weather Christianity leads the faith or anonymousness does is question expecting a long winding after time ? .......somewhat of a affectation on review * peers into records and personal records are directly related to bias and conformity of issue at times * the court to recess on its notes after lengthy peer review the closing statements by the parties are these speeches necessary ? most students would describe the study of the Christian faith as most like another history class were events are seldom savored power corrupts absolutely and a washing of hands ... After 12 years of parochial School you come to understand that prophecy will always happen it is usually a matter of interpretation that is wrong Long speeches by the Judge regarding exemption of record ? high lighted in court procedure ? It is clear that the Supreme Court has it in mind that the proper procedure is that the accused make an application to the trial judge for an order excluding evidence. At the very least, this application must particularize which Charter right has allegedly been breached. As the remedy is to be granted by the trial judge, not the jury, the evidence heard would not form part of the main trial and the jury would be excluded. In this sense, one might refer to the hearing as a voir dire, although that label is probably misleading: R. v. Clauson reflex, (1986), 31 C.C.C. (3d) 286 (Alta. C.A.). Gray v. Robinson (1939) 33 CA2d 177, 182, 91 P2d 194] An irregularity is any overt act of the trial court, jury, or adverse party that violates the right to a fair and impartial trial and amounts to misconduct [ Gray v. Robinson (1939) 33 CA2d 177, 182, 91 P2d 194] Concealment of Bias on Voir Dire Is Juror Misconduct. It is jury misconduct if a juror conceals during voir dire examination a state of mind that prevents his or her acting impartially. The concealment need not be intentional [ City of Pleasant Hill v. First Baptist Church (1969) 1 CA3d 384, 431, 82 CR 1]. The absence of normative rationale exposes a judge to the temptation of merely asserting a conclusion on the truncation issue without providing reasons, (considering above statements) regarding representation, path of questioning and severity while reciting some version of Hart and Honoré’s ‘central concept’ of causal connection. Justice McHugh fell victim to this temptation on a number of occasions, e.g. Bennett v Minister of Community Welfare (1993) at para 13; Nominal Defendant v Gardikiotis (1996) at para 8. This is hardly an advance on what Hart and Honoré rightly called the ‘obscure metaphor’ of the intervention ‘breaking the chain of causation’. What, if anything, is severed in the truncation step in legal analysis is the chain of legal responsibility (contrast the obscure notions: that plaintiff conduct might ‘destroy the causal connection’, Kelly Paper at para 16(d); or that ‘the chain of causation is completely severed’ by the intervention of a news story, Kelly Paper at para 52. personal records might be a contemplation some fundamentally and logically out of place ......pink slips were part of exhibits as well as requests for exemptions of record as just due but this is not how it is presented or written on record or given in bias affectatiously during procedure .... the judge is not supposed to disbarge the material produced for the case but declare its worth when applicable some call this part of mental fitness On appeal I declared a fence .......the court as avoiding a path of questioning for the sake of liability the court has its liability also .... Parratt has been limited to the area of procedural due process. The case law of this court admits to but one exception to this rule. In order to not eviscerate the holding of Parratt, we have held that [w]hen a plaintiff brings a substantive due process claim predicated on the deprivation of a state-created property interest, she must show that the state violated some other substantive constitutional right or that state law remedies are inadequate. Veterans Legal Def. Fund v. Schwartz, 330 F.3d 937, 941 (7th Cir.2003); see also Gable v. City of Chicago, 296 F.3d 531, 541 (7th Cir.2002); Kauth, 852 F.2d at 958.
Posted on: Mon, 24 Mar 2014 14:10:09 +0000