Sir:
Yesterday, three justices in Alberta rejected your attempt to suspend Alberta soccer officials for seeing legal remedy to various matters arising from recent deep divisions within the Alberta Soccer Association.
The judges found that your actions -- viewed in the darkest light -- could be interpreted as criminal.
[PRBREAK][/PRBREAK]
Quote:
---
[18] One must also note s. 139(3) of the Criminal Code on obstruction of
justice by attempting to dissuade someone from giving evidence, by means of threats.
[19] We must emphasize that the issue here is not merely litigating in
some forum topics such as who has jurisdiction, or when proceedings are premature. This is a question of express threats to harm someone for going to court or acting as a witness in court. Or of punishing him for having done so and (partly) won.
[20] This is not judicial review of a jurisdiction decision, still less judicial review of a decision on the merits of an election. It is judicial review of punishment for merely having gone to court. The respondent is going beyond supervising the superior court, which would be upside down. It is emasculating the superior court.
---
The reason I am asking in public, Dr. Maestracci, is so the question remains on the record, even if you choose to maintain your ongoing public silence on all matters relating to the Alberta dispute.
Given the importance of the issue -- and the stern wording of this legal ruling -- I again ask:
Would you please care to comment -- or clarify?
Onward!