Fredericton Police Chief Leanne Fitch and Deputy Chief Danny Copp are
confronted about possible Pedophiles in the Police Force???

*** Cartoon Of The Day ***

Sunday, November 18, 2012

Daily Gleaner Journalist Don Macpherson, Sally < The Wingnut > Brooks and Andre Faust views on Blogger Charles LeBlanc case to the New Brunswick Appeal Court on Thursday!!!


I do have my opinion on what happened last Thursday but will say it once the verdict comes out!!!

I don't believe there's a Copyright issue here because it's about me me me!!!! If the Irvings have a problem? Email me at oldmaison@yahoo.com and I'll remove it!!...:)

Here's Don Macpherson from the Daily Gleaner story -



Blogger takes his case to appeal court

A controversial Fredericton blogger took his ongoing beef with the city police and the justice system to the province’s highest court Thursday, seeking to overturn his conviction for causing a disturbance.
Charles Joseph LeBlanc, 52, represented himself before a three-judge panel of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal on Thursday.
He pleaded guilty in January to a charge of causing a disturbance in front of the Fredericton Police Force station on Queen Street in August and September 2011. He was conducting a one-man protest with a bullhorn against the city police.

LeBlanc, who’s best known in the capital for his blog about politics and poverty issues, was sentenced to six months of probation for the offence. However, he sought to withdraw his guilty plea after the city police raided his Westmorland Street apartment three days after his guilty plea and sentence.

He appealed his case to the Court of Queen’s Bench, but Justice Judy Clendening dismissed his appeal, ruling his guilty plea was voluntary and not coerced, despite LeBlanc’s claims to the contrary.

The blogger appealed Clendening’s decision, and he argued at the Court of Appeal on Thursday if he’d had a lawyer, he never would have pleaded guilty and would have been acquitted at trial. “I have ADHD,” he said Thursday. “I’m easily distracted on issues.” He argued his mental state and lack of education made him ill-equipped to handle his legal matters on his own.

“I’m sure if I would’ve had a lawyer in the first place, this never would’ve seen the light of day in a courtroom,” LeBlanc said, noting Legal Aid New Brunswick turned down his application for counsel.

“This was a miscarriage of justice because I was refused legal representation.” Justice Alexandre Deschênes asked the appellant if he’d told a judge at any point that he needed a lawyer to represent him. “I didn’t know you could do that,” LeBlanc said.

A defendant can ask a judge to have legal counsel appointed if, in the interest of justice, counsel is necessary for someone to get a fair trial. Such requests are called Rowbotham applications, so named for the Supreme Court of Canada case that established the precedent and procedure.

However, Deschênes said even if LeBlanc had made a Rowbotham application, it likely wouldn’t have been granted.

Justice Richard Bell said there are countless of New Brunswickers who have attention deficit hyperactivity disorder; he even knows some judges with ADHD, he said.

However, those people still understand the nature and consequences of their actions, Bell said, so LeBlanc’s argument he needed counsel because he has ADHD didn’t hold water. “We don’t have that kind of defence in Canada,” the appeal judge said.

LeBlanc said when he appeared before Clendening this summer, he was immediately distracted because the judge had raised her voice, claiming she was aggressive toward him.

However, he had asked the judge to speak up at the beginning of the hearing because he was having trouble hearing.

“I’m just saying there was bias immediately,” the blogger told the Court of Appeal. He also argued since he was issued a ticket for violating a noise bylaw the day before his arrest for causing a disturbance, he should’ve been allowed to deal with that matter first. “That’s just not the reality of how the law works,” Bell told LeBlanc.

The appeal judge said had LeBlanc been convicted of a bylaw infraction stemming from the same set of facts as the criminal disturbance charge, he might have an argument. The bylaw ticket was withdrawn some time after LeBlanc admitted to the disturbance charge.

While Bell told LeBlanc there was no merit to his argument about being charged twice for the same incident, LeBlanc continued to press the point for a while.

He admitted he didn’t put that argument forth when he appeared before Clendening earlier this year for his first appeal.

Crown prosecutor Christopher Lavigne, representing the province on the appeal, said for the court to grant LeBlanc leave to appeal, the blogger had to show Clendening committed some sort of identifiable error in law.

Justice Marc Richard said if no such error exists, the Court of Appeal doesn’t have the jurisdiction to intervene in the case.
It was noted LeBlanc has already served his sentence of probation, so any kind of appeal is a moot point.

