SOMETHING VERY WEIRD IS GOING ON AT KITCHENER SUPERIOR COURT

Basically we are currently being led to believe that our Crown Prosecuters are very stupid. Well let me say this much: they certainly are not totally independent of politics. I've seen that for myself in the cases of Sandy Shantz and Scott Hahn, Woolwich Township councillors who ran afoul of the election laws. Whether there was sheer stupidity involved at the start, nevertheless there was cunning involved in both cases as they manipulated the rules and process in order to avoid the consequences of their behaviours. Now allegedly we have Crown prosecuters who think that it is just dandy to charge and help convict a woman who alleged that she had been sexually assaulted by her ex-husband. The fact that the now convicted perpetrator was her ex-husband I just learned from today's newspaper. ................................................................................................................. Now I would hope that all people understand that ex-husband or not, consent for sexual activity is required by all parties, on each and every occasion. Part of the problem legally has long been that most sexual activity takes place in private hence many cases of alleged assault end up being "he said, she said" with little or no actual evidence being available. Under those circumstances I understand the difficulty facing prosecutors and police especially if there are no significant injuries or if there is some sort of intimate prior history between them. "Credibility" becomes important which is unfortunate because despite judges sometimes believing that they have built in lie detectors, in actual fact these cases can end up being decided not on facts or evidence but on who is the better liar. I have long stated that the criteria of "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" has long been subverted in our judicial system. ............................................................................................................ What could possibly induce a Crown Prosecuter to initiate charges against a woman after she has been sucessful in getting her alleged attacker, convicted? The choices seem very stark here. Either they are complete and utter fools or..........someone has decided that the alternative of letting the conviction of the attacker stand and the woman's allegations be substantiated is an even worse alternative. Keep in mind that the now convicted male (ex-husband) has appealed his conviction and that the woman's lawyer apparently negotiated the $2,000 fine and $600 victim surcharge with the Prosecuter after her client pled guilty to breaking the Court's publication ban. What the hell is going on!!!!! ............................................................................................................................... I think that it is clear that we, the public, are not being levelled with. For whatever reason the Crown are really behaving oddly. Yes I know that absolutely zero of the parties involved in our judicial system always make the right decisions. I also know that the courts go miles out of their way to avoid bringing "...the administration of justice into disrepute" and yet that is publicly what is happening here. I'm worried that this case which has become a "cause celebre" will disappear from sight and we the public will never know what the hell really happened. Is this some sort of vigilante justice by the Crown to even up the score? Is this some form of grotesque male "circle the wagons" to protect an abuser? Was the conviction of the ex-husband based upon the criteria of "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" or was it primarily her testimony versus his? Something is really wrong here and this is why both our police and our Courts inherent fairness and credibility are being questioned.