SUPPORT THE FIGHT AGAINST URANIUM MINING IN OUR COMMUNITIES
ATTEND THE CONCERT AT OSO HALL
SUNDAY OCTOBER 14TH 2PM
ADMISSION $10
THE ANTI- URANIUM TRILOGY
Three of Canada’s best know singer songwriters have each written songs with the uranium mine as their theme. Each has donated their time and talents and recorded these songs as a fundraiser for the fight against uranium mining.
TERRY TUFTS
BOREALIS RECORDING ARTIST. SIX ALBUMS, GUEST ON: TOMMY HUNTER SHOW, RITA McNEIL SHOW, PETER GZOWSKI, CCMA AWARDS, CANADA DAY–PARLIAMENT HILL
NEVILLE WELLS
CANADIAN COUNTRY MUSIC STAR, COUNTRY MUSIC HALL OF FAME MEMBER. FOUNDED THE OMPAH STOMP & THE FORERUNNER OF THE CANADA’S COUNTRY MUSIC NEWS
FRANK MORRISON
SIX TOP TEN HITS, INCLUDING “THE LION SLEEPS TONIGHT” WITH THE TOWNSMEN. TOURED WITH THE BEACH BOYS, ROY ORBISON, & OTHER GREATS. NATIONAL CTV & CBC TV/RADIO PERFORMANCES.
FEATURING THE ABOVE PERFORMERS & SPECIAL GUESTS THE FABULOUS FRONTENAC KINGS & OTHERS
COME & HEAR DWAIN SCUDDER SING HIS NEW ANTI-MINE SONG,
THE MINERS ARE ACOMIN’
There will be a public information display and people there to answer your questions about the effects of a uranium mine on your community.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Nuclear River or Bad Science?
TALK: NUCLEAR RIVER OR BAD SCIENCE?
This is your chance to come out and ask important questions!!!
THE MISSISSIPPI MILLS RESIDENTS’ ASSOCIATION (MMRA)
TALK: NUCLEAR RIVER OR BAD SCIENCE?
INFO: ARNIE FRANCIS arnie@istar.ca
Date/Time: Friday, October 12, 2007, 7:30 pm
Location: Almonte United Church Social Hall, 106 Elgin Street, Almonte
Here's a link to Google maps.
Cost: No admission charge – Free-will offering gratefully accepted.
This is a moderated information session which will include three perspectives as well as a chance for questions and answers. This uranium mining issue is proving to be a complicated and emotionally-charged debate in which many residents of Mississippi Mills are deeply engaged. The topic has been the subject of several news items of late. This moderated session will allow audience members to clarify their understanding of the issues and pose questions to the speakers.
Speakers:
Mr. John Kittle MSc has 2 years experience in nuclear physics research at Carleton University. As a resident of North Frontenac he will present his understanding about the dangers and consequences of proposed mining operations on the health of the Mississippi Watershed.
Mr. George White, President of Frontenac Ventures Corporation, the company that is seeking to proceed with uranium mining operations, will provide arguments that support FVC’s position that this uranium mining project is a legally- and environmentally-defensible corporate pursuit.
Mr. Paul Lehman, General Manager, Mississippi Valley Conservation Authority will provide the Conservation Authority’s understanding of the proposed mining project and discuss the possible environmental issues.
Prof. Don Wiles, of Carleton University’s Department of Chemistry, will moderate the discussion.
This is your chance to come out and ask important questions!!!
THE MISSISSIPPI MILLS RESIDENTS’ ASSOCIATION (MMRA)
TALK: NUCLEAR RIVER OR BAD SCIENCE?
INFO: ARNIE FRANCIS arnie@istar.ca
Date/Time: Friday, October 12, 2007, 7:30 pm
Location: Almonte United Church Social Hall, 106 Elgin Street, Almonte
Here's a link to Google maps.
Cost: No admission charge – Free-will offering gratefully accepted.
This is a moderated information session which will include three perspectives as well as a chance for questions and answers. This uranium mining issue is proving to be a complicated and emotionally-charged debate in which many residents of Mississippi Mills are deeply engaged. The topic has been the subject of several news items of late. This moderated session will allow audience members to clarify their understanding of the issues and pose questions to the speakers.
Speakers:
Mr. John Kittle MSc has 2 years experience in nuclear physics research at Carleton University. As a resident of North Frontenac he will present his understanding about the dangers and consequences of proposed mining operations on the health of the Mississippi Watershed.
