Lawyer of alleged mail bomber seeks out-of-province judge for bail review

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 08/02/2016 (3530 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

It has been described as an attack on the justice system. Now the question is whether that should disqualify all Manitoba judges from presiding over the case of alleged mail bomber Guido Amsel.

Martin Glazer, the lawyer representing Amsel, certainly thinks it should. He filed a unique motion Monday seeking to have an out-of-province judge brought in to hear a bail review surrounding his high-profile client.

Arguments are now set to be made on Feb. 22 before Queen’s Bench Chief Justice Glenn Joyal.

“The applicant is entitled to a fair hearing and/or appearance thereof of his bail review application before a judge unfamiliar with the alleged facts and the Manitoba lawyers involved in this case either as victims or witnesses,”: Glazer wrote in an affidavit, a copy of which was obtained by the Free Press. “Consequently it is in the interests of justice for an out-of-province judge to hear the matter in order to avoid the potential conflict of interest or perception of partiality caused by a Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench judge hearing this matter.”

Amsel was denied bail last year following a multi-day hearing before provincial court Judge Heather Pullan. A court-ordered ban prevents specific details of the hearing from being published.

Glazer has now filed for a review of that decision before the higher court. However, the matter won’t be set down until the issue of whether a Manitoba judge can hear it is decided.

Glazer told the Free Press on Monday he is not arguing that local judges will have a bias against his client, but said it’s better for all parties if an outside set of eyes is brought in. He cited a number of factors including the tight-knit legal community and how so many lawyers and judges have connections to the victims. He plans to make a similar motion if the matter eventually goes to trial.

In an affidavit, Glazer cites the extensive media coverage of this case and specifically lays out how many different judges the targets have all appeared before in the past.

Glazer has repeatedly claimed his client has been wrongfully accused of last summer’s crimes that sent shock waves through the local legal community,

Amsel is facing more than a dozen charges including three counts of attempted murder — against his ex-wife, Iris Amsel; his ex-wife’s lawyer, Maria Mitousis; and against his former lawyers at a Stradbrook Avenue office. Mitousis lost her right hand after the package she opened July 3 at her River Avenue law office exploded.

Another package, allegedly meant for Amsel’s ex-wife, was delivered to an auto shop on Washington Avenue and was detonated by police. A third package, also safely detonated, was delivered to Amsel’s former lawyer’s one-time office on Stradbrook Avenue. It had the name of lawyer George Orle on it. The alleged motive stems from lengthy divorce and civil court proceedings involving Amsel and the alleged targets.

Police executed numerous search warrants following the incidents, including at Amsel’s home in the 600 block of Pandora Avenue. A loaded gun was seized and allegedly being stored improperly, resulting in additional weapons charges. Police haven’t said what type of explosives were used in the letter bombs, nor have they said if they believe the accused made them himself. Court records show the bombs were stored inside recording devices.

Glazer has outlined a detailed bail plan for Amsel, including a $100,000 surety along with electronic monitoring. The Crown is opposed.

Glazer has described his client as a “devoted husband and loving father” who remarried 10 years ago, has no criminal record and is a “successful businessman with an excellent reputation in the community with the people he has serviced in his business.”

Glazer said all of the evidence against Amsel is circumstantial and can be explained.

www.mikeoncrime.com