HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Notices

OT: Lafleur suing police and prosecuter

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-02-2008, 08:50 AM
  #1
Judge Sauer*
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Nunavut
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,989
vCash: 500
OT: Lafleur suing police and prosecuter

Forgive me if this thread doesn't belong.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/st...r-lawsuit.html
"...that Lafleur opted for legal action because his reputation and ability to make a living have suffered since the arrest."

"Lafleur is suing the Crown prosecutor Lise Archambault, the officer who arrested him, Francoise Fortin, and the Montreal Police force for financial damages ($1.5 million), punitive damages ($1.5 million) and moral damages "

Whooooo, moral victory, here it comes.....well, if his lawyers aren't full of fourth liners at least.
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but don't you go to jail for purjory?

Judge Sauer* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-02-2008, 08:51 AM
  #2
Pascal
Registered User
 
Pascal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,467
vCash: 500
"The police told everyone what kind of person I really am! They can't do that! Give me money."

Pascal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-02-2008, 09:04 AM
  #3
Mathletic
Registered User
 
Mathletic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: St-Augustin, Québec
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,362
vCash: 500
it's incredible how much hate you can get when you dare to say that a team is full of 4th liners. The justice system screwed it up in that case and not even close.

Mathletic is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-02-2008, 09:44 AM
  #4
Iwishihadacup
Registered User
 
Iwishihadacup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Quebec City
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,709
vCash: 500
there goes justice's confidence

Iwishihadacup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-02-2008, 10:25 AM
  #5
MdGazou
 
MdGazou's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 341
vCash: 500
Suing them makes him look more like a retard. You commited pergury so **** and takes the consequences.

MdGazou is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-02-2008, 10:56 AM
  #6
lou4gehrig
Registered User
 
lou4gehrig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,473
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Judge Sauer View Post
Forgive me if this thread doesn't belong.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/st...r-lawsuit.html
"...that Lafleur opted for legal action because his reputation and ability to make a living have suffered since the arrest."

"Lafleur is suing the Crown prosecutor Lise Archambault, the officer who arrested him, Francoise Fortin, and the Montreal Police force for financial damages ($1.5 million), punitive damages ($1.5 million) and moral damages "

Whooooo, moral victory, here it comes.....well, if his lawyers aren't full of fourth liners at least.
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but don't you go to jail for purjory?
Time to take his jersey down from the rafters... another Patrick Roy.

lou4gehrig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-02-2008, 11:01 AM
  #7
Russeltown
Registered User
 
Russeltown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,526
vCash: 500
I am sorry but has Guy Lafleur been declared guilty of perjury?

Russeltown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-02-2008, 11:05 AM
  #8
habfan4
Registered User
 
habfan4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Deus Amat Pretzel
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,427
vCash: 500
Why omit Justice Gilles Michaud? He issued the warrant.

This won't go anywhere, the Crown applied for and was granted an arrest warrant and officer Fortin executed it.

habfan4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-02-2008, 11:06 AM
  #9
Mathletic
Registered User
 
Mathletic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: St-Augustin, Québec
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,362
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MdGazou View Post
Suing them makes him look more like a retard. You commited pergury so **** and takes the consequences.
guess what, the error the justice system did is even greater than the mistake Lafleur did

Mathletic is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-02-2008, 11:07 AM
  #10
habfan4
Registered User
 
habfan4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Deus Amat Pretzel
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,427
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FSU Seminoles View Post
guess what, the error the justice system did is even greater than the mistake Lafleur did
What error are you referring to?

habfan4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-02-2008, 11:18 AM
  #11
CastroLeRobot
Hab-a-bouille
 
CastroLeRobot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 720
vCash: 500
the police should be punished

The Prosecutor and Police went on a total power trip when they issued an arrest warrant against him. You see, I'm not defending Lafleur, but the guy was not a fugitive, he wasn't dangerous and there was no chance he would re-comit his crime (i.e. parjury in the court). Arrest Warrants are issued for the authorities to pursue and arrest on sight a dangerous criminal. You can clearly see the opportunistic police officers trying to have a name by issuing a warrant against a hockey Legend. Anyway, they could have called the guy, his lawyer, anything. But they didn't. There can only be 1 purpose and it is to damage Lafleur's reputation and "punish him" for his crime.