Mr. George White, President of Frontenac Ventures Corporation, the company that is seeking to proceed with uranium mining operations, will provide arguments that support FVC’s position that this uranium mining project is a legally- and environmentally-defensible corporate pursuit.
Mr. Paul Lehman, General Manager, Mississippi Valley Conservation Authority will provide the Conservation Authority’s understanding of the proposed mining project and discuss the possible environmental issues.
Prof. Don Wiles, of Carleton University’s Department of Chemistry, will moderate the discussion.
DONNA DILLMAN'S HUNGER STRIKE
Donna Dillman will be proceeding with her hunger strike on Thanksgiving Monday, October 8, 2007.
It was decided yesterday that it would be beneficial to have Donna stay right at the site, outside of the gates, to draw more attention to the centre of the protest. It is important to know that Donna has not passed through the gates of the site and what she is doing is well within her legal rights, as she will be camping on the road allowance.
Some people were wondering if Donna was welcome to stay at Parliament Hill. Know that the OPP and RCMP were willing to discuss accommodating Donna and that her choice to keep the hunger strike at the protest site, in no way suggests a lack of cooperation on the part of the police. Donna is allowing for the possibility of moving her protest to Parliament Hill if needed.
NOTE FROM DONNA…
As I set up to begin my hunger strike at noon on Monday, please know that this effort will not be successful in isolation. It is not about me. The hunger strike is a focal point. With our voices, our pens and the internet, each of us can reach out to as many other people as possible, and as each of them to do the same. The media will not win this for us. With our individual efforts we can take this issue around the world overnight and it might take that to bring me back home.
At a meeting at the site last night, Chris Reid, one of the lawyers for the First Nations said that he "could feel it in his bones" that we could win this, With the momentum that has already been built by the Natives and by the non-native community, we CAN win a moratorium.
Thank you for the numerous offer of prayers, and various kinds of support. I know that I am not, in fact, doing it in isolation and appreciate all of you for the efforts you have made and continue to make.
Blessings and Happy Thanksgiving.
We have much to be thankful for.
Donna
BACKGROUND
LOCAL GRANDMOTHER STARTS HUNGER STRIKE
At 12 pm on the 8th of October, Donna Dillman started her hunger strike outside of the gates of the uranium protest site. She is calling for a moratorium on uranium mining in Eastern Ontario and is asking people to show their support by contacting local politicians and media outlets. Many people have expressed their concern about Donna’s actions but after speaking with her directly most come away with an understanding and appreciation for the position she has taken. Thank you for all of the letters of support.
DONNA DILLMAN’S BLOG DAY ONE
We can go a long time without food, but clean water is essential to all life. With that in mind and with the rain holding off, I arrived at the site at noon, today, feeling a bit of trepidation and some anticipation. A short time later my home away from home arrived and the good folks at the site got busy and moved me in. I am indebted to the people who donated the tent camper and those on my support team. Without them, and other supporters, this would not be happening, as they are vital to the success of this campaign.
My debut into the public eye came about when a Global TV reporter and Jeff Green, from Frontenac News, arrived on site for interviews. Harold Perry officially welcomed me and thanked me for what I am doing here and I was able to share with him how much I appreciate the sacrifice that the First Nations have made in keeping our water safe. Some time later, I was also interviewed by a student from Loyalist College.
I’ve been getting lots of response to my action and I want to thank each of you for your comments and prayers. Please know that I am not doing this in isolation and that whatever you can do to help me get the message out is appreciated. Please call, write or email your elected officials. Tell them you want a moratorium on uranium exploration and mining in Eastern Ontario. Or start an action of your own – a women in N.S. is organizing a coalition of grandparents to protest with us (wouldn’t it be grand if that went coast to coast, with people protesting in communities across the country) and some raging grannies are visiting the site on the weekend – or donate as you can, so that the people working on the issue can keep on keeping on. If you can come by the site, please do, as visits go a long way to keeping the moral up here.
Blessings
Donna
It was decided yesterday that it would be beneficial to have Donna stay right at the site, outside of the gates, to draw more attention to the centre of the protest. It is important to know that Donna has not passed through the gates of the site and what she is doing is well within her legal rights, as she will be camping on the road allowance.
