In another thread (http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.aspx?id=36530&page=1&site=3#493189), I mentioned a heated incident which happened on Thursday at the Boer vx. Cairns et al trial in Toronto. To refresh the memory:
I only wish others could have seen the self-satisfied smirk on Glen Howe's face when witness for the Plaintiff Frank Motril (sp?) was explaining that he was bankrupt and unable to pay court ordered costs as a result of his unsuccessful attempts to sue WT and several elders in a unrelated case.
When Defence Counsel Colin Stevenson hammered on the point that Motril had not paid the $20K, Motril shot back with something about "And I was offered to have that waived if I agreed to *NOT* participate in this trial"
This threw all the lawyers into a tizzy, Stevenson was caught off guard, and after a brief huddle asked directly "Are you suggesting an impropriety with respect to this case?" (or something like that). The judge very quickly cut off the questioning and said (quite forcefully) "I am not interested in hearing about pre-trial settlement offers!"
She went on to chastize Stevenson because the "entire line of questioning had nothing to do with this case". Stevenson said that it was his intent to show the witness (Motril) had a bias against the Defendants in this case because he had an outstanding costs judgement against him in another case.
Now I'm not a lawyer, but...
For some reason this stuck in my mind, and now I know why. Think about it, if Frank Mottrell had simply raised an unsuccessful pre-trial settlement offer, any good lawyer would have immediately quashed the statement, as those settlement offers are not considered in court, as a matter of law -- which is what the Judge's reaction was.
But the defence didn't brush it of. Instead, he asked Frank if Frank was suggesting an impropriety. Now, that is when the judge shut them both down for discussing pre-trial settlement.
But this was not a pre-trial settlement offer! Frank is not party to the suit, so any offer to him to get him to avoid participating in the case is witness tampering and obstruction of justice!
Somehow the judge missed this, but the defence attorney realized it, and that explains his reaction.
This must be pursued. If Frank Motrell has any proof about this, it must be forwarded to the Canadian Bar Association for investigation. Furthermore, shame on both the judge and counsel for the Plaintiff for not catching this in open court. Even if they had, it would likely be referred to the Bar Association (i.e. not discussed in this court), but it would be interesting to have the judge recommend an investigation, as it would likely carry some serious weight.
Edited by - Quotes on 14 September 2002 11:13:26