From Michael Schmidt, raw milk advocate, farmer, and accused sheep-napper:
Day one, two, three in court from my perspective
Our court proceedings are becoming a family gathering of determined CFIA prosecutors and accused sheep-nappers
Here are the main players:
Mr. Frost lawyer for the prosecution is very self-assured with a commanding presence which suffered severely because of his jacket which looked from the back as if he had slept in it. It certainly was the talk of the audience and did not help to convince us with his arguments.
Mr. David Eagelson, head of the CFIA “sheep killer investigation” well dressed and utterly focused to make sure he keeps instructing Frost what stunt to pull off next. It seems it’s his retirement chance to make a name for himself after he left the Toronto Police force. Double dipping, I wonder.
Then there is Eagelson’s……..lapdog, as a court spectator described him. He is most of the time well dressed, constantly checking his fingernails and bored to death because he does not seem to have much to do. He follows Eagelson, he sometimes turns pages for Eagelson opens the door for Eagelson and otherwise gets paid well by the taxpayer for repeatedly yawning in the courtroom and doing something nobody has figured out yet.
He never has a straight answer.
And there is another guy who just seems to enjoy getting paid for doing nothing. I guess he must be spying in case the accused nappers break their bail conditions when coming to court.
Oh I forgot that Frost always brings another ” legal” person to assist with finding files and memo stickies.
And then there are the three of the four accused sheep-nappers, as colorful as one can imagine. I some times have to smile about these accused criminals attending, one could say almost ” family reunion celebrations”, every few months in court.
And yes we also have a lawyer; his name is Shawn Buckley; he was debriefing us barefoot at the marvelous Cobourg beach after the three days of court. Who is he???
Why is the CFIA sooo afraid of him that they filed an application to desperately remove him from this case.
Here are the arguments in short form. You dear reader be the judge.
Mr. Frost, lawyer for the CFIA:
We need to remove Mr. Buckley because there is —– no,……there might be a conflict of interest arising during the trial!
We need to remove Mr. Buckley because he cannot be “loyal” to both accused!!
We need to remove Mr. Buckley because it would bring the administration of justice in disrepute!!!
We need to remove Mr. Buckley because we want a “fair trial” for the accused!!!!
Could he act for only Montana Jones????
No, impossible because he knows too much from the other accused and that would not be fair.
Also your honor I want to cross examine the two accused on the statutory declaration (filed as an exhibit with the affidavit of the independent lawyer, who swore that there is no conflict of interest between the two accused.)
Your honor this is unheard of — to cross examine the two accused prior to trial, who have a right to remain silent.
I am going to allow it anyhow.
A publication ban was ordered.
Cross examination started and was interrupted within minutes by Shawn Buckley requesting a judicial review of the judges decision.
We now have to return November 29 for an update.
Well then came our bail hearing, ordered months ago and postponed due to the filed application by the prosection to remove Shawn Buckley as our lawyer.
Here we are again. Like a broken record the prosecution claims that Shawn cannot act because they claim he is in a conflict of interest.
However Shawn rightfully argued that the prosecution argued for two days of a potential conflict of interest and not an actual conflict of interest. Therefore he should be allowed to act for us on the issue of bail.
The judge tries to understand.
Suddenly recognizes Michael Schmidts name, but Shawn reminds him that this is NOT about milk.
Then I remembered, yes he was a very fair judge back in the days.
Well, I thought to myself, after all it IS almost a reunion.
I wonder if the CFIA remembers that there is always a more productive way to find a resolution.
I guess you can’t call the shots if there is a dialogue.