out and about getting stuff for his blog, he takes one picture about every ten seconds. There’s no doubt there was more than one picture deleted.



Despite all this, an R-C-M-P investigation – which had a suspicious change of investigating officers midway through – concluded there was no evidence of perjury. It didn’t say there was insufficient evidence. It said there was no evidence. That, quite frankly, is ludicrous and should make everyone very leery of our justice system. In the vast majority of criminal cases, defendants are convicted based in large part on the sworn testimony of police officers. I don’t doubt that in the vast majority of cases, police tell the truth. This is a case where the evidence suggests a police officer did not and that should not be allowed to go unchallenged, regardless of whether the person is charged is a pain in the butt.


We offer air time for your point of view…

All these issues will come to a head and there could be violence at the next Liberal Genral Meeting. It doesn't bother me one bit to denounce the Party new Fascist plan.

Could be Deja Vu all over again? Just like I denounced the C.O.R. Party in front of 1,000 members. It was like like a black guy disrupting a meeting of the KKK!!

Picture 016Picture 022

Ohhhhh...I must also add the ban from the New Brunswick Legislature.

I was banned from the Leg for the brutal murder of a young girl. The last time I blogged about this issue, I also went into the details in the comment section.



STA_3203STB_3204


Yes, I understand this is a very emotional issue and I pleaded with the Liberal Party to settle this issue but to no avail.

There's no way in the world that I could come out with a story like this one.

But this was told to me by Minister of Education Kelly Lamrock himself!!!


IMG_5547

Once he told me about the murder? I FLIPPED!!!!


But there's a new twist to this story that I never blog.

The Father of the so-call murderer is an R.C.M.P. Officer. < I won't mentioned his name >

I find it very strange that I was arrested in Saint John and banned from the Legislature one week afterwards.

Could that R.C.M.P. officer have ordered the Cops in Saint John to go after me?

Many unanswered questions?

I know the murder was the reason I was banned and that's is that!!!

One Liberal insider couldn't understand why I didn't come out with the story the minute I was ban?

I have a good heart I guess but something tells me the issue will come to a blow in 2009!!!

I might confront the MLA'S with my video and it should be interesting.

The Liberal Party have no sympathy whatsoever with the victim in this case.

Murder, destroying evidence, lying in a court of law and sending three thugs after me to do my harm.

That's not Fascism???

Speaking of Fascist? Quebecois Dan Bussieres hit a new low for the year 2008. He tolerated a Security guard to give insults to people on Social Assistance.

This happen just last month.

Click below for video.

Security call with on Social Assistance WELFARE BUM AND LOSER

Dan Bussieres must have been very pleased with the action of his soldier because the guy came around me again days later.

The Legislature is a touchy issue. I've been on the ground over 1,000 time since the ban and sometime they decide to confront me and often they ignore me.

But I am very concern of the Fredericton Police Force.

Like this officer < nice guy > who confronted me last month.


IMG_5635_edited


Click below for video -

Fredericton Police Officer confronts Blogger


Will the Fredericton Police Force ever join Fascism? Can they be brainwash by Dan Bussieres?

frederictonpoliceimg_0593-0

I do have a point of concern? What is the Fredericton Police Force doing at the Legislature. Are they working there as a contract on their own?


IMG_5660_edited



If one officer crossed the line and arrest someone? Does this mean the whole Police Force is supporting their actions?

Who is paying the Officers at the Legislature?

Is it just a one on one contract?

Because when I was arrested in Saint John? The officers were off duty but working on a personal contract.

But the Saint John Police Chief Bodechon supported their action and the rest is history.

I may add the R.C.M.P. are always tempting me in public. I even made a complaint to Ottawa but to no avail.

This jerk always gives me a difficult time.

IMG_6217

Just last month, he tried to stop me from going into the Premier's office. I believe the next time the R.C.M.P. confronts me? I'll just put my video camera on as I did at the Legislature.

Yes, 2008 was quite a year for New Brunswick.

Fascism in Canada shouldn't be tolerated!!!

But what can we do???

Nothing!!

But there's one option in one on my ADHD minds.

These issues will be confronted head on at the next Liberal General Meeting. I'm a member of good standing of the Liberal Party and these issues must be addressed.

The Premier made it known that he supports Fascism so let the battle begin!!!!

I believe this blogger will be arrested or assaulted in 2009 but the battle will continue!!

Why do I bother?

Because I know that I'M 100% RIGHT ON THIS ONE!!!!

It's going to be an interesting year.

Truly stay tuned!!!!

Thursday, January 01, 2009

DOES ANYONE KNOW WHERE THE GIRL ON THE LEFT IS???

00119

Someone is looking for her? She seem to have disappear!!!

If you know where this girl is? Please send me an email at

oldmaison@yahoo.com

Merci!!!!

January 1st - Pictures taken exactly one, two and three years ago today!!

Pictures taken exactly one year ago today!!

IMG_4630IMG_4586IMG_4567IMG_4551


Pictures taken exactly two years ago -


IMG_5135IMG_5133IMG_5066IMG_5106

Pictures taken exactly three years ago -

I went to two church service that day??? WOW!!! I had to go because one was in French and the other English. It was sure strange to listen to Pere Brien giving a service in English.

Different!!!


Picture 171Picture 022Picture 163Picture 042Picture 051Picture 093Picture 130Picture 144