I'm under the impression that the 2 ladies that issued the warrant (the prosecutor and officer) were pissed when they learned Guy drove his son to have sex with a girl at a Hotel when the son was on parole for having assaulted a minor girl. They knew Guy wouldn't be legally punished for lying about that (no judge will punish someone for lying under oath to save their child), so they decided to take justice into their own hand. THIS IS WHERE THEY WENT WRONG. You can't have the police "deciding" what is and what isn't punishment enough. You can't be judge, jury and executioner. This is what separates democracy from fascist states.

I don't like Lafleur...he has this attitude like he is above everyone else, and he criticized my team and that I can't forgive

But that doesn't give me the right to ruin his reputation, his name and treat him like a criminal.

eveyone siding with the police here is just a hater.

the police
Justice system for releasing the son in the first place

CastroLeRobot is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-02-2008, 11:18 AM
  #12
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 21,013
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habfan4 View Post
What error are you referring to?
Putting forth a mandate to arrest Lafleur when they could have simply asked him to present himself to court. If he didn't show up THEN you give him a mandate for his arrestation.
They treated the situation very poorly and acted like that solely because of Lafleur's celibrity status.

Lafleur wasn't proven guilty of Pergury and he won't be.

Kriss E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-02-2008, 11:43 AM
  #13
Judge Sauer*
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Nunavut
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,989
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CastroLeRobot View Post
The Prosecutor and Police went on a total power trip when they issued an arrest warrant against him. You see, I'm not defending Lafleur, but the guy was not a fugitive, he wasn't dangerous and there was no chance he would re-comit his crime (i.e. parjury in the court). Arrest Warrants are issued for the authorities to pursue and arrest on sight a dangerous criminal. You can clearly see the opportunistic police officers trying to have a name by issuing a warrant against a hockey Legend. Anyway, they could have called the guy, his lawyer, anything. But they didn't. There can only be 1 purpose and it is to damage Lafleur's reputation and "punish him" for his crime.

I'm under the impression that the 2 ladies that issued the warrant (the prosecutor and officer) were pissed when they learned Guy drove his son to have sex with a girl at a Hotel when the son was on parole for having assaulted a minor girl. They knew Guy wouldn't be legally punished for lying about that (no judge will punish someone for lying under oath to save their child), so they decided to take justice into their own hand. THIS IS WHERE THEY WENT WRONG. You can't have the police "deciding" what is and what isn't punishment enough. You can't be judge, jury and executioner. This is what separates democracy from fascist states.

I don't like Lafleur...he has this attitude like he is above everyone else, and he criticized my team and that I can't forgive

But that doesn't give me the right to ruin his reputation, his name and treat him like a criminal.

eveyone siding with the police here is just a hater.

the police
Justice system for releasing the son in the first place
For clarification:
"Hockey legend Guy Lafleur turned himself in to Montreal police on Thursday, one day after police issued a warrant for his arrest.

Lafleur was quickly released by police after promising to appear at the Montreal courthouse on Feb. 7.

His lawyer, Jean-Pierre Rancourt, told CTV Newsnet that Lafleur is accused of giving contradictory testimony in the case of his 22-year-old son, who is facing more than 20 charges ranging from sexually assaulting a minor to armed assault and forcible confinement.

Because of the charges, Lafleur's son was under strict bail conditions, including a 12:30 a.m. curfew while living at his father's home.

Last September, the former Montreal Canadien testified that his son had obeyed the restrictions. Then later in the fall he admitted that on two occasions he drove him to hotels to spend the night with his 16-year-old girlfriend. "

There was no man hunt, he was not treated like a public menace criminal.
A witness is said to have “committed perjury” when he or she willfully makes a false declaration while under oath or after having made a solemn affirmation. Perjury is a serious crime punishable by a maximum prison sentence of 14 years.
Conrad Black had an arrest warrant issued against him and he is by no means more dangerous than Lafleur.
In any case, Lafleur drove his 22 year old son to the waiting arms of a 16 year old minor. Is there a point when Lafleur's son becomes a repeat offender stemming from previous run ins?
Now that I think about it, can a 16 year old even get a hotel room on their own?


Last edited by Judge Sauer*: 04-02-2008 at 11:53 AM.
Judge Sauer* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-02-2008, 11:50 AM
  #14
habfan4
Registered User
 
habfan4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Deus Amat Pretzel
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,427
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
Putting forth a mandate to arrest Lafleur when they could have simply asked him to present himself to court. If he didn't show up THEN you give him a mandate for his arrestation.
They treated the situation very poorly and acted like that solely because of Lafleur's celibrity status.

Lafleur wasn't proven guilty of Pergury and he won't be.
Lafleur's guilt or innocence on the charges is incidental.