“This has nothing to do with me. This is for other people in the future,” the blogger said, noting he wanted to ensure others without the means to hire a lawyer who are denied legal aid don’t fall victim to the same things he did.

The panel reserved its decision on the matter.

 Here's Sally < The Wingnut > views on my episode in Court -


I attended Charles’ Appeal hearing last Thursday and was interested that the Gleaner article didn’t really cover much of the interesting matters that were raised.

First of all, the point Charles pressed far more than the ADHD issue was that the police had issued a by-law ticket to him on 13th September, around 10.30 am, and their own reports confirmed it covered the time frame from 8th August to 13th September, 2011.  Then, five hours later, the police report by Cpl Bobbi Simmons-Beauchamp confirmed they had suddenly changed their minds and decided to arrest him at 3.30 in the afternoon of 13th September. He did not go back until the morning of the 14th and was immediately arrested and retro-actively criminally charged from 8th August 2011 up to 14th September, 2011. Since this was immediately after the Police had established it was a By-Law infraction it was not fair or reasonable.  (The Crown even said in their submission he had a case for the lesser charge to have been considered more appropriate.)

Charles pointed out that the Crown Prosecutors did not inform the trial judge of the by-law ticket until after his change of plea was entered and never informed the Appeal judge of this fact.  The importance of this was the unreasonableness of the police in suddenly changing the offence to criminal, having allowed him to protest with his bull horn for five and a half weeks without doing anything at all, and then arresting him without giving Charles the opportunity to challenge the ticket in a court of law.  (A reasonable course of action would have been to simply confiscate the bull horn but, instead, Charles ended up in prison for two days….) 

Then came the issue of Charles ADHD, which he stated causes him difficulty concentrating or studying the legal documents.  The Crown tried to call this new evidence but, as Charles pointed out to the Judges, it was in both transcripts of the trial and the appeal, so the judges were made aware of this impediment.  Their response was that they also know judges with ADHD, and it disappointed me that they seemed to be presenting argument for the other side here and were making comments that should have been left to a doctor (and they did not consider that any ADHD child who becomes a judge most probably came from a privileged upbringing and education than many who just have to make do with the average poor education in New Brunswick).

Charles also pointed out to the panel that his ADHD should have been known to the Crown, since they had an obligation, defined in the Attorney General’s Crown Prosecutors Operational Manual, to fully evaluate such issues as the accused person’s health, seriousness of the crime, the public interest in a prosecution, is the offender an habitual criminal etc.   The police also knew about it, since his medications were withheld while he was in custody.

                Next, Charles confirmed to the panel that he had been denied legal representation by Legal Aid, who told him that he would not be imprisoned for charge of causing a disturbance.  He pointed out to the panel that the Cpl. Simmons Beauchamp herself informed him of his right to counsel and he also found out that section 7(1)(e) of the Provincial Offences Procedures Act requires the court itself to inform the accused of his right to counsel via a Summons or Notice to Appear and, as Charles pointed out, no such document was provided to him and this was an error in law.  He said if the court had informed him of this he would have gone back to legal aid and tried again to get a lawyer.  The point was clearly made to the Appeal panel: Charles could not make informed decisions since he was not represented by counsel and, if he had such representation, he believes the change of plea would not have been entered.

                Before moving on Charles noted that the Criminal Code of Canada states that Summary offences, such as his charge, are punishable with a fine or up to six months in jail, so Legal Aid did not correctly inform him he could not be imprisoned and this was another serious problem. 

                Then Charles told the Court that the Crown Prosecutor, Christopher Lavigne, had incorrectly told the Appeal Judge, Justice Clendening, that he had voluntarily signed the Judge’s Undertaking on 16th September, 2011, but the Undertaking clearly shows this was not true.  It actually says:  In order that I may be released from custody, I undertake to ….” And the choice was to sign an undertaking he did not agree to or remain in jail for months waiting for a trial for something he was told he could not be imprisoned for!  He told the Appeal panel this false statement to the court, along with other failings, was serious enough for him to consider filing a complaint to the Law Society of New Brunswick.

