As you may remember, Crown attorneys were arguing in court that Shawn Buckley should not be allowed to represent Michael Schmidt and Montana Jones because of a potential conflict of interest down the road as it were. According to a Facebook post today from Montana Jones, today is the day that the court will announce its decision on that matter. Here’s what she writes:
“Cross your fingers today, send good thoughts, and hope for one small step toward justice! Off to court to hear judge deliver his decision on if excellent lawyer Shawn Buckley is still ours to carry on. CFIA applied to have him removed and prevent him from representing Michael Schmidt and myself saying that it “might possibly” be a conflict of interest down the road at the actual trial, yet with no solid reasons to support that thinking. Here we go….”
Just wondering about how such a conflict of interest might come about…
Could the CFIA be contemplating a divide and conquer strategy such as trying to persuade one of the defendants to testify against the other in exchange for reduced penalties or such? Although Montana Jones and Michael Schmidt may at this point consider their interests to be aligned, might the CFIA be planning moves designed to fracture that alliance? Of course that’s all pure speculation at this point.
But it’s hard to imagine how else such a conflict of interest might arise. Would it be a right and objective role of the court to set things up (by requiring the defendants to have different lawyers) so that such a “play” could more easily be made? Presumably, by today, the court has already decided on the lawyer removal motion, and we’re just awaiting the announcement.
The Bovine 
If the Canadian Anti Corruption League was in position of authority the CFIA would be under investigation for corruption as well charged in the deaths of the herd of sheep under animal cruelty laws. http://www.canadiananticorruptionleague.org.
Let’s vote for the C.A.C.L. in the next election.
Update: Apparently the court has ruled that Montana Jones and Michael Schmidt can proceed with their existing lawyer, Shawn Buckley. This means that the CFIA’s objection to the two of them sharing the same lawyer was overruled by the court.
The Canadian Constitution Foundation has been supporting Michael Schmidt and Montana Jones in this case. Please donate generously through this link so that we can continue to pay lawyer Shawn Buckley: http://theccf.ca/donate/form/ Click the radio button to donate towards a specific project and select “Montana Jones/ Shropshire sheep”.
And how much did this particular CFIA fiasco cost? And to what effect on the health of Canadians had their objection been supported? How much did it plug up an already overburdened judicial system that seems to be more about sorting out power struggles than ensuring the health of those who finance it so heavily? And what is this agency’s mandate again?