The police and the Crown decide if enough evidence exists to lay charges. Once that determination has been made and charges have been laid, the Crown can either ask the defendant to surrender voluntarily or they can appeal to a judge (Justice Gilles Michaud in this instance) to issue an arrest warrant. This is the process for anyone charged with a criminal offence (it is inclusive of former hockey greats). Guy is not entitled to any special treatment and the officers of the court and the police have a duty to see that justice is administered in an impartial fashion.

You can argue that Crown did not have to seek an arrest warrant or that the Judge should not have issued one, but there is no error, the process was followed to the letter. I would also be remiss if I didn't point out that the arresting officer and the police force (both named in Lafleur's claim) do not have any discretion, a warrant has to be executed.

habfan4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-02-2008, 11:58 AM
  #15
fatmax
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Mirabel, Qc
Posts: 457
vCash: 500
Like Claude Poirier said this morning at Salut Bonjour!, the only person responsable for Guy Lafleur's "reputation and ability to make a living have suffered since the arrest" his is son!

The police might have had a power trip but his son is really the problem here!

fatmax is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-02-2008, 12:13 PM
  #16
Mathletic
Registered User
 
Mathletic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: St-Augustin, Québec
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,362
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habfan4 View Post
Lafleur's guilt or innocence on the charges is incidental.

The police and the Crown decide if enough evidence exists to lay charges. Once that determination has been made and charges have been laid, the Crown can either ask the defendant to surrender voluntarily or they can appeal to a judge (Justice Gilles Michaud in this instance) to issue an arrest warrant. This is the process for anyone charged with a criminal offence (it is inclusive of former hockey greats). Guy is not entitled to any special treatment and the officers of the court and the police have a duty to see that justice is administered in an impartial fashion.

You can argue that Crown did not have to seek an arrest warrant or that the Judge should not have issued one, but there is no error, the process was followed to the letter. I would also be remiss if I didn't point out that the arresting officer and the police force (both named in Lafleur's claim) do not have any discretion, a warrant has to be executed.
yes he is entitled to a special treatment. The justice system has a list of names of "celebrities" or "known in the public people", so that whenever someone of that list is involved their case has to be treated differently so that this person is not inflicted further harms by the press or whoever.

Mathletic is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-02-2008, 12:19 PM
  #17
Judge Sauer*
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Nunavut
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,989
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FSU Seminoles View Post
yes he is entitled to a special treatment. The justice system has a list of names of "celebrities" or "known in the public people", so that whenever someone of that list is involved their case has to be treated differently so that this person is not inflicted further harms by the press or whoever.
Never knew that the Bill of Rights was re-written when I wasn't looking.
I sincerly hope your not being serious. It is true that celebrities have been known to have received extra or special traetment when it comes to judicial matters, but it's more widely used in the States and not here in Canada. I'd like to see this so-called list or any other source besides yourself of it's existence.

Judge Sauer* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-02-2008, 12:40 PM
  #18
CastroLeRobot
Hab-a-bouille
 
CastroLeRobot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 720
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Judge Sauer View Post
For clarification:
"Hockey legend Guy Lafleur turned himself in to Montreal police on Thursday, one day after police issued a warrant for his arrest.

Lafleur was quickly released by police after promising to appear at the Montreal courthouse on Feb. 7.

His lawyer, Jean-Pierre Rancourt, told CTV Newsnet that Lafleur is accused of giving contradictory testimony in the case of his 22-year-old son, who is facing more than 20 charges ranging from sexually assaulting a minor to armed assault and forcible confinement.

Because of the charges, Lafleur's son was under strict bail conditions, including a 12:30 a.m. curfew while living at his father's home.

Last September, the former Montreal Canadien testified that his son had obeyed the restrictions. Then later in the fall he admitted that on two occasions he drove him to hotels to spend the night with his 16-year-old girlfriend. "

There was no man hunt, he was not treated like a public menace criminal.
A witness is said to have “committed perjury” when he or she willfully makes a false declaration while under oath or after having made a solemn affirmation. Perjury is a serious crime punishable by a maximum prison sentence of 14 years.
Conrad Black had an arrest warrant issued against him and he is by no means more dangerous than Lafleur.
In any case, Lafleur drove his 22 year old son to the waiting arms of a 16 year old minor. Is there a point when Lafleur's son becomes a repeat offender stemming from previous run ins?
Now that I think about it, can a 16 year old even get a hotel room on their own?
everything you are saying is true. Except Conrad Black had a higher potential to become a fugitive given that he robbed millions of dollars and that this money was never found. Guy was stupid to bring his son to the 16 year old girl BUT IT IS NOT A CRIMINAL OFFENCE. The crime here is lying to the court. But as I said, no judge in Canada will EVER indict someone for lying to protect their child. If anything, having Guy testify for or against his son is a stupid idea in the first place.

