Quote: Originally Posted by JLM
I hear you but I don't think the two cases should be tarred with the same brush - in the first case the guy was delusional and the crime was not commited out of malice, albeit it was just as horrendous as the other, but perhaps some of the blame belongs to society. The Proctor case is entirely different- these two F'n heathens belong as I previously said on the end of a rope, or serving a life sentence made as miserable and painful as possible. They should never ever under any circumstances get a pass to Starbucks. They can not be rehabillitated, Shoenborn possibly can.[/QUQuote has been trimmed, See full post:
Scarry when the word possibly comes into play with Shoenborn. Get rid of all of them.[/QUO
Sadly the Liberals under Trudeau who took justice out of our justice system. I have no problem with him repatriating the BNA back to Canada, but what he illegally did next was to insert his version of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms into the document without legal grounds to do so, and definitely not with consultations with Canadians in general. This document confers more rights to criminals than it does to their innocent victims. It has also bestowed on our appointed and unaccountable judiciary at the Supreme Court to override our elected representatives in Parliament. The Liberal I know have no problems with this concept, because they can get what they want, by appointing Liberal friendly lawyers to the Judiciary and then sitting back when unpopular and asinine decisions are made...
So a petition to keep him Shoenborn locked up for good to start with hundreds of thousands of signatures.
The Canadian Charter of Rights. S.33 of the charter of rights in Canada Guarantees these rights and freedoms whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law.
Can this mother plead her rights the Individual right to be free of threat and excercise of domination and violence , hurt , maimed, degraded, shamed by her children's murderer who is subjecting this upon her and the public?
By the continued exploitation of her personal safety by her ex husband her safety exploitation of her murdered children? Can she do this?
A violation of what is described as a right in the charter is a violation of Law. The Judicial decision was weak. The guarantee of rights and freedoms were taken away from those three children. Life,Liberty and security of Person. Shoenborn was proven guilty of Murder according to Law."But not criminally responsible due to a mental disorder" But on reading some of the questioning that was posted by officers he did say in one statement you didn't mean it, he didn't mean it. But I meant to do it. ( Does that statement not
mean he knew what he was going to do? and he acted upon that.) That is a sound thought process. Meaning to and acting upon.
MOBILITY RIGHTS in the Charter. Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. Equality Rights, Mental Disability. He knew right from wrong. He was a drug abuser. Every Psychiatrist wants a case like this
to glorify their own Resume at some point after doping up everyone else that gets old fast. This is new and exciting for them
no matter what else is going on with the other peoples lives at stake.
Enforcement: of Guaranteed Rights and Freedoms as guaranteed by the Charter have been infringed upon in the mothers case have they not?
As well Shoenborn talks of God in his statement. The Sixth Commandment that says "thou shalt not kill" ( Exodus 20:13) translation of Exodus 20:13 in the New King James version of the bible states "You shalt not murder; God allowed the Israelites to kill other humans under very special circumstances such as punishment for Sin and murder.
Jesus spoke out against murder. In Matthew 5:21 - 26 Jesus amplifies the meaning of the 6th commandment. Murder like all Sin begins in the human mind. (The Charter recognizes God) MathewiS 15:18 - 19, Mark 7:20 - 23 it starts as a thought, in this case
hatred which leads to the action of murder.
This fits right in with Shoenborn how he acted. There is a point to all this blathering on.
To commit murder means more than Just Killing someone it means having an angry and unforgiving attitude towards them. So the Charter of rights recognizes the bible upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of Law. Shoenborn understood the supremacy of God during his questioning. Shoenborn knew right from wrong. He chose his answers carefully to play up his character for the court and he acted. What else is he going to do he is caught. The judicial decission was weak. It is to the benefit of the Forensic Psychiatric Institute only at this point and not to the Charter Rights of the mother and Children.
Can this be used to plead a case under S.33 for this mother to protect her rights her fundamental freedoms and those of her murdered childrens rights? Is there anyone who thinks that she can do this? Challenge her rights? JWMCQ625 ?