Triple jeopardy

Awan is now describing his lawfare strategy: filing as many redundant complaints against Maclean's as possible -- in Ontario, in B.C., and nationally.

It's the soft jihad -- and it uses our own legal system against us. Though no legal system I've heard of allows triple jeopardy, where plaintiffs can continue to shop around the same complaints until they win.

Julian Porter made an objection to Awan's reference to the Ontario HRC's slander of Maclean's, without a hearing, even as they dismissed the case.

Porter said this about the OHRC: it was an "abuse of public power -- without having heard any argument, they made a statement that it was Islamophobic. That does cause one to wonder."

Joseph asked if that was an objection.

Porter: "Yes, it is, because you're piggy-backing on it. It's not proper that you do so."

Joseph: It's a public statement. It has not binding authority in this tribunal..." Porter was merely giving "a speech about why he's weeping about what the OHRC says."

So was Porter's objection upheld? Or was it overruled? Can Awan give "evidence" of the OHRC's drive-by smear? 

Uh, objection ignored.

The three-person panel just sat there.

But of course they did. All this "law-talking stuff", by top-flight lawyers like Julian Porter is not their bag. They have no training as judges; they're third-raters, radical activists, given a power they never could have dreamed of. And now Julian Porter is asking them to deal with a matter of triple jeopardy, jursidiction, the appropriateness of jurisdiction, etc., etc.? Are you kidding? These three kangaroo judges couldn't spell half the words Porter used, let alone offer a "ruling".

What a joke.