@lawandchocolate I'll take "things that didn't happen" for 200 Alex. Why make something so silly up ππ€‘. If the judge doesn't stay in the courtroom, who is the one telling you you aren't allowed to stay during the break?
@JamesDBowie Let's see them then, coward. You are a lying sexual predator who deserves everything that's coming to him. Good job completely imploding your career! π€‘
@glenda_aus @JamesDBowie Hate to break it to you Glenda but your instincts are wildly off. I guess "believe women" doesn't apply when you like the accused person. What a hypocrite.
@debbie_trumbley@JamesDBowie Is that what you say every time a sexual assault victim comes forward more than a day after the abuse they suffered? π€‘ What a shameless hypocrite you are. Sexual assault victims are liars when the accused aligns with your politics π
@Ansovald@JamesDBowie And when it's inevitably proven true, fingers crossed you are shamed for defending a sexual predator because they agree with your politics π€‘
@BlognDog @dropvolleyer And triers of fact make the determination of what they believe to be a fact, based on the evidence they've heard. You have a woeful and faulty understanding of the Canadian legal system. Yikes.
@EfrayimMoldofs1 @Burbank_Law @AlbertaJSG @albertacrownatt The fact you think someone has to be a Crown lawyer in order to disagree with your consistently legally incorrect and absurd takes is quite telling. What's that saying about telling others not to assume?
@EfrayimMoldofs1 I think the story of your life is more properly consistently terrible advocacy with unconscionably biased and faulty legal and logical positions getting trumped by intelligent judges and prosecutors who see through the garbage. π€‘
@dropvolleyer @EfrayimMoldofs1 Where the only issue is consent, this is entirely appropriate. Unless you're suggesting that situations in which a sexual assault occurs and consent is the only issue should never be convictions, which is a shameful position. What a terrible take.
@BlognDog @dropvolleyer What an awful take. There's nothing "objective" in it. If a witness's testimony outlining all the elements of an offence is believed, and an accused's is entirely disbelieved, there is no reasonable doubt. Beyond a reasonable doubt is not, nor purports to be, certainty.
@EfrayimMoldofs1 @Burbank_Law Good god, you really got triggered by the two of us pointing out your woeful advocacy and logical skills. What an embarrassment to the Bar you are π