Dellen Millard: Preliminary Trial Begins 04 Jan 2016

Tamarind · Jan 9, 2016

north_west said:
http://www.manitoulin.ca/2013/06/05...onal-media-police-in-assisting-millard-probe/

http://www.northernlife.ca/news/policeandCourt/2016/01/06-blodgett-drug-charges-sudbury.aspx

Sorry if this is the wrong place for this but the discussion thread is closed.

<modsnip> His alleged proceeds of crime are under $5,000 which would make him a small contender in the world of trafficking. <modsnip>

SnooperDuper · Jan 9, 2016

Correctional workers reach deal with province, OPSEU says

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/correctional-workers-agreement-1.3396931

north_west · Jan 9, 2016

Tamarind said:
<modsnip> His alleged proceeds of crime are under $5,000 which would make him a small contender in the world of trafficking. <modsnip>

I am more interested in why this might happen now and the interaction between CB and LE. Many local people have commented he has been unfairly targeted and the charges came on the eve of the trial so he is in custody now. Just a strange coincidence.

matou · Jan 9, 2016

north_west said:
I am more interested in the interaction between CB and LE. Many local people have commented he has been unfairly targeted and the charges came on the eve of the trial so he is in custody now. Just a strange coincidence.

I found the info very interesting and as you stated "a strange coincidence." Thanks for posting it.

Sillybilly · Jan 10, 2016

Opinions with regard to innocence have been previously noted by all and are redundant when made without anything to substantiate them. Repeatedly stating opinion without any MSM is similar to wild speculation, and unless links are provided to support future statements in that regard, posts containing them will be removed.

The "presumption of innocence" principle has been explained on numerous occasions; I think it appropriate to bring over a post by verified lawyer, WS member AZlawyer, from another unrelated thread:
from:
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...ievers-Sidebar-Thread&p=12277740#post12277740

I always like to make the point, though, that the presumption of innocence is just a criminal court thing. He may be innocent, but if he ordered the hit, he's guilty now and will continue to be guilty regardless of what happens in court. Conversely, if he's innocent, he will continue to be innocent even if wrongly pronounced guilty by a court of law. Also, only the judge and jury are required to presume innocence; the public is free to come to their own conclusions.

bbm

SnooperDuper · Jan 11, 2016

SC of the Spec https://twitter.com/susanclairmont tweeted a few tips for those interested in attending the court proceedings next week. The courthouse opens at 8:30 and the trial begins at 10 each day. It sounds like you can go in an view the jury selection process too.

SnooperDuper · Jan 11, 2016

SC tweeted a bit more on the TB case...sounds like the trial itself is not going to start this month. Just the jury selection.

[video=twitter;686689950201298944]https://twitter.com/susanclairmont/status/686689950201298944[/video]

cansleuther · Jan 11, 2016

The preliminary hearing for the WM case is at the 2201 Finch Ave W courthouse, but today Millard's name appeared on the docket for the courthouse at 361 University Ave - along with another familiar name.

matou · Jan 11, 2016

For the gun used to kill his father?

ArianeEmory · Jan 11, 2016

Am I reading that correctly? MW "v" DM? Doesn't that mean versus? Are we allowed to ask the implications yet? (I suspect anyone who knows isn't allowed to answer, but doesn't the v imply one of them is proceeding legally against the other, or have I watched too much tv?)

cansleuther · Jan 11, 2016

matou said:
For the gun used to kill his father?

That doesn't explain why two of the listings read "Wawrykiewycz v Millard". If charges are laid by the Crown, it would read "R v the accused" or "Her Majesty the Queen v the accused".

Is this indicative of a private prosecution? And if so, who is charging who? And with what?

https://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/private_prosecution.php

matou · Jan 11, 2016

Someone may have money on their mind. JMO

ArianeEmory · Jan 11, 2016

cansleuther said:
That doesn't explain why two of the listings read "Wawrykiewycz v Millard". If charges are laid by the Crown, it would read "R v the accused" or "Her Majesty the Queen v the accused".

Is this indicative of a private prosecution? And if so, who is charging who? And with what?

https://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/private_prosecution.php

Is it significant that in the top row it's reversed? Millard v Her Majesty, not the other way around? Taken literally and from an American perspective, it looks like he's suing everyone. I'm sure that can't be the correct way to interpret it?

cansleuther · Jan 11, 2016

matou said:
Someone may have money on their mind. JMO

It can't be a lawsuit - it's listed under the Superior Court of Justice criminal court, not civil court. Only indictable offences are heard in criminal court.

cansleuther · Jan 11, 2016

ArianeEmory said:
Is it significant that in the top row it's reversed? Millard v Her Majesty, not the other way around? Taken literally and from an American perspective, it looks like he's suing everyone. I'm sure that can't be the correct way to interpret it?

There are several other (non-related) names on the docket that are listed in the same way - "the accused v Her Majesty" - as well as others listed the "correct" way with "Her Majesty" appearing first.

SnooperDuper · Jan 11, 2016

ArianeEmory said:
Am I reading that correctly? MW "v" DM? Doesn't that mean versus? Are we allowed to ask the implications yet? (I suspect anyone who knows isn't allowed to answer, but doesn't the v imply one of them is proceeding legally against the other, or have I watched too much tv?)

MS/DM's earlier appearances were annotated "R. v MILLARD ET AL" so in this case we have the opposite, DM vs. R and MW vs DM

Tamarind · Jan 11, 2016

north_west said:
I am more interested in why this might happen now and the interaction between CB and LE. Many local people have commented he has been unfairly targeted and the charges came on the eve of the trial so he is in custody now. Just a strange coincidence.

He may well have been unfairly targeted. Maybe it is to bring the DM trials into focus so that negative connotations and inferences will be made against DM. I agree it is a strange coincidence. Thank you for answering my question.

Tamarind · Jan 11, 2016

I don't think it matters which way around they appear on the docket. The issue in my opinion is why are there motions between Wawrykiewycz v Millard / Millard v Wawrykiewycz? Motions to strike?

Arnie M · Jan 12, 2016

.

Darn it anyway .... we will not likely hear anything more than we have for the past 2 years 8 months.

While the media can attend the pretrial hearings, the judge has ordered a publication ban, meaning nothing said during the hearings can be reported.

The pretrial motions are expected to be heard this fall, with the trial itself scheduled to start in January 2016.

(Going by this April 2015 article)

http://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/bosma-m...trial-hearings-can-t-report-on-them-1.2317081

SnooperDuper · Jan 12, 2016

Arnie M said:
.

Darn it anyway .... we will not likely hear anything more than we have for the past 2 years 8 months.

(Going by this April 2015 article)

http://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/bosma-m...trial-hearings-can-t-report-on-them-1.2317081

SC will be live-tweeting the trial when it begins. Three more weeks and you'll have all the info you can handle!

Dellen Millard: Preliminary Trial Begins 04 Jan 2016

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

#los2188

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

#los2188

Well-Known Member

Active Member

#los2188

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

DNASolves

Online statistics

Forum statistics