Some people were wondering if Donna was welcome to stay at Parliament Hill. Know that the OPP and RCMP were willing to discuss accommodating Donna and that her choice to keep the hunger strike at the protest site, in no way suggests a lack of cooperation on the part of the police. Donna is allowing for the possibility of moving her protest to Parliament Hill if needed.
NOTE FROM DONNA…
As I set up to begin my hunger strike at noon on Monday, please know that this effort will not be successful in isolation. It is not about me. The hunger strike is a focal point. With our voices, our pens and the internet, each of us can reach out to as many other people as possible, and as each of them to do the same. The media will not win this for us. With our individual efforts we can take this issue around the world overnight and it might take that to bring me back home.
At a meeting at the site last night, Chris Reid, one of the lawyers for the First Nations said that he "could feel it in his bones" that we could win this, With the momentum that has already been built by the Natives and by the non-native community, we CAN win a moratorium.
Thank you for the numerous offer of prayers, and various kinds of support. I know that I am not, in fact, doing it in isolation and appreciate all of you for the efforts you have made and continue to make.
Blessings and Happy Thanksgiving.
We have much to be thankful for.
Donna
BACKGROUND
LOCAL GRANDMOTHER STARTS HUNGER STRIKE
At 12 pm on the 8th of October, Donna Dillman started her hunger strike outside of the gates of the uranium protest site. She is calling for a moratorium on uranium mining in Eastern Ontario and is asking people to show their support by contacting local politicians and media outlets. Many people have expressed their concern about Donna’s actions but after speaking with her directly most come away with an understanding and appreciation for the position she has taken. Thank you for all of the letters of support.
DONNA DILLMAN’S BLOG DAY ONE
We can go a long time without food, but clean water is essential to all life. With that in mind and with the rain holding off, I arrived at the site at noon, today, feeling a bit of trepidation and some anticipation. A short time later my home away from home arrived and the good folks at the site got busy and moved me in. I am indebted to the people who donated the tent camper and those on my support team. Without them, and other supporters, this would not be happening, as they are vital to the success of this campaign.
My debut into the public eye came about when a Global TV reporter and Jeff Green, from Frontenac News, arrived on site for interviews. Harold Perry officially welcomed me and thanked me for what I am doing here and I was able to share with him how much I appreciate the sacrifice that the First Nations have made in keeping our water safe. Some time later, I was also interviewed by a student from Loyalist College.
I’ve been getting lots of response to my action and I want to thank each of you for your comments and prayers. Please know that I am not doing this in isolation and that whatever you can do to help me get the message out is appreciated. Please call, write or email your elected officials. Tell them you want a moratorium on uranium exploration and mining in Eastern Ontario. Or start an action of your own – a women in N.S. is organizing a coalition of grandparents to protest with us (wouldn’t it be grand if that went coast to coast, with people protesting in communities across the country) and some raging grannies are visiting the site on the weekend – or donate as you can, so that the people working on the issue can keep on keeping on. If you can come by the site, please do, as visits go a long way to keeping the moral up here.
Blessings
Donna
Legitimacy versus Legality
Bruce H. Moore is the Director of the International Land Coalition, an alliance of intergovernmental and civil-society organizations working together to promote secure and equitable access to and control over land. The ILC Secretariat is hosted by the United Nations in Rome, Italy. For more information go to
http://www.landcoalition.org/
ARTICLE BY BRUCE H. MOORE
Uranium Mining - Legitimacy versus Legality
Global demand for minerals, fuels and forest products is a daily headline around the world. On the surface, the promise of jobs and the projections of bull markets appear full of hope for workers and investors alike. However, the story below the surface may be different. Conflicts over natural resources are rising. Growing numbers of local land owners and traditional users increasingly fear that they will loose their land and resource rights to the powerful corporate forces of international mining, energy and forestry.
Extractive industries, such as Frontenac Ventures, outside of Canada’s capital Ottawa, have filed their prospecting claims, seemingly on the classical arguments of the mining sector – that the law provides them with sub-surface rights; a mine, in this case uranium, will contribute to economic growth; and, today’s mining practices are safe. And, in the case of uranium, the latest boost to the claims of the mining industry, links nuclear power to climate change – it’s carbon-free and unlike gas and oil, uranium is located in friendly places like Australia and Canada.
