Justice Lauren E. Marshalls last minute about-face causes speculation, Who got to her?

Though if you read the *rest* of the article, you'll see that the judge has *not* decided not to testify. She's realized that what she was asked to do has wider implications (like solicitor-client priviledge) and that she requires counsel of her own.

http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/ TPStory/LAC/20040505/...

Which is perhaps correct. If her 'evidence' is that she was spat upon, it is probably not material to Zundel's status as a threat to national security.

However, there is always the possibility that she *does* have material evidence in this matter that is covered by solicitor-client privilege, and that it is *not* favourable to Zundel's case.

'WANTED' to testify isn't apparently something that she said in the first place, so I'm not sure if your comment means anything.

'Judge Marshall said that when Mr. Zundel's lawyers originally approached her to testify, she saw no reason not to perform her civic duty and do so. 'I was persuaded that I might have some relevant evidence. As a result, I said that if I was subpoenaed, I wasn't going to fight the subpoena.'

There is a large difference between 'WANTING' to and *willing* to. Justice Marshall was and is still, in her own words, willing to do this.

Yes, which she accepts, as she notes later in the article. ''Once it all gets straightened out, I fully expect that I may be testifying. If so, I will co-operate fully.'

Which is probably a more correct assessment.

It appears to me, from what the writer included, that the Justice Marshall is concerned that she will be put in a position where she may be required to violate solicitor-client privilege. It's not a good position to be in without proper legal representation, which is what JM has prudently sought. It's her right.

Oh, and if you're trying to defend Zundel, remember that his calling Justice Marshall could easily backfire. She may well know things about Zundel from her time representing him that would *not* be in his favour.

-pk

<Snip unrelated crap>

On Friday April 30th, I posted the message 'Justice Lauren E. Marshall set to testify on behalf of Ernst Zündel' in alt.censorship, can.legal, can.politics, alt.revisionism (which I suspect is the newsgroup that you're reading this thread in), and alt.conspiracy. That message contained a link to THE GLOBE AND MAIL article 'Judge set to testify in Zundel trial' ( http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/ RTGAM.20040430.wxzundel30/B...

), which appeared in that day's paper. Apparently, you didn't read that article - perhaps because my message lacked a sufficiently attention-grabbing subject line. In any case, here are two excerpts from it:

* * * * *

. . .

Judge Lauren Marshall is expected to describe the extraordinary lengths federal immigration officials went to in 1985 to deport Mr. Zundel to Germany.

Her testimony could bolster Mr. Zundel's contention that officials have repeatedly tried to ship him out of the country not because he is dangerous, but because he espouses highly unpopular views.

. . .

Mr. Lindsay said he could not comment on yesterday's development other than to note that Judge Blais has already heard evidence involving the extraordinary haste Employment and Immigration Canada used in an attempt to deport Mr. Zundel in 1985.

At the time, Mr. Zundel had just been convicted for spreading false news likely to create social or racial unrest in connection with a Holocaust denial pamphlet entitled 'Did Six Million Really Die?' He was sentenced to 15 months in jail.

Any landed immigrant sentenced to more than six months for a criminal offence can be deported. The day after Mr. Zundel's sentencing, immigration authorities commenced deportation proceedings. However, their attempt failed after the false-news law was declared unconstitutional and Mr. Zundel's conviction was overturned.

'There has been evidence that Immigration had already opened a file on Mr. Zundel before he was even sentenced,' Mr. Lindsay said. 'Justice Marshall, as Zundel's lawyer, complained at the time about the 'undue haste' with which authorities acted in the Zundel case.

'One has to wonder how the speed with which they acted in the Zundel case compares with other immigration cases that do not involve people who are as infamous or unpopular as Mr. Zundel.

'Immigration will start proceedings against people with criminal records maybe a couple of years later

http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/ RTGAM.20040430.wxzundel30/B...

I did read it, and quoted from it. Apparently you haven't read or understood my responses.

Go back and re-read.

-pk

If you're thinking that these somehow apply to me, you are vastly overestimating your position.

How observant of you!

Well, you know what they say: 'Too bad'. What I wrote was self-explanatory. If you wish to read more into it, that's entirely up to you, but don't rely on the assumption that what you imagine is what I think.