The police knew it would be very hard to have the perjury crime stick, so they decided to go public with it JUST TO PUNISH Lafleur. This is where they stepped out of line.

Remember Guy Cloutier? Now this guy is a real *******. A criminal in all senses of the word. But he still got preferential treatment with his sentence because "the damage to his reputation was punishment in itself". Not my words...this is the explanation of the judge. You're telling me this rappist deserves preferential treatment but a guy who may or may have not lied under oath to protect his own son can't have some discretion when the police decides to bring him in for further questionning?

Bull crap

CastroLeRobot is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-02-2008, 12:47 PM
  #19
habfan4
Registered User
 
habfan4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Deus Amat Pretzel
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,427
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FSU Seminoles View Post
yes he is entitled to a special treatment. The justice system has a list of names of "celebrities" or "known in the public people", so that whenever someone of that list is involved their case has to be treated differently so that this person is not inflicted further harms by the press or whoever.
Is this a serious reply or am I missing the sarcasm?

You should read the Charter of Rights and Freedoms

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

habfan4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-02-2008, 12:51 PM
  #20
Mathletic
Registered User
 
Mathletic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: St-Augustin, Québec
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,362
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habfan4 View Post
Is this a serious reply or am I missing the sarcasm?

You should read the Charter of Rights and Freedoms

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
I don't know the exact bill but judges have to take into consideration what a "celebrity" will go through before accusing the person of anything. The same goes for a trucker who has to go to the US for example. He will get some sort of arrangement to allow him to keep his job.


Last edited by Mathletic: 04-02-2008 at 01:00 PM.
Mathletic is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-02-2008, 12:54 PM
  #21
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 21,013
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habfan4 View Post
Lafleur's guilt or innocence on the charges is incidental.

The police and the Crown decide if enough evidence exists to lay charges. Once that determination has been made and charges have been laid, the Crown can either ask the defendant to surrender voluntarily or they can appeal to a judge (Justice Gilles Michaud in this instance) to issue an arrest warrant. This is the process for anyone charged with a criminal offence (it is inclusive of former hockey greats). Guy is not entitled to any special treatment and the officers of the court and the police have a duty to see that justice is administered in an impartial fashion.

You can argue that Crown did not have to seek an arrest warrant or that the Judge should not have issued one, but there is no error, the process was followed to the letter. I would also be remiss if I didn't point out that the arresting officer and the police force (both named in Lafleur's claim) do not have any discretion, a warrant has to be executed.
Guy was brought in for questioning, the warrant is there in case he refuses to co-operate.
Lafleur nor his lawyers were asked to come in for questioning, they were simply slapped on the face with this warrant.
That's not regular procedure.
He is not a criminal, they know damn well this Perjury won't stick because they have to prove he intentionally lied.
Leaking it to the Media make Lafleur look like a criminal and was a blow to his reputation. He has every right to sue.

Kriss E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-02-2008, 12:59 PM
  #22
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 21,013
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habfan4 View Post
Is this a serious reply or am I missing the sarcasm?

You should read the Charter of Rights and Freedoms

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
If that's the case why wasn't a warrant issued on Bill Clinton for his PROVEN Perjury???..Furthermore, why wasn't he impeached?

Lafleur wasn't even proven guilty.

In both cases, its completely stupid. One lied about a BJ and an affair to protect his marriage and reputation, the other to protect his son.

Kriss E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-02-2008, 01:04 PM
  #23
Judge Sauer*
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Nunavut
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,989
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CastroLeRobot View Post
everything you are saying is true. Except Conrad Black had a higher potential to become a fugitive given that he robbed millions of dollars and that this money was never found. Guy was stupid to bring his son to the 16 year old girl BUT IT IS NOT A CRIMINAL OFFENCE. The crime here is lying to the court. But as I said, no judge in Canada will EVER indict someone for lying to protect their child. If anything, having Guy testify for or against his son is a stupid idea in the first place.

The police knew it would be very hard to have the perjury crime stick, so they decided to go public with it JUST TO PUNISH Lafleur. This is where they stepped out of line.

Remember Guy Cloutier? Now this guy is a real *******. A criminal in all senses of the word. But he still got preferential treatment with his sentence because "the damage to his reputation was punishment in itself". Not my words...this is the explanation of the judge. You're telling me this rappist deserves preferential treatment but a guy who may or may have not lied under oath to protect his own son can't have some discretion when the police decides to bring him in for further questionning?

Bull crap
I'm not sure where your picking up this whole bit about me condoning special treatment for Cloutier, guys like him deserve the worst the law can throw at him.

Lying under oath is still to protect someone else or yourself, and yes, judges will convict the person of perjury. Guy's son isn't young and stupid, the guy's 22, he know right from wrong. He's facing more than 20 charges ranging from sexually assaulting a minor to armed assault and forcible confinement. Guy knew he was taking his son to see a minor, *** people? Do you condone this if it's your daugher that Guy's son is assaulting and confining?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
If that's the case why wasn't a warrant issued on Bill Clinton for his PROVEN Perjury???..Furthermore, why wasn't he impeached?

Lafleur wasn't even proven guilty.

In both cases, its completely stupid. One lied about a BJ and an affair to protect his marriage and reputation, the other to protect his son.
Clinton was impeached.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeach...f_Bill_Clinton

A court case has to go through first if they are going to attempt to convict Lafleur of perjury....which I doubt will happen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
You'd be surprised how much gullible a parent can be. Didn't you ever lie to your parents and they believed you?
Didn't you ever say im going to see some friends when you were in fact going to see a girl??..back in the days, in my teenage years, i sure said that a lot.
So when there's a loving father, it wouldn't surprise me he didn't know about it at all, and that his son made up some kind of lie.
To hold Guy responsible for his son's act is completely stupid.

Lastly, Guy will not be guilty of perjury because they need to PROVE he did it intentionally. They need substantial evidence, all of it is circumstantial.
Saying I don't knwo where a missing pack of smokes went when I was 16 is a far cry from willingly committing statutory **** at 22. Guy even said so himself that he drove his son to the hotel to meet the 16 year old girl.
There's the proof right there, it's in the court transcripts. they did him a favour by releasing him instead of booking him and throwing him in jail for 24 hours. They gave him a chance to explain his actions.
Whether Guy knew about the girl in the hotel (which he did) or not, he helped his son to break the court ordered curfew imposed on him for statutory **** and ciolent acts against an underage girl.
Guy made a couple bad choices, but he has to take responsibility for them and make sure his son gets all the help he needs, his son needs a father, not a crutch or accomplice.


Last edited by Judge Sauer*: 04-02-2008 at 01:22 PM.
Judge Sauer* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-02-2008, 01:13 PM
  #24
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 21,013
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Judge Sauer View Post
I'm not sure where your picking up this whole bit about me condoning special treatment for Cloutier, guys like him deserve the worst the law can throw at him.

Lying under oath is still to protect someone else or yourself, and yes, judges will convict the person of perjury. Guy's son isn't young and stupid, the guy's 22, he know right from wrong. He's facing more than 20 charges ranging from sexually assaulting a minor to armed assault and forcible confinement. Guy knew he was taking his son to see a minor, *** people? Do you condone this if it's your daugher that Guy's son is assaulting and confining?
You'd be surprised how much gullible a parent can be. Didn't you ever lie to your parents and they believed you?
Didn't you ever say im going to see some friends when you were in fact going to see a girl??..back in the days, in my teenage years, i sure said that a lot.
So when there's a loving father, it wouldn't surprise me he didn't know about it at all, and that his son made up some kind of lie.
To hold Guy responsible for his son's act is completely stupid.

Lastly, Guy will not be guilty of perjury because they need to PROVE he did it intentionally. They need substantial evidence, all of it is circumstantial.

Kriss E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-02-2008, 01:16 PM
  #25
Mathletic
Registered User
 
Mathletic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: St-Augustin, Québec
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,362
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Judge Sauer View Post
I'm not sure where your picking up this whole bit about me condoning special treatment for Cloutier, guys like him deserve the worst the law can throw at him.

Lying under oath is still to protect someone else or yourself, and yes, judges will convict the person of perjury. Guy's son isn't young and stupid, the guy's 22, he know right from wrong. He's facing more than 20 charges ranging from sexually assaulting a minor to armed assault and forcible confinement. Guy knew he was taking his son to see a minor, *** people? Do you condone this if it's your daugher that Guy's son is assaulting and confining?
Guy's son is sick. It's not like he didn't seek help before that. They have tried everything that's available and none of it has worked. Parents lying to protect their sons and daughters happens every week in court, if not everyday.

Mathletic is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:47 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.