This morning, Judge Whelan decided the trial will not proceed tomorrow.
I told her I didn’t understand:
– the prosecutor said he is prepared to go ahead.
– I am representing myself
– I am prepared
– I want to proceed
– (Apart from my own testimony) I need to be able to ask questions of the witness from Statistics Canada
No one has asked for an adjournment or postponement.
I don’t understand where the request to adjourn or to postpone is coming from.
It seems that she has the right, if she believes that there might be an actual or perceived miscarriage of justice, to stop the trial from proceeding at this time. There was a side mention of “if this case goes to appeal”. I understand that: the judge will want to ensure that everything has been done according to hoyle, because her decision might end up being appealed. Oh Lord, I hope not.
I am now to appear in court room #7 on Thursday, January 29th at 2:00 pm for “case management”. The case management “slipped through the cracks”.
I requested that the Case management be done tomorrow or Thursday because all the facilities and judge would already be assigned and therefore available for this task. I was told that the Judge was not available.
Today, different occurrences make it unclear to me that it was ever intended that the trial would go ahead tomorrow. Yesterday the court phoned to make arrangements for this “pre-trial” today (one day before the trial starts – I told them it was very short notice and that my time was fully booked, I really don’t have time to spare. I am trying to keep calm and don’t want to create unnecessary time pressures. I gave them the information they would need and asked if I had to attend.) In the end I was told that the Judge wanted the pre-trial. It was done by telephone connection this morning.
During this pre-trial conversation Judge Whelan hammered on the question “What inconvenience will it be to you if the trial doesn’t proceed tomorrow?”. I told her there was financial inconvenience and elaborated a bit. She would not hear that. And insisted on “Aside from that .”. I said there was significant time inconvenience. She didn’t accept that. Repeatedly, “What inconvenience will it be to you if the trial doesn’t proceed?”. Four times she asked the question and I responded. (I’m thinking I don’t know what you want – but I do know: they want me to be represented by a lawyer). “Ms Finley you are not answering my question.”
And then she used the nice little phrase meant to disempower: “you don’t even know … “.
Brow-beating by the Judge. Probably good training for me, for what might lie ahead.
All it does is to make me more determined. The justice system is paid for by citizens. It’s actually our justice system. If an average citizen can’t go in and defend themself after the government has laid charges against them, then something is very wrong with the design of the system. First Nations people know that in spades. It is no wonder that they are insisting upon their own, community-based justice.
On the topic of the crown witnesses, I thought that Ivan Felligi, Chief Statistician until earlier in 2008, was to appear. I have prepared the questions to ask him. The prosecutor, Barrie Miller, corrected to say that it is Anil Arora (he is the one who telephoned me from StatsCan back in May 2006. We had a lengthy conversation that I tape-recorded, thank goodness! And it’s not illegal to do that, if you’re not the government.) I told Judge Whelan and Barrie that all I needed was to be able to ask questions, for example, “This (news report) dated (whenever) says (this).” Is it an approximately accurate statement?”.
But enough of all that for now!
You are so wonderful. I am carried forward by your generosity of support and spirit.
Many thanks,
Sandra