1. Vasili Yeremenko from Canada writes: Next step put Nancy Grace, who publically slandered the players night after night, in jail.
  2. Rob Bairos from Toronto, Canada writes: Vasili, I second that motion!! Shes a vigilante without a clue, not a journalist.
    Eye Sore from Dog Pound, Alberta, Canada writes: Yes, Nancy Grace must be dis-Graced. And Mike Nifong who self-servingly ruined the lives of 3 promising young men must be dragged through the
    civil trial brought by their families and made to pay a very heavy financial
    cost for his outrageous conduct.
  4. donald kennedy from prince george, Canada writes: Do you see why we must not elect judges. The desire to be elected corrupted him. Judges who follow the mob are what we DON'T need.
  5. Rob Bairos from Toronto, Canada writes: good point Donald K. ...But playing devils advocate, wouldnt the same reasoning apply to any elected official, at any level, including ruling parties and prime ministers?
  6. robert quinn from Japan writes: No need to stop with Nancy Grace, gentlemen. There are any number of parties guilty of a flagrant rush to judgement, including most of the Duke faculty. One could have expected the usual assortment of carpetbagging journalists, Candian and American both, to join the chorus demanding bonfires for the innocent. Tom Wolfe knew his targets well.
  7. Jay Wortman MD from Vancouver, Canada writes: I agree with Donald Kennedy. This is only the most flagrant recent example of an election campaign having a detrimental effect on a case that is before the courts. The need to pander to the public's fears and desire for revenge to get elected as a judge or DA only distorts the administration of justice and skews the outcome. The US, with 5% of the world's population, has 25% of the world's prison population. This is not where we want to go.
  8. donald kennedy from prince george, Canada writes:
    Ken Haas: I have thoought about this for since I defended my first murder case in 1964, I also prosecuted 50 or so and am still defending two at present The U.S. Supreme Court is appointed as are all federal judges there. NO COUNTRY elects
    all its judges.. If Pakistans Chief Justice was elected instead of appointed there would be no uproar over his removal, he
    would have followed the mob as virtually all elected people do.
    Elected judges in my book are little better than vigilantes and
    make rulings on the current political climate rather than the law.
  9. donald kennedy from prince george, Canada writes: While I'm at it don't you know that an appointed judge is only appointed during 'good behaviour' and can be removed by a joint address of both houses of parliamen. And some judges have been so removed, although they usually resign before it gets that far. Parliament can change the law and judges have to follow it. Parliament can set aside Charter judgements it disagrees with. I do not want judges who convict on public mood instead of the law! EVER.
  10. Justin Campbell from Ottawa, Canada writes: Rob Bairos: That's why we have a Constitution -- something that is clearly undermined when those who are supposed to defend the law against the mob are reduced to pandering to them instead.
  11. The Skipper from Canada writes: Good news but just don't stop at this guy as there are others who capitalized on this fiasco who should be held accountable.
  12. Ken Hass from Edmonton, Canada writes: Donald Kennedy, I forgot to mention that there should be term limitation, two five year terms, on elected Judges. No one is more independent than a Judge in his last term.
    Judges have to be accountable, until they are proven, and then elected to their last term.
    I have personally seen many bad biased decisions by appointed judges and so have you if you are in the judicial business. If you have not seen bad decisions by Judges, you are lying. Appointed judges, are as prone to the public mood, as elected judges, only elected Judges in their last term are independent!
    Judges have to be accountable.
  13. Ken Hass from Edmonton, Canada writes: An excellent example of a bad Judge, is the Judge that is suing the Drycleaner for $54,000,000.00 for loosing a pair of pants.
    Give me a break, Judges like this, are why we need elected Judges. This Judge would have no hope of ever getting re-elected, if he had to run.
    People that underestimate the public, are elitist fools!
  14. Steve White from Canada writes: donald kennedy - interesting point about electing (or not electing) judges, however, Nifong was not a judge but rather a prosecutor.

    Appointing judges (or prosecutors) does not prevent injustice. Canada has had its fair share of botched prosecutions (either convicting the wrong person or letting of violent criminals with a slap on the wrist). Judges and prosecutors bring their own biases and agendas into the court whether elected or not.

    It seems to me that the American legal system worked here... eventually. A rogue prosecutor has been disbarred.
  15. george moe from Algeria writes: Never mind elected judges, past district attourneys in NC have sent innocent black men on death row and all they got was a reprimand. The message is dont f*#k with rich white kids.
    Route 90 from Winnipeg, Canada writes: Donald Kennedy made excellent points. There is a huge difference between an elected judiciary and elected legislators. While I agree that both the House of Commons and the Senate should be elected (hopefully, one day soon, for the latter), I completely disagree that judges (or crown attornies / prosecutors) should be elected. The legislative and executive (i.e. the cabinet) branches of government need to be checked... that is the professional, appointed, independent judiciary. Otherwise, everyone in public service is just playing to the polls. In the case of prosecutors, they also need independence from the fickleness of public opinion. Also, to those who think the party in power stacks the judiciary with their 'picks', candidates for open positions on the bench are scrutinized by committees that represent the jurisdictions and stakeholders who will be served. A list of thoroughly vetted candidates is submitted to the governing party. The PM doesn't just 'hand pick' his / her cronies. It's a rigorous process that is taken seriously by leading members of the Bar. Who is most qualified to choose excellent judges: (i) senior lawyers on committees across Canada who have witnessed these experienced lawyers in action, or (ii) the members of general public who have based their decision on a limited campaign and media spin?
  17. Emma Hawthorne from Canada writes: Thus case differs markedly from Canadian practise. There, the South Caroline Attorney General and Special Inistigaitions Unit went to work on the prosecutor's misconduct and to repair the harm done to innocent students by seeking an order to exonerate the wrongly accused students. In Canada, the Attorney General would line up with the regulator to defend the actions of the errant prosecutor against public complaints. No steps would be taken to clear the reputations of innocents lest potential civil damages grow, and the AG, regulator and government would pull out all stops to defend the prosecutor and smooth things over without charges. They would act as a pack, to get any civil suits filed by the wrongly accused dismissed on every technicality imagined (and a few you haven't) and politicians would ride it out as the 'cirminals who got away,' rather than the 'innocent accused', until the next election. Ten years from now those wrongly accused would still be mired in the mud of a Canadian cover-up, which could and likely would drag on for decades. In South Carolina the justice system is transparent enough to have picked up a pattern of wrongful prosecutions and then acted to restore public confidence. In Canada the public is naive and assumes they will never be wrongfully accused. Our system can also be fairly opaque, and takes much longer to right, such as in the matter of the wrongly accused parents of the children examined by Dr. Smith. If Canadians were paying attention recently they know that our Charter and Charter rights are readily cast aside by many in the criminal law system, by some members of the bench, and by all of our civil jusutice system which has enormous administrative law deficits that favour the monies and corrupt prosecutors. The only jsutice to be the subject of disciplined in Ontario in recent years was prosecuted for upholding the Charter. That's right. He found the Crown had breached too many Charter rights.He was disciplined for it.
  18. Emma Hawthorne from Canada writes: I forgot to mention thAT THE WRITTEN COMPLAINT FILED AGAINST The only justice to be disciplined in Ontario in recent years, was disciplined after Ontario's Attorney General Michael J., Bryant, himself, filed a complaint with the Candian Judicial Counsel after the justice roundly criticized Bryant's prosecutors for scores of Charter violations. In Ontario, justices take their careers in their hands if they uphold too many rights. South Carolina prosecutor Michael Nifong would likely have been congratualted for prosecuting vigorously and the courts would have foumd it was the accuseds' fault if they didn't discover Nifong's DNA-evidence coverup during the trial. Maybe their appeals would have been foreclosed on that basis alone. I admire the integrity of the South Carolina State Bar and wish we had even a fraction of their integrity here in Canada. We don't.
  19. Vasili Yeremenko from Canada writes: I believe Emma is correct. I have knowledge of such a case.
  20. donald kennedy from prince george, Canada writes:
    Emma Hawthorne; Anyone who did what Nifong was shown to have done would be disbarred here too. Complete disclosure is presently a very live issue in a Vancouver case before Madame Justice Elizabeh Bennet in the Basi-Virk case. Look it up! I think special prosecutor Bill Berardino may have trouble coming up with answers. This could not have happened before an elected judge, for obvious reasons because it innvolves what is looking more and more as a political cover-up to protect the party in power.
  21. Emma Hawthorne from Canada writes: Donald Kennedy I wish you were correct but believe you are dead wrong. No prosecutor has ever been disbarred in Canada, have they? It took the Supreme Court of Canada to decide in Kreiger that the law society could even investigate a Crown prosecutor for non-dislcosure. Heck even disclosure was up for grabs until a Court of Appeal aid down the lawin Stinchcombe. Wasn;t that a 12-year or so legal battle jsut to get fair treatment. Our system is designed to uphold the integrity of the system and protect 'the administration of justice.' Nice ideals, but here in Canada they are twisted to deflect all investigations of prosecutors, ignore illegal poklice activities, allow tainted evidence in (the thinking - if you can call it that - is that our 'system of jsutice' would be brought into disrepute if we kept tainted evidence out!!!), and making sure no defendant ever wins in a case against the Crown. No tax dollar is spared when it can be called into service to protect the Crown from a deserved legal attack. Sadly, we live in rats alley.
  22. Emma Hawthorne from Canada writes: Here is a link for US prosecutorial misconduct. There is nothing for Canada.


    Also the Nifong complaint, itself, is quite enlightening as to proper legal standards and how legal regulators should function when prosecuting.
  23. donald kennedy from prince george, Canada writes: Emma Hawthorne: Just from memory the first prosecutor of Robert Latimer, the prosecutor of Susan Nelles. I am no defender of The Supreme Courts French And Conservative bent on criminal law..
    This is a large subject but I am very angry about the destruction of the hundred year old rule in Ibrahim versus the king while denying that that is what they are doing. Look at R.v. Spence. I am a traditional lawyer astonished at the destruction of the hearsay rule of evidence, worried about the potential for the conviction of the innocent, also worried about the corruption of undercover operations which require lying as part of the operation.Ie. the Mr. big sting which is not accepted in the U.S. but Madame Justice Claire-Heroux did the cause of justice in Canada what appears to be a body blow.
  24. Emma Hawthorne from Canada writes: I think a Nelles prosecutor was fired. It's helpful to recall that she was out of the country duirng several suspect deaths!!!!! No physician was even even considered for investigation but absentee nurses were fair game!

    A tiny career bump - prosecutor terminaiton - is a very small price to pay for wrongfully damaging a life. They probably took severence 'keep quiet' packages as well. Come to think of it, one never hears of prosecutors suing for wrongful dismissal.
  25. Scott Anderson from Windsor, Ontario, Canada writes: I am all for Nancy Grace getting kicked to the Curb, Hey maybe we will see CNN get sued for Nancy's Graces negative and malicious remarks about the accused. At the beginning of her show it doesn't state that the opinions expressed are not that of CNN. I don't know how she avoids not getting sued for the flap of the lips that keeps occurring. Maybe she might learn from getting sued for such comments then she can start slamming herself for being guilty even before found guilty or not.
    Route 90 from Winnipeg, Canada writes: Emma Hawthorne, the Canadian system is far from perfect. The criminal prosecutions involving the evidence of a rogue coroner like Dr. Smith are a highly unfortunate illustration... but, you can hardly lay the blame for those cases solely at the feet of the Crown attorneys relying on his 'expert' testimony. I'm not a criminal lawyer, but I believe the SCC in Nelles removed the notion of the absolute immunity of a Crown attorney in the case of malicious prosecution. Without devolving this discussion further into the world of evidence, we would be remiss to look to the US system as a model without faults - it too is quite open to abuse from above. A glaring case in point is the current one of embattled US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and the politically-motivated firings of several US attorneys for alleged 'performance related problems'.
  27. Mark H from Columbus, IN, United States writes: 'robert quinn from Japan writes: No need to stop with Nancy Grace, gentlemen. There are any number of parties guilty of a flagrant rush to judgement, including most of the Duke faculty.'

    For context's sake, the college of Liberal Arts (specifically the school of African American studies) were the ones in the 'group of 88'. Science schools, engineering, law etc didn't sign on - because they have brains in their heads.

    To switch gears, there was an incident in Minnesota about a month ago involving three black football players charged with raping a white girl at a party. Crickets and tumbleweeds from the MSM down here - you think the Gophers will cancel their football season and fire the coach? Found a synopsis here:
    Just the Truth from Canada writes: The discipline board of the North Carolina State Bar didn't undertake this action on its own, out of a sense of 'justice'. Prosecutors and 'tough on crime' types all over the US (including those on Faux News) defended the actions of this moral cretin to the end, as 'a reasonable exercise of prosecutorial discretion'.

    It was only because of the dogged efforts of the parents of these boys and others who, contrary to the aims of prosecutors, were IN FAVOUR OF justice that this result occurred. Months ago, they were accused of being 'pro-criminal'.

    And don't expect any apology or even an acknowledgment from the right-wing morons on Faux News; truth has never been what Faux News has been about.
  29. M J from Ottawa, Canada writes: Don't worry about Nancy Grace. This Nancy is gone; another Nancy will come. She only said what was in her interests. As long as the temptations are there, someone will take his/her chance. This time it was Mike/Nancy; next time it can be John/Linda. Many people are lining up there, just have not got their chance.
  30. gordon davies from Victoria B.C., Canada writes: It seems that we have those who will go to any length to be elected & have a chance to pray upon the public purse. Sadly these types are marginal in talent & short in truth with a perchance leaning to the dark side.
  31. Winston Smith from Brampton, Canada writes: Poor Nifung, his hunt for the Great White Defendant failed as miserably as the DA's in Tom Wolfe's Bonfire of the Vanities.

    Another perpetrator of this farce is the PC media. Lead by the New York Times, they faned the flames screaming "racism," "entitlement," never caring that even the most liberal interpretation of the facts screamed not guilty. They too should be held to account. They should be made to give an answer for why they paid so much attention to this case when much more heinous crimes were committed by blacks against whites were systematically ignored.

    Check out this case that was not picked up by the national (PC) media:
  32. Michael Leblanc from Toronto, Canada writes: This slow motion train wreck was painful to watch. In my view it highlights an increasingly serious problem of "reverse racism'. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that visible minorities are not descriminated against in the U.S. as well as here, but this in no way justifies equally abhorrent racism in the other direction. One commentor here refers derisively to 'rich white kids'......ignoring the fact that the accused in this case were found to be innocent - and wrongfully accused to boot, again in my view largely due to descrimination towards their race and backround.

    I read a lot about this case, and was shocked at some of the attitudes towards it at a neighbouring school with a majority black student body. Many students there said it didn't matter so much to them if the accused were innnocent - that they should be found guilty regardless, to atone for past crimes of their race. How F-u==ed up is that??

    One of the most grim things I read was the story of how the "victim's" co-dancer who at first did not back her partner's version of events, suddenly changed her story and contacted a top PR firm in New York to ask them for advice on how to "spin" her story for maximum financial yield. Surprisingly enough, the PR firm passed her request on to the media and others and she was disgraced.

    Two wrongs don't make a right.
    Mike Bellows from Canada writes: Good to see lawyers held responsible for ruining lives. Now can something be done about those soft tissue lawyers who cost us a fortune in insurance premiums or bankrupt people at any cost in order to get their " cut "
  34. Mr Fijne from Calgary, Canada writes: Jim Flaherty should be disbarred and trialed for treason! But in Canada we'd rather lecture others than do the right thing...
  35. For a Better Canada from No-Quebec, Canada writes: Nifong should come to Quebec. Barreau du Quebec will give him a lifetime license as long as he steals assets from small entrepreneurs, get involved in perjuires and frauds. Having an account with Caisses Desjardins will not hurt. Better, become attorney for the so-called financial institution. Later, he will get a chance to be named judges...one more in the corruptiion clique protected by the fascist group, above the law, of course.
  36. Emma Hawthorne from Canada writes: No one is suggesting adopting a US-style system. But in light of Nifong and our many, many flaws, urgent reform is needed here in Canada. Their prosecuting office failed, but in fact everything else worked. From the Attorney General's speical invesitgations unit to the media (a news-show did a feature on the Duke case), the medical expert was forthright, the information did come out about the Duke case and several earlier South Carolina fiascos by prosecutors, the state bar association had the wherewithal to act, the parents of the wrongly-accused had sufficient money to fight, etc. Here in Canada the media will not move without a government press release to give them instructions, our caselaw is poorly written, illogically indexed and referenced to certain biases, our Attorney General is unable to act or refuses to act to correct nearly any government wrong, our politicians are perpetually in sleep mode and will claim they cannot be involved in any justice matters, our Ombudsman lacks jurisdiciton, our law societies court justice ministries not challenge them, our medical experts tailor their opinions to the paying party's preferences. Our Charter is often ignored by the Courts and others. IN SHORT, OUR SYSTEM IS BROKEN.
    Route 90 from Winnipeg, Canada writes: Emma H, so what's the solution? We can't control the media. If they don't act without government "instructions" (your words), that's not something the general public can act on. I guess we could stop watching their news or reading their papers. As pointed out by many above, the US media was led by the nose on the Duke matter as well - from sensationalist Nancy Grace to the more staid NY Times. Further, in the Duke matter (as you also pointed out), it was the strength of will and finances of the victims' parents that drove the system to examine the prosecutor's actions and motivate the SRO to disbar the offending lawyer. If our system is broken, I'm not sure how you propose we fix it. Elect judges? Elect prosecutors? How does that compel Canadian law societies to sanction poor counsel any more effectively than they already do? Would elected judges defend the Charter any more agressively that appointed judges? Conversely, would elected prosecutors fight more vigorously to uphold a statute that violates the Charter. Who knows? I don't hear a solution proposed that can be backed by a reasoned argument.
  38. Emma Hawthorne from Canada writes: It was refreshing to see the panel hand down its decision in NIfong yesterday (televised) because an unmistakeable impression was provided that in fact both sides had a full opportunity to question the evidence and charges in a fair environment, and where even the defendant would have had a full opportunity to respond and call evidence. This could not happen here. In Canada, the prosecutor/.regulatory counsel is heard first, and often has exclusive access to cases hidden from the defendant. Canadian law societies do not set out a set of facts and precise legal standard engaging these facts said to be breached in any complaint, and our (idiotic) courts have failed to recognize sufficient civil justice rights to prevent this breach of fundamental justice rights. As the law societies also control the publication of court decisions (asll except the Sup. Ct. of Can) on government web sites such as canlii.org, they edit out all decisions that do not favour them. Our courts like paper and may read documents filed. They will not censor law societies who mis-state facts, fudge paperwork or make mis-statements to courts. Mr. Nifong was disbarred in part for making misleading statements to courts and tribunals. That would never happen here as the courts and tribunals would repeat any mis-statements profeered by the law society and or Crownas readily -accepted fact. Next, the Canadian court, after giving full latitute to the prosecution, would then constantly interrupt, confuse, make flippant remarks to and ignore the defence unless it liked the defence counsel. Although the Attorney General's court student court reporters record hearings to learn from, transcripts will rarely be available, and certainly never without errors, for cases important to defendants, because it will send sneior court reporters who will NOT record hearings. It's a Punch and Judy show.
  39. Emma Hawthorne from Canada writes: The South Carolina State Bar proivded a high standard of justice no doubt because South Carolina Courts have required this. This could not happen here because, for example, at Osgoode Hall in Toronto, we have a bizarre 200-year-old situation where the law society resides WITH the courts that are supposed to be supervising itl. Rather than hold the regulator to a proper standard of administrative law, the courts of Osgoode Hall are holding the regulator to luncheon dates in the dining room. Court staffs are famous for accommodating the regulator, opening and closing court files in secret, "delaying" certain filings, fudging a few files. One can watch court staff members with bulky bags travel along York Street in Toronto on afternoons, before slipping back into the 'office' at Osgoode Hall with lgihter bags. While televising the hearing in South Carolina provided a measure of transparency there, here in Canada, and especially at Osgoode Hall, it would only have been a bizarre comedy hour - fuzzy charges, missing documents, foot-loose facts, impatient judges, hidden decisions that even the courts do not know about, and there would be no question of a full and fair hearing to determine the facts and then apply law. It would not be possible without first writing sufficient charges (ie in law and fact), providing equal access to prior decisions (Ontario's law society has a written policiy of NEVER releasing decisions wherein it loses!!) and fairly (and without lying) examining the evidence. Nevertheless, our media would function as a 40--second sound bite, then return to review the dining room menu. It would be a good first step to tackle mis-statements of prosecutors, require the courts to uphold S.7 Charter - fundamental justice rights (sufficient charges) and open up the dusty hidden files of our law societies. (open corts principle of access to prior decisions, S. 2(b) Charter. Justices uncomfortable with these requirements should leave the bench.
  40. Emma Hawthorne from Canada writes: Dear Route 90: The solutions are elegantly simple. 1. If our Chief Justice or an Attorney General stated that Osgoode Hall should only be a S. 96 courthouse, they could request this and it would be done immediately, because the admission would attract S. 96 challenges. 2. As it was 60 minutes, 20/20 or Dateline that initiated the inquiries with their excellent piece on the Duke prosecution, we could encourage independent media thinking here and ask our legal newspapers to stop taking direct orders from law societies, as they do now. Shame on them! 3. We could require our courts and all regulators (creatures of legislation) to acquire administrative law competence - so they they could recognize: a) a sufficiently worded complaint, b) ensure access to prior decisions (A Gitmo problem) c) provide a fair and impartial hearing in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice d) agressively prosecute - and disbar - any Crown prosecutor or equivalent (such as a law society prosecutor) who makes a misleading statement to any court or tirbunal. 4) Governments need to set up a functioning central complaints office to receive and act upon justice complaints. Currently this is NOT being done, all claims to the contrary. 5) Our schools need to better educate Canadians so that they can recognize corruption, document unfairness and effectively blow the whisle. You see, it would take precious little leadership, basic legal competence and almost no money to fix our system in just a few months. merely state thier concerns and request either that the ocurts move or that all of the other interests move away.
  41. Derek Holtom from Swan River, Canada writes: soon to be an episode of law and order
  42. Emma Hawthorne from Canada writes: My comment that our media acts only with government instructions was a little too impatient and not precise enough. I think our media often have the right motives but get caught up trying to maintain a fourth-estate power position and and also credibility in powerful justice systems which reporters know can quash them on whim. It is no easy task to negotiate such a system, especially an out-dated 19C justice system that has failed to modernize, that has so many hidden levers, and where people in positions of power do not hesitate to pick up the phone and scream at the media. I think the media can better navigate by focusing on reasonable questions and following reasonable lines of inquiry without deterrence. For example, when the Star atempted last year to question what it felt was too few prosecutions by legal regulators, it began with strength, but failed to hone in on proper measurements of whether and how the mandate was being fulfilled. The media often demands more to be done, but does not qualify exactly what precisely should be done. That devolves quickly to mob demands for another hanging! It could have focused on the conduct of benchers, their lack of training and ignorance of administrative law plus their breaches of their duties and hidden personal conflicts of interest. It could have asked administrative law experts to comment on the process. It could have asked why the LSUC (but not others) hides cases it loses!!!! Surely that is a red flag! It could have asked what should be done about mortgage fraud?(this now seems to be answered with insurance, court precedent and education of the public and bar). Our media need encouragement and must always perk up their ears when faced with puzzling silence. That's the big story - no one is talking about.
  43. Emma Hawthorne from Canada writes: Our media should do a story on how Canadians could or should deal with lying and unethical prosecutors. That would be news Canadians could use and it might lead to excellent follow-up stories.
  44. donald kennedy from prince george, Canada writes:
    Emma Hawthorne: You are doing a considerable service by talking about dysfunctions in Ontario. In BC our Law Society separated its offiices from courthouses some thirty to thirty five years ago..Law society discipline cases including all punishments as well as dismissed complaints are featured regularly in Law Society Reports distributed to all BC lawyers.There continues to be a reluctance to report unethical behaviour because it shakes the tree and who knows what might fall out.
  45. Ottawa Mens Centre.com, from Ottawa Capital of Male Apartheid, Canada) wrote: Male Apartheid is plaguing Canada as well as most western countries. Prosecutors salivate over any prosecution that bows to feminist doctrines. Take for example the Crown Attorneys in Timmins Ontario. Back in 1998 they repeatedly arrested one father in a custody battle simple because he had a letter published in two local papers describing how two local agencies obstructed justice who put the one father through 8 criminal charges, basically the same charge redressed. When he described the judge involved as “an insult to justice” they had him again arrested, thrown in jail on a 5 charges of criminal defamation, 2 of those charges were for supposedly defaming the Children’s Aid Society and the Canadian Mental Health Association. Another of those charges was for defaming the mother’s solicitor for stating that the solicitor made false statements in written submissions alleging that the father admitted making a false statement under oath. A fact that never occurred. The Timmins Crown Attorneys ignored multiple obvious documented offences against the father and each time, has the father arrested and thrown in jail where the prisoners were told that the father was a pedophile. Every day across Canada, prosecutors vilify the administration of Canadian justice by acting as feminist foot soldiers doing indirectly what they know is illegal directly all to earn feminist brownie points that will help their career. It makes you wonder why kind of personality disorder these creeps have they lets them sleep at night while committing heinous crimes obstruction of justice often with the obvious goal of intimidation and destruction to prevent a law suit for malicious prosecution. Often the damage comes later. Prosecutors often wink to the local police to have ongoing never ending harassment designed for keep such victims from developing the ability or the necessary financial stability needed to file claims for malicious prosecutions.  http://www.OttawaMensCentre.com