In their submission the Crown said Charles’ Appeal for a new trial should be denied, since he had told Justice Clendening he was “ready” to present his argument. Again, Charles pointed out he only said “I believe so”, which is not emphatic, and said he now realizes he was not ready at all.  His lawyer had withdrawn service only four days before the hearing of 3rd July, 2012, and had not filed the required Appellant’s Submission.  Last Thursday Charles explained he was as ready as a non-lawyer could be with only three days to prepare his case, no idea of case law or what the Court needed to hear and suffering from ADHD – and he now realizes he was not ready at all. In closing he asserted his section 15.1 Charter Right to equality in and before the law and to equal benefit and protection of the law, which he feels he was not provided.

Then it was the Crown Prosecutor’s turn.  Mr Lavigne seemed nervous and did not speak for long – I think he was surprised at the arguments Charles presented and did not seem prepared and he got lost in his paperwork a couple of times.  The most interesting part of his argument was actually the Court of Appeal judges’ awkward questions to him.  For example: Did the charge against Charles really have both required elements for it to be considered a crime? They stated there must be more than noise for it to be considered a criminal act, there had to be a motive showing criminal intent and does the Crown believe they had both of the essential elements? Did the Crown agree they are indivisible from the Court when it comes to the duty to ensure the accused is represented by counsel?  Does he agree that the Court might have misrepresented certain issues (not on purpose), such as, when the Trial Judge, Mary Jane Richards, told Charles that he “must agree” with the facts of the Crown’s case presented to her after the change of plea – which seemingly gave him an instruction with no choice, instead of telling him that he did in fact have the right to disagree.  The Crown Prosecutor gave mumbled and weak responses that were not convincing.  He basically had nothing substantial to argue or answer the panel’s questions with.
Charles was given the final word to rebut but told the three judges he felt he had said all he needed to and that he was there before them, not for himself, but for all of the other people who suffer from the same challenges in the Courts who do not have the friends and supporters Charles has who helped him through.

The Appeal panel listened to everything Charles had to say, shared some jokes with him and made him feel comfortable in what is a very intimidating situation for a non-lawyer.  They congratulated him for managing to stay pretty focused and said they will reserve their decision – meaning they will take their time to consider it. 

The serious matters raised in Charles’ appeal are:  we still have no adequate provincial Legal Aid service; unlike St John we have no Mental Health Court in Fredericton; people with Mental illnesses or challenges are sucked into a court system that unfairly treats them like everyone else; Crown Prosecutors are not doing their jobs according to the NB Attorney General’s Crown Prosecutors Operational Manual (available on the Attorney General’s website); Judges are not always diligent where people’s innocence and freedom is at stake; acts that are not criminal are resulting in criminal charges, prosecutions and convictions that have no merit.  All of this results in a waste of public money and the court’s time. 

Congratulations to you Charles – you spoke very well and made your point and I hope the Court of Appeal upholds your request to go back to the lower courts for justice on a matter that was never a criminal act. 

Sally Brooks


Here's Andre Faust views -

Appeals to the higher courts are good for public Interest
Contrary to opinions of some of the automatons , appeals are good for the public because  appeals clarifies the point of the law which gives guidance to those who either enforce the law or have to apply the law to the facts.

When the appeal court hears a case, the case has to have merit to it; otherwise the appeal is not heard.  Frivolous cases do not make it to the bench.  If Charles appeal would have been seen as not having any serious purpose or value, the judges would have denied the application or would have cited the case as frivolous and terminated the proceeding.  Instead the three justices found that there was substance to the case and rendered a reserved decision. Which means that they have to study the case before them, how they decide will depend on whether or not they can find applicable laws to support Charles arguments, while one can make an educated guess on how the judges will decide, no one can predict with accuracy what the outcome will be?

I read Don Macphersons story and he omitted  the core arguments that the Judges are going to decide, I am going to give Macpherson the benefit of the doubt for his limited coverage of the story, the reason maybe because both the Judges and Charles were alternating between French and English and MacPherson did not understand the discussions that were presented in French, I hope that that is the case and  not that MacPherson is a unilateral thinker supporting  ultra conservative Ideologies and suppressing the facts that are inconsistent with that Ideology.

Like Sally I was there, and I was able to follow the arguments in both French and English.  Sally’s commentary highlights most of the salient points that were brought up during the hearing, which are the points that are going too considered by the justices.  The minor points that MacPhersons talks about in his article have been discussed and dealt with at the hearing.