Competing resource claims are difficult policy issues. From a global vantage point, these are not new issues. There is a wide body of worldwide experience and evidence that can be used to establish public policies to legislate and regulate who has he right to use which resources, for which purposes, and under which conditions. These are the essential components for ensuring sustainable resource use. The emerging confrontation around uranium mining in Canada can benefit from this knowledge and the lessons that have been learned elsewhere.
The Canadian case, seeming to hinge on a law from the 1800s, raises the same question that has come to the surface in resource conflicts in other countries. Is the law legitimate? For the International Land Coalition and similar organizations concerned with peoples’ resource rights, it is commonly recognized that governments have a responsibility to ensure that their laws are both coherent within their jurisdiction and consistent with international agreements to which they are a party. In legitimacy versus legality approach to public policy, governments are frequently found to have not harmonized old laws with the new, both within and across ministries. Is this mining law from the 19th century in harmony with related federal and provincial laws of the 21st century?
Around the world, legislative reform of the natural resource sector is undergoing rapid reform in respect to environmental protection, nuclear safety, and the downstream natural resource and watershed effects, resulting from chemical leaching, including mining residues. Canada has a mixed reputation in the mining sector. On the one hand Canada is recognized as an international leader in promoting environmental impact monitoring. On the other, Canadian mining companies operating abroad are frequently cited as examples of policies not being matched in practice.
The current land rights conflicts in Canada and rampant resource debates around the world, point to the need for a mining law that reflects the full body of resource and environmental laws and safeguards, including Canada’s voluntary or ratified international agreement in these domains. Furthermore, when approaching resource reform, it is noteworthy that the principles of free, prior and informed consent are increasingly considered as the basis for protecting the resource rights of landowners, users and tenants.
From press stories covering this Canadian situation, communities may be at risk of becoming divided over the economic promise that mining may offer. Yet, studies have indicated that mining generally results in only low levels of employment due to its high tech nature. The real increase in jobs is not where the mine is located but where the minerals are used, while the environmental consequences remain. Road building and infrastructure are one time investments and trucking generates few jobs. And, the few on-site jobs can quickly disappear due to the high price volatility of minerals. Additionally, a 2001 study found that Canadian taxpayers subsidized the mining industry by $13,095 per job created, funds that may have been used to stimulate alternative opportunities.
Mining is not neutral; it affects the entire territory – especially where the mineral is uranium. Mining on average takes 20 years to come on stream and may be postponed or cancelled if mineral values change or competition from richer deposits or lower labour costs makes other mining locations more attractive. For these twenty years other opportunities are likely to suffer. In a highly valued recreational area with a burgeoning property market, as in the case of this region of Canada, property values are likely to decline thus lowering the tax base. Whereas, the current growth in full-time residents, seasonal cottage owners and vacationers would seem to be a sustainable stimulant to the local economy. This appears to be the alternative to an uncertain, financial volatile, environmentally risky and socially divisive force among neighbours and local business people alike.
Climate change is among the international issues that are gaining much required attention. It would seem unimaginable that policy makers would be taken in by corporate “spin-doctors” suggesting that they should use risky technology to counter greenhouse gases when safe technologies exist.
This Canadian mining confrontation is of rising global interest. Whose interests will rise to the surface – the citizen or the corporation?
ARTICLE IN THE KINGSTON WHIG-STANDARD
Lawyers attempt to force hand of justice; Want to see protesters brought to trial
Posted By Sue Yanagisawa
The Kingston Whig Standard October 5, 2007
Lawyers are still attempting to forestall contempt charges against protesters occupying a uranium-prospecting claim north of Sharbot Lake.
This morning, lawyers representing the Algonquins occupying the claim and Frontenac Ventures Corp., the company that holds rights to explore the area's mineral potential, will meet at Frontenac County Court House to try to broker a deal.
Late last week, Justice Douglas Cunningham endorsed the injunction sought by the company upholding Frontenac Ventures' "immediate, unfettered and unobstructed access to the subject property."
Within days, Frontenac Ventures filed notice it was seeking an order holding the Ardoch Algonquin First Nation, Shabot Obaadjiwan First Nation, five of their community leaders, Christian Peacekeeper David Milne of Belleville, local landowner Frank Morrison and unidentified Johns and James Doe in contempt of his order "by failing to end the occupation and/or leave the subject property."
As of yesterday, Cunningham's injunction was still in draft form.
Although Cunningham's injunction hadn't yet been filed with the court, after some preliminary discussion to tweak its terms, Frontenac's lawyer, Neal Smitheman, asked to proceed directly to trial on the allegations of contempt, which were first raised in relation to an interim injunction granted in late August by another judge.
Cunningham asked if it would be better to wait and proceed, if necessary, on his order: "It has not been issued. It has not been entered [with the court] and there's no direction to enforce," he pointed out.
Smitheman told him the parties were aware of his endorsement and said, "your endorsement has not been followed. Your endorsement is being ignored."
At previous court hearings where the prospect of contempt charges was raised, it was estimated that a trial would take five days. Neither of the lawyers representing the Algonquins came to court anticipating that they'd even be spending the night in Kingston.
Lawyers Christopher Reid, who represents the Ardoch Algonquin First Nation and Stephen Reynolds on behalf of Shabot Obaadjiwan, told the judge they weren't prepared to begin a trial immediately.
Reynolds said that Smitheman was "trying to jam through a contempt motion," on short notice and argued that his clients are entitled to call witnesses in their defense. He also told Cunningham that he hadn't prepared to cross-examine the police witnesses.
Smitheman proposes to call three members of the OPP's Aboriginal Response Team (ART), a recent initiative developed out of the Ipperwash Inquiry and aimed at building trust between native communities and the police force. Concerns have already been expressed for the future of the initiative if its members are compelled to testify.
Cunningham rose abruptly around 11:15 a.m. and directed the lawyers to join him in the jury deliberation room adjoining the courtroom.
Spectators in the courtroom were left for the rest of the day to speculate on what was happening behind closed doors.
For more of this article go to…
http://www.thewhig.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=722502&auth=Sue+Yanagisawa
http://www.landcoalition.org/
ARTICLE BY BRUCE H. MOORE
Uranium Mining - Legitimacy versus Legality
Global demand for minerals, fuels and forest products is a daily headline around the world. On the surface, the promise of jobs and the projections of bull markets appear full of hope for workers and investors alike. However, the story below the surface may be different. Conflicts over natural resources are rising. Growing numbers of local land owners and traditional users increasingly fear that they will loose their land and resource rights to the powerful corporate forces of international mining, energy and forestry.
Extractive industries, such as Frontenac Ventures, outside of Canada’s capital Ottawa, have filed their prospecting claims, seemingly on the classical arguments of the mining sector – that the law provides them with sub-surface rights; a mine, in this case uranium, will contribute to economic growth; and, today’s mining practices are safe. And, in the case of uranium, the latest boost to the claims of the mining industry, links nuclear power to climate change – it’s carbon-free and unlike gas and oil, uranium is located in friendly places like Australia and Canada.
Competing resource claims are difficult policy issues. From a global vantage point, these are not new issues. There is a wide body of worldwide experience and evidence that can be used to establish public policies to legislate and regulate who has he right to use which resources, for which purposes, and under which conditions. These are the essential components for ensuring sustainable resource use. The emerging confrontation around uranium mining in Canada can benefit from this knowledge and the lessons that have been learned elsewhere.
The Canadian case, seeming to hinge on a law from the 1800s, raises the same question that has come to the surface in resource conflicts in other countries. Is the law legitimate? For the International Land Coalition and similar organizations concerned with peoples’ resource rights, it is commonly recognized that governments have a responsibility to ensure that their laws are both coherent within their jurisdiction and consistent with international agreements to which they are a party. In legitimacy versus legality approach to public policy, governments are frequently found to have not harmonized old laws with the new, both within and across ministries. Is this mining law from the 19th century in harmony with related federal and provincial laws of the 21st century?
Around the world, legislative reform of the natural resource sector is undergoing rapid reform in respect to environmental protection, nuclear safety, and the downstream natural resource and watershed effects, resulting from chemical leaching, including mining residues. Canada has a mixed reputation in the mining sector. On the one hand Canada is recognized as an international leader in promoting environmental impact monitoring. On the other, Canadian mining companies operating abroad are frequently cited as examples of policies not being matched in practice.
The current land rights conflicts in Canada and rampant resource debates around the world, point to the need for a mining law that reflects the full body of resource and environmental laws and safeguards, including Canada’s voluntary or ratified international agreement in these domains. Furthermore, when approaching resource reform, it is noteworthy that the principles of free, prior and informed consent are increasingly considered as the basis for protecting the resource rights of landowners, users and tenants.
From press stories covering this Canadian situation, communities may be at risk of becoming divided over the economic promise that mining may offer. Yet, studies have indicated that mining generally results in only low levels of employment due to its high tech nature. The real increase in jobs is not where the mine is located but where the minerals are used, while the environmental consequences remain. Road building and infrastructure are one time investments and trucking generates few jobs. And, the few on-site jobs can quickly disappear due to the high price volatility of minerals. Additionally, a 2001 study found that Canadian taxpayers subsidized the mining industry by $13,095 per job created, funds that may have been used to stimulate alternative opportunities.
Mining is not neutral; it affects the entire territory – especially where the mineral is uranium. Mining on average takes 20 years to come on stream and may be postponed or cancelled if mineral values change or competition from richer deposits or lower labour costs makes other mining locations more attractive. For these twenty years other opportunities are likely to suffer. In a highly valued recreational area with a burgeoning property market, as in the case of this region of Canada, property values are likely to decline thus lowering the tax base. Whereas, the current growth in full-time residents, seasonal cottage owners and vacationers would seem to be a sustainable stimulant to the local economy. This appears to be the alternative to an uncertain, financial volatile, environmentally risky and socially divisive force among neighbours and local business people alike.
Climate change is among the international issues that are gaining much required attention. It would seem unimaginable that policy makers would be taken in by corporate “spin-doctors” suggesting that they should use risky technology to counter greenhouse gases when safe technologies exist.
This Canadian mining confrontation is of rising global interest. Whose interests will rise to the surface – the citizen or the corporation?
ARTICLE IN THE KINGSTON WHIG-STANDARD
Lawyers attempt to force hand of justice; Want to see protesters brought to trial
Posted By Sue Yanagisawa
The Kingston Whig Standard October 5, 2007
Lawyers are still attempting to forestall contempt charges against protesters occupying a uranium-prospecting claim north of Sharbot Lake.
This morning, lawyers representing the Algonquins occupying the claim and Frontenac Ventures Corp., the company that holds rights to explore the area's mineral potential, will meet at Frontenac County Court House to try to broker a deal.
Late last week, Justice Douglas Cunningham endorsed the injunction sought by the company upholding Frontenac Ventures' "immediate, unfettered and unobstructed access to the subject property."
Within days, Frontenac Ventures filed notice it was seeking an order holding the Ardoch Algonquin First Nation, Shabot Obaadjiwan First Nation, five of their community leaders, Christian Peacekeeper David Milne of Belleville, local landowner Frank Morrison and unidentified Johns and James Doe in contempt of his order "by failing to end the occupation and/or leave the subject property."
As of yesterday, Cunningham's injunction was still in draft form.
Although Cunningham's injunction hadn't yet been filed with the court, after some preliminary discussion to tweak its terms, Frontenac's lawyer, Neal Smitheman, asked to proceed directly to trial on the allegations of contempt, which were first raised in relation to an interim injunction granted in late August by another judge.
Cunningham asked if it would be better to wait and proceed, if necessary, on his order: "It has not been issued. It has not been entered [with the court] and there's no direction to enforce," he pointed out.
Smitheman told him the parties were aware of his endorsement and said, "your endorsement has not been followed. Your endorsement is being ignored."
At previous court hearings where the prospect of contempt charges was raised, it was estimated that a trial would take five days. Neither of the lawyers representing the Algonquins came to court anticipating that they'd even be spending the night in Kingston.
Lawyers Christopher Reid, who represents the Ardoch Algonquin First Nation and Stephen Reynolds on behalf of Shabot Obaadjiwan, told the judge they weren't prepared to begin a trial immediately.
Reynolds said that Smitheman was "trying to jam through a contempt motion," on short notice and argued that his clients are entitled to call witnesses in their defense. He also told Cunningham that he hadn't prepared to cross-examine the police witnesses.
Smitheman proposes to call three members of the OPP's Aboriginal Response Team (ART), a recent initiative developed out of the Ipperwash Inquiry and aimed at building trust between native communities and the police force. Concerns have already been expressed for the future of the initiative if its members are compelled to testify.
Cunningham rose abruptly around 11:15 a.m. and directed the lawyers to join him in the jury deliberation room adjoining the courtroom.
Spectators in the courtroom were left for the rest of the day to speculate on what was happening behind closed doors.
For more of this article go to…
http://www.thewhig.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=722502&auth=Sue+Yanagisawa
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)