Advocate Jan 2014

134 VOL. 72 PART 1 JANUARY 2014
THE ADVOCATE
9:00 a.m. – Arrive at 222 Main
Street and unload into holding
cells.
9:45 a.m. – Meeting with lawyer
in meeting room. Speak for 10
minutes and sign two documents,
then return to a holding
cell (a 5 x 8–foot room with two
other prisoners in it. No court
appearance occurs.
12:45 p.m. – Provided with
lunch, being 2 sandwiches, a
juice and an orange; consumed
while sitting in the holding tank;
bathroom facilities are in the
corner of the room with almost
no privacy.
3:30 p.m. – Enter transport,
handcuffed and shackled to
return to NFPTC; this departure
time can