For Clarification, at no time the any of the  judges say that If Charles would have made the Rowbotham application it would have been most likely denied,  Judges tend not to speculate, the key words here are Most likely” which implies speculation.  What the Judges said was that the defendant does not need to know Rowbotham to make an application to have the courts appoint a lawyer.  Rowbotham application is used in criminal proceedings here a defendant either has exhausted their finances or have no resources to pay for a lawyer, but as the judge said, the defendant does not have to know of it, all that the defendant has to do is asked the courts to appoint a lawyer, once the request is made then the Judge considers the request and decides whether or not the application is applicable to the defendants situation.  In Charles case there was no request made.  When I believe it was Justice Bell that asked Charles if he made the request, Charles response was “I didn’t know that I could that, I was just told that legal aid said I don’t qualify”.   What the judges have to decide on this point is necessary to inform the defendant that if they can’t afford a lawyer and legal aid will not provide a lawyer, the court has the power to appoint a lawyer to them.

Two other points that the justices paid attention to was whether or not Charles is guilty plea was voluntary or was it under duress.  The final point that I going to make is in regards to mens rea, the guilty mind, the intent to committee the crime,  In order to get a conviction the crown has to show at minimum that the accused did the act (actus rea) and had criminal intent (mens rea) to committee the crime, it is possible to have the act but not the criminal intent to commit the offense, in Charles case he believed he was protesting and he was exercising his freedom of speech as guaranteed by the charter of rights, that is quite different then having the criminal intent or purpose to commit an offence. 

Charles is not the only one to ever use blow horn during a course of a protest, whether you are one or 10 thousand  protesters a pprotest is  a protest. So why in one situation is in a criminal offence and not in another situation both are exercising the constitutional rights.  The charter of rights is not to just be applied when it convenient to apply it, it has to be applied uniformly, if not then the charter of rights is not worth the paper it’s written on.

Interesting that Macphersons article did not touch on this or another issues that the judges are going to consider in their deliberations, Macpherson only reported the issues that were dealt with during the hearing and will not be included in the deliberations.

Whatever the decision, it will pave the path on how the crown and the police shall proceed in similar situations.

André Faust

So who did a better job in sharing their views to the Public???

I will say the Wing Nut is a VERY smart cookie!!!


Anonymous said...

After the Court of Appeal makes their decision, I read the headlines

Blogger's appeal denied.

Then I will be returning to this blog to see you whine, bitch, and complain about how the justice system is corrupt and all this chest banging bullshit. And then I will continue to mock your ass for being a pitiful man who has nothing better to do than whine, bitch, and complain about how the world is unfair to poor pitiful Charles LeBlanc.

And I know you won't post it because you're a coward and a hypocrite, but you will still see it and read it, and that's all that I want

Charles LeBlanc said...

Ahhhhh yes...the views of the Idiot Coward Jerkface but you are so right on one issue.

If the Judges deny my appeal?

This will give HUGE power to our Police Force in the Courts.

They will be allowed to do their dirty deeds in the Justice Building....

The Government will have to act immediately!!!!!

...and you are so right!!!! I will be bitching and complain BIG TIME!!!!

Truly stay tuned Coward Jerkface...

Anonymous said...


Don't get the result you want, so bitch and moan.

Anonymous said...

Yaa Wingnut! We need many more.

Anonymous said...

Hi Charles and Sally: I have been off-line for quite a while and my young grandson finally came today and fixed things for me. I can't believe how much I depend on the computer for interfacing with the world.

I am so glad Sally that you showed the Gleaner how reporting should be done. In the light of your response, I see nothing but a reversal by the Appeal court.

Now that I am back up and running, I am going to send you a small list of publishers I have from the Maritimes that you might utilize for your book. You are an excellent writer, Sally, and know how to explain things in a very intelligent manner. Charles is fortunate to have you in his corner.

Best regards to you both,


Anonymous said...

Ms. Wingnut!

You shared your "views". The reporter reported a court appearance. That is "journalism" what you and Charles practice is propaganda

Anonymous said...

So, 4.13, you endorse "journalism" that with holds the truth and the facts. I guess you work for the Crown or the police....

Anonymous said...

I would love the people who are defending poor journalism over eye witnesses accounts to tell us their report of the hearing - but of course they were not even there and have no clue of the importance of the lack of justice and due diligence in the courts. They are the whineing moaning conmplaINERS who do not even know the facts. Idiots! Keep going Charles.

Sally said...

4.13 - all a reporter or journalist does is share his views and opinions. As a witness to the hearing I "heard" and related the truth, unedited and with no bias. A socialist journalist will report exactly the same event in a very different way from a capitalist journalist - that is why we need different "opinions". You should listen more and comment less until you have actually witnessed the events reported.

