Showing posts with label Ryan Leef. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ryan Leef. Show all posts
Monday, August 18, 2014
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Wednesday, April 06, 2011
When CPoC Candidate For The Yukon Ryan Leef Would Take His Clients Wolf Hunting
...he would typically employ both bait stations and "spot and stalk techniques". That is all.
Well not quite all. More on Ryan here.
Well not quite all. More on Ryan here.
Saturday, April 02, 2011
Ryan Leef: Update
...to this post. Apparently, the 2009 charges were not the first against the CPoC candidate for the Yukon:
In 2005, Leef was charged under the Wildlife Act, as an outfitter, with failing to furnish a return.
The charge was stayed.
In 2005, Leef was charged under the Wildlife Act, as an outfitter, with failing to furnish a return.
The charge was stayed.
Friday, April 01, 2011
A Tory Candidate With Issues (Legal ones)
CPoC candidate for the Yukon Ryan Leef advertises himself as a correctional officer, long-distance runner, and cage fighter. Although perhaps not a very good cage fighter. Here's a story about him getting decked out in the 2nd round of his 2nd fight. Apparently he lost the 1st one too. (PS. he's the bald(er) guy in the pic.)
But more importantly for our purposes, back in 2009 Mr. Leef was charged with illegal hunting:
Two former police officers have been acquitted of illegally using ATVs to hunt sheep in the Ruby Range.They have also been acquitted of reporting false or misleading information to officials.
Greg McHale and Ryan Leef once upheld the law, but found themselves under investigation for breaking it after a complaint from area hunters was made to Haines Junction conservation officers.
And while, as the above article states, Mr. Leef was originally acquitted, this ruling was eventually overturned:
[10] The Crown has asked that a verdict of guilty be entered. I would, of course, have the power to send this matter back for a new trial. The evidence of the respondent at trial makes it clear to me that there is nothing to be gained by submitting the respondent to the cost and inconvenience of a new trial. His own evidence is such that the only result could be a finding of guilt.
[11] Accordingly, I find the accused guilty.
PS. For balance, here's a .pdf of the original judgement acquitting Mr. Leef (and then overturned). Its also worth noting that even when the original ruling was overturned the judge felt that Leef and co. had been careless, rather than intentionally deceptive.
Updated: here.
But more importantly for our purposes, back in 2009 Mr. Leef was charged with illegal hunting:
Two former police officers have been acquitted of illegally using ATVs to hunt sheep in the Ruby Range.They have also been acquitted of reporting false or misleading information to officials.
Greg McHale and Ryan Leef once upheld the law, but found themselves under investigation for breaking it after a complaint from area hunters was made to Haines Junction conservation officers.
And while, as the above article states, Mr. Leef was originally acquitted, this ruling was eventually overturned:
[10] The Crown has asked that a verdict of guilty be entered. I would, of course, have the power to send this matter back for a new trial. The evidence of the respondent at trial makes it clear to me that there is nothing to be gained by submitting the respondent to the cost and inconvenience of a new trial. His own evidence is such that the only result could be a finding of guilt.
[11] Accordingly, I find the accused guilty.
PS. For balance, here's a .pdf of the original judgement acquitting Mr. Leef (and then overturned). Its also worth noting that even when the original ruling was overturned the judge felt that Leef and co. had been careless, rather than intentionally deceptive.
Updated: here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
