Goldstone Resources fka GRC

[echarter]

They are there, believe me. A whole bunch got pushed over into Midland, etc.. but you can still see log cabins if you drive offroad, hear bric a brac polyphoned, and see the odd red coloured emblemed toque in the ditch. Sometimes if you follow a trail of broken corn cob pipes you will find the owbner perched on the front porch of his squatter's cabin frying up a mess of catfish, back bacon and dried caribou on his coleman stove. There is generally a deer skull nailed to the cabin door as a talisman of bonno chansoso.

************************************

Due process inherently means the defendent has a right to a trial without having to give evidence himself in person. That it may not be understood that the Magna Carta guarantess due process and law does not need explicit protection against self incrimination or clearing of name so to speak, is a weakness of interpretation. It is obvious that any requirement of presentation of proof on the part of the crown precludes necessary interrogation of the defense. It may have to be explicity enshrined in right as that point is arguable at present. Right now a trial judge may require a defense witness to answer a particular question when he elects to testify in Canada. This point is hotly debated. Does a defense witness give up all right of non incrimination if he elects to testify? In the USA, when require d to appear before a grand jury, it would seem that it is necessary to enter a plea of protection, i.e. the fifth amendment, as the state may call the witness directly to appear and answer. In Canada testimony has never been required of a defendant, but assumption of guilt in non answering a particular interrogation has never been disallowed in and of itself.

http://rcarterpittman.org/essays/Bill_of_Rights/Privilege_Against_Self-Incrimination.html

The Glorious Revolution should not be viewed as a triumph of democracy as we understand the word today. Instead, it shifted the site of power from the English monarch to Parliament, a body that represented the interests of the English elite. The Revolution thus established a constitutional monarchy and an aristocracy that would endure at least until the first Franchise Act of 1832, and even beyond to the outbreak of world war in 1914. This being said, Common Law courts emerged from the Revolution as vehicles for protecting the rights of English citizens against despotic power. The independence of judges, the autonomy of jurors to reach verdicts based on the evidence, and the rights of due process (e.g., freedom from self-incrimination, access to counsel) were all undeniable gains made possible by the Revolution. These were fundamental tenets of an ancient tradition of law, given new life in 1688, which dated back to the era of Henry II and the primogenitors of the Common Law.

"The real explanation of the colonial convention's insistence upon it (the constitutional privilege) would seem to be found in the agitation then going on in France against the inquisitional feature of the Ordinance of 1670 (compulsory self-incrimination in effect more than a century). There appears no allusions, in Elliott's Debates on the Constitution to the contemporary French movement but the delegates who had been over there must have known about it."

Professor Wigmore goes on to say:

"The proposals of reforms laid before the French Constitutional Assembly from the provinces, in 1789, show how strong was the popular agitation. The Third Estates in every district, in their 'cashiers' sent up to Paris had voted to abolish compulsory sworn interrogation of the accused."(5)

"Torture was not mentioned in the Petition of Right, or in any of the statutes framed by the Long Parliament. No member of the Convention of 1689 dreamed of proposing that the instrument which called the Prince and Princess of Orange to the throne should contain a declaration against the using of racks and thumbscrews for the purpose of forcing prisoners to accuse themselves. Such a declaration would have been justly regarded as weakening rather than strengthening a rule which--had been proudly declared by the most illustrious sages of Westminster Hall to be a distinguishing feature of the English jurisprudence."(53)

"No man shall be forced by torture to confess any crime against himself nor any other unlesse it be in some capital case where he is first fullie convicted by clear and suffitient evidence to be guilty, after which if the cause be of that nature that it is very apparent there be other conspirators or confederates with him, then he may be tortured, yet not with such torture as be barbarous and inhumane."(56)

*******************************

Great Charter

http://faculty.ncwc.edu/mstevens/410/410lect02.htm

Self incrimination rights do not extend to physical evidence such as blood samples, finger prints, handwriting samples, or police lineup procedures. However, lie detector procedures are viewed as testimonial evidence and are covered by self incrimination rights.

Procedural due process requires that government follow fair procedures in both criminal and civil cases and administrative proceedings affecting individual private interests.


* The Due Process Clause prohibits arbitrary or capricious behavior by government. Its roots run back to the 1215 Magna Carta, but it has never been precisely defined. It requires conformance with established rules and practices - a constantly evolving standard. Monk explains:

"Due process has two categories: substantive and procedural. Under substantive due process, the content of a law must itself be fair; under procedural due process, the rules by which a law is implemented must be fair."

The substantive due process requirement is a modern concept that has had much more use under the Fourteenth Amendment which applies to the states, so the author offers little content at this point.
&
Procedural due process requires that government follow fair procedures in both criminal and civil cases. In criminal cases, this includes the presumption of innocence and the "beyond any reasonable doubt" burden of proof imposed on prosecutors. In civil cases, fair procedure includes notice and a hearing whenever government actions conflict with private interests. Contests over government benefits (and other administrative agency decisions that impact private interests) must meet basic due process requirements.

******************************