Anonymous said...

Good angle Andre. There was no criminal intent for what Charles did and nobody should be stopped from expressing their beliefs for the good of society as a whole. Downtown is a noisy place - the heavy traffic alone is a distraction but in spite of by laws against noisy motorbikes etc nothing is done unless it is against someone like Charles. Time for less hypocrisy.

Anonymous said...

Hats off to ya all for caring and taking time to comment,Charles needed the attention once again!

mikel said...

I think that all three articles are useful for understanding what happened. It would be nice if cameras were allowed and people could see for themselves.

The gist of this all really seems to come down to the fact that poor people don't have lawyers. People can ask the government for a lawyer, they are then refused, then they are supposed to know that they can ask a judge for a lawyer, in which can a judge MAY give them one.

As for ADHD, why the 'alternative' versions of the story are important is that it shows just what pinheads judges can be, just like everybody else. They are, after all, former lawyers who are handpicked by politicians.

I HIGHLY doubt that a judge has been diagnosed with ADHD. I doubt some 40 year old judge suddenly thought "gee, maybe I should get a diagnosis".

Even if you disagree with Charles and think he's a whiner then you should be congratulating him for standing up and showcasing the legal system. Whether you want to admit it or not, it is messed up, and completely unjust in how the poor and mentally ill are treated. As Charles has shown, a guy is going to prison in January for bylaw infractions, for doing something completely legal in every other province in the country. Its messed up, and the more stories about it the better.

FYI, just so people know, 'bias' is usually pretty easy to spot. In the Gleaner article, they make the point to call Charles 'controversial' and that he's a 'well known activist'. It starts that way so that readers will have little sympathy for him.

In Sally's story, when she says the judges "seem" to be indicating something, that is not a 'fact of the case'. It's also a pretty minor comment.

For Andre's, there is really no reason to stoop to the level of a blogger and start off calling people 'automatons'.

Anonymous said...

Interesting the Gleaner did not pick up on anything that supported Charles position - i.e. that of the ordinary person defending himself and did not really cover the whole story. Disappointing but not surprising. Very pedestrian.

Sally said...

Mikel - in my "story" - which was a true report of the hearing - I never stated the judges "seemed" to indicate anything, instead I gave you their categoric statements. Please don't misquote me, especially when my "story" is right there for everyone to see you are misquoting the facts. Other than that I agree with your comments.

André Faust said...

Chuckle,, I borrowed the term automaton from a fifties sociologist C. Wright Mills. where he says the slavery of the future will not be forced slavery as the past, the slave of the future will voluntary accept their role as a slave, according to Mills the salve of the future will not question, will comply to what the elites request, the slave of the future will be reduced to nothing more than an automaton.

The future is here, and when you look at the caliber of some of the posts that are submitted on this blog. One can conclude that there is little or no critical thinking that has taken place,like an automaton, you simply accept what you have been told. In my youth Mills was very instrumental in developing a sociological perspective. :)

Anonymous said...

Well said Andre. Your observations and reasoning are more intellectual than mine - I just believe the lawyers, politicians and judges are all indoctrinated to behave in the corrupt way they do because, if they don't, they will not have a job in this province any more. That makes them robots -automotons. You are right, Mikel is wrong.

mikel said...

Actually, Andre specifically said the blogger audience, NOT 'lawyers, politicians, and judges'. The point is, when you start your comment by belittling other people, or in the Gleaner's case, of stereotyping them, there is a political purpose to that, which is what propaganda is.

People who adamant against your ideas are going to be no matter what-people that are sympathetic to your cause won't care. However, those reading to gauge their 'truthiness' are going to see you starting with "contrary to what those stupid enough to disagree with me say..." and will immediately think you have an axe to grind.

Just because some commentors are snide sometimes or don't have a lot to say, that doesn't make them any more 'automatons' than any of the rest of us.

Charles quite often deserves a few epitaphs, I think ANY good activist does. Most of the comments, even negative ones, are pretty easily defended, and certainly don't need to be. You can write ten paragraphs outlining Charles activities some days, or just paraphrase with 'he was being a dick'. Charles can't complain about that, because most of his blog posts consist of the same thing about other people.

There is a reason even journalists submit a 'story', because that's what it is. Sally's is also a 'story'-it is not a transcript. I didn't misquote, but I misrepresented- it was the crown prosecutor who "seemed nervous", and Sally "thinks" he was surprised. Those are value judgements, whether you like it or not. Like I said, there are very few in there and its not a big deal.

There is SUPPOSED to be bias in political reporting-its a bias for the Gleaner to even include the story in the first place and even transcripts will pick and choose how to include information. In this case what is clear is that the poor need better political and legal representation, that is SO obvious that there SHOULD be every bias (short of calling people at home 'automatons' for not putting enough required thought into their reactions) against the political and legal 'machine'.

What is most inexcuseable about the Gleaner article is that it fails to do that. It almost purposely tries to make the point best made on a headline on the Simpsons - "Local Nut At it Again". There is only a quote attributed to Charles about it 'not happening to other people', again, that's why I say its important in a media article to START by saying Charles is a 'well known activist' and 'controversial', so that when he DOES get quoted people give it as little credence as possible. That's rhetoric 101 and makes for VERY bad journalism.

Sally and Andre clearly come down on the OTHER side, so we are told that the CP gave "mumbled and weak responses that were not convincing"-not what the responses actually were.

I'll point out that the quotes I made are the only standouts (to me) which is better than the Gleaner article. But this is Charles blog, and this is online, so as a person who has written a few lines I can say with some experience-get used to being misquoted. It goes without saying that its pretty bad in media circles when your paper would be better served by volunteers than their paid staff. Unless of course the whole point of the article was to undermine the whole issue of the legal rights of the poor.

Anonymous said...

I think Mikel wants to write the blogs even though he wasn't there.

Anonymous said...

Wow insults on this blog. Imagine! How many times has Charles told his idiot jerk faces off? So Andre layin in a automaton is not a surprise in these parts.

Anonymous said...

McPherson did his job. He reported on what was dealt with at the appeal. All the other stuff is just speculation and not news.

After the ruling. He will give more news on what was decided, leaving. out again the speculation, as is his job.

Let the bloggers rail on about this and that. MOst people just want what was decided. As don gave us.

Anonymous said...

@11:12 PM

Don will give what he is allowed to by a biased newspaper that is controlled by a mega corporation with its hands deep in the pockets of the elected officials.
The 3 panel of Judges are there to protect Government and themselves at all costs

André Faust said...

@ 11:12 PM, November 19, 2012

I don't think you read the body of the blog, your are arguing the inverse to what Sally and I said. I suspect that McPherson is not functionally bilingual and missed the points of law that were discussed in French, and only understood the English portion.

During the hearing I only saw four other spectators who were not involved in the case in the Gallery. From your assertion I trust you were one of the four.

If you were there I would have expected little stronger argument from supporting your claim.

To sum up McPherson for whatever reason did not report the essentials, he only reported the aspects that at least on the surface was rejected by the tribunal not the legal issues that the judges reserved decision on.

I think its safe to say that the longer that it takes the judges to arrive to a decision to more complex the law is at arriving a decision. I am confident that the Judges will come to a sound decision either for or against the appellant. However I am not as confident that McPherson reporting will be as objective.

Sally said...

re: the post at 9.19. I did not manage to quote the `Crown counsel because he was inaudible and there is no amplification in the Appeal Court room and, in spite of being a legislated "Court of Record" (under the Judicature Act NB) there is no audio or written recording of the hearings.
The only thing I clearly heard the Crown counsel saying was that he could not answer for the previous Crown Prosecutor in respect of Charles' ADHD being evaluated for the Pre-Charge Review. That was interesting - and seems to indicate there was no formally completed review, which should have been in the CPS file for the next Crown Prosecutor to read and use.
Again, this seems to indicate the Crown not diligently doing their job.

Anonymous said...

Andre babbled
"To sum up McPherson for whatever reason did not report the essentials, he only reported the aspects that at least on the surface was rejected by the tribunal not the legal issues that the judges reserved decision on."

Exactly what I said. He reported on the resolved issues. It's not mcphersons job to emulate. When other issues get resolved he reports on those.

It has never been the medias job to report on what if and what mght bea. That is for editorials. A reporters job is to report the resolved facts. As he did. He also stated that the judges reserved judgment and thus ere is more to come. As is his job.

He did everything required of a reporter.

Sign me, not a fan of his style, but knows when he does his job.

Anonymous said...

Wow, 4.15 - sounds like Don McPherson defending his poor journalism not very convincingly!