|
Michael Schmidt's Closing Statement |
September 12., 2008.
Final Submission by Michael Schmidt in his Contempt of Court Trial
Dear Your Honour
In order to continue on the note my friend, Mr. Kuzmyk (counsel for
York Region), left us with, I will expand the quote he cited as follows:
“When it looks like a cow…
When it walks like a cow…
Moos like a cow….
------- It’s a cow.”
I agree with him on that. But is that cow giving pasteurized or unpasteurized milk?
That is the question.
I would like to thank you for your guidance in this matter. You displayed a sense of human kindness that only can be found in milk.
The complexity of this case makes it necessary for me to pre-empt my submission with a clear understanding that I do not and cannot separate cause and effect from a moral point of view. It is clear that in the court of law morals, ethics and consciences play only a minor role. Rulings have to be based on evidence that is either black or white or right or wrong.
I would like to go back to the beginning of this trial, where I questioned the rightful standing of York Region, their moral authority to act and prosecute in the name of the public and under the pretense of protecting the public.
As in any other court proceeding, the integrity of a party needs to be part and parcel of its credibility, especially for those who work as public servants. Repeatedly, I touched on the question of if, in fact, York Region has legal standing based on its apparent inaction in respect to protecting the public in the face of an alleged health hazard.
I also clearly deny that York Region has any moral standing and moral authority to seek punishment.
If justice does not consider equality based on moral standings and integrity, the respect for and the authority of public servants are endangered, and fundamental justice might be questioned in the eye of the public.
Since the integrity of York Region is in serious doubt, the evidence and assumptions submitted to this honourable court have to be taken with a grain of salt and carefully assessed as to their credibility.
In view of the applicant’s capacity as public servant, there needs to be an even higher standard of accountability and credibility in a court of law. The notion that we cannot consider the issue of the applicant’s integrity within these proceedings is like disconnecting cause and effect.
I respect deeply the function of the rule of law. I respect deeply the fairness of this honourable court that it has shown in the last three days.
We have heard throughout these proceedings that there are four tests in proving contempt of court:
· It has been said that the order must be clear and unequivocal.
· The order must have been served on the subject.
· The order must have been broken.
· The breaking of the order must have been done willfully.
The order makes clear that it applies to a MICHAEL SCHMIDT. The order, however, does not make clear whether the MICHAEL SCHMIDT is an individual, as it applies to the Canadian Bill of Rights [(see R.v.Colgate-Palmolive Ltd. (1972)], or a legal person, also known as a corporation [(see Haque v. Cancer Relief and Research Institute (1939)]. It should also be noteworthy that the order was not directed at the legal person GLENCOLTON FARMS.
According to the documents submitted, we have not heard testimony supporting the facts that in fact the order was served.
The Applicant has not proven beyond reasonable doubt that the order was broken by the legal person MICHAEL SCHMIDT; nor has it been proven that even the individual Michael Schmidt did partake directly or indirectly, in any act contrary to the order. The applicant has not even proven that MICHAEL SCHMIDT is the principal of the Blue Bus operation; evidence brought forward even suggests the contrary.
A signed agreed statement of facts clearly establishes the fact that no milk was tested to proof that it was raw.
The Applicant has not proven that the individual Michael Schmidt, in his capacity as the Respondent, willfully broke the order as they did not prove mens rea.
The overwhelming lack of compelling and factual evidence by the Applicants calls into question the motives behind their actions against the Respondent. While the Defense was limited in its ability to bring to light the incredibility of the Applicant’s conduct, it is the view of the Defense that the Applicant’s actions were not necessarily done in good faith.
I admire how artfully and with what thoroughness Mr. Kuzmyk for York Region took time and energy to convince the honourable court to find the defendant guilty.
If instead these energies would have been spent towards dialogue and understanding, this court would, in fact, become a place where we could find justice based on the goodwill of both parties for the sake of TRUTH.
I would like to thank you, Your Honour.
 |
Show/Hide comments
Show/Hide comment form
Great stuff as usual....
http://www.quebecforex.com