Quote:
Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer
As for the oh-so-secret briefing, it's apparently available for public viewing. Also, it's not a "white paper" in the technical sense, since a private party can't issue one. That's just the term the WSJ used to add some gravitas, and that you picked up because it slotted nicely into the story you've constructed.
|
I'm wondering: When you make your pronouncements, are they based on Canadian law and politics? In the United States, white papers are not limited to governments as they are in other countries. In fact, the U.S. government rarely, if ever, releases something it calls a white paper.
I have also noted that many of your pronouncements on law don't quite mesh with what I was taught in law school or was understood when I practiced law in the United States, which admittedly was a long time ago.
Finally, I also note that you give a lot of credence to what Judge Cote had to say and what evidence Cote admitted. I am not familiar with how things work in Canada (or other countries) but I do know that in the United States, judges often manipulate evidence (by their determination as to what is and is not admissible or can be considered) in order to get a particular result. Comparing what Cote admitted to what was offered, I think Cote did a masterful job of selectively admitting evidence to support what struck me as her predetermined decision.