NeverMindTheFacts
CPCVille
Or some such thing, according to McMaher of Postmedia. Here's their lede:
OTTAWA — A left-of-centre advocacy group that brought legal challenges against the election of six Conservative MPs was looking for “payback” and wanted to advance its “anti-Harper agenda” the MPs’ lawyer told the Federal Court in an often tense hearing Monday.
Conservative lawyer Arthur Hamilton says the Council of Canadians is the true litigant behind the six legal challenges.
Lawyers for voters in six ridings allege voter suppression calls affected the results of the election, and want the court to order byelections.
Hamilton wants the court to toss out the six cases based on the legal prohibition against “champerty and maintenance” — trying to benefit from someone else’s lawsuit...
Thus, apparently, the Cons' first gambit is is to make like Mr. Jaggers and try to wash everything away by claiming that the six citizens involved are buying into the Council's lawsuit.
Oh.
That and it's all political.
Or some such thing.
______
Alison has more.....Much more.
.
Monday, December 10, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
"Champerty", according to The Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary, is "the illegal proceeding, whereby a party not naturally concerned in a suit engages to help the plaintiff or defendant to prosecute it, on condition that, if it be brought to a successful issue, he is to receive a share of the property in dispute."
Wonder what booty these pirates hope to garner?
EG--
Not entirely sure about the booty, but I'm pretty sure Maude Barlow let fly with a mighty 'Aaaaaaaaarrrggh!'
As for the KRichards/JDepp eyeblack?...Not so sure about that either.
.
After reading elsewhere that the lawsuit was "frivolous", my first thought was, I wonder what word they have for the manipulation of votes. Personally I'm sticking with "election fraud", which is not a frivolous reason to go to court.
Well at least you can't accuse the HarperCons of "champerty" or being political - everything they do is treasonous and/or criminal!
I love these archaic legal terms, "champerty;"it means "field-part," which, in feudal times, referred to the part of the produce due a lord from underlings working his fields.
I can understand the courts wanting to prevent a backer with no natural interest in a case from arranging for a piece of the award if the complaint is frivolous. But frivolity doesn't seem to apply here. Moreover, there is no money award sought. I'm assuming the CoC is providing legal funding for the plaintiffs pro bono, for the good, and not in expectation of any money from the decision, not in the form of pay back or in any additional money. As for "natural interest," surely it is in everyone's interest to have an irreproachable electoral system; in fact, the "natural" interest in this case is really a national interest, natural to all citizens, including the CoC.
Harper's lawyers know their champerty argument is irrelevant to the complaint and we all know they are trying to obstruct development of the case (they for legal, Harper for political reasons.)
Does that make them frivolous?
I hope the judge rules by next week, but alas the process will be too slow, take months, and justice won't arrive until the SCOC sees it late next year, and possibly rules in the peoples' favour. Sad.
Excellent point Scotty - there is absolutely no frivolity here.
______
SaskB-
You really smell a stay?
.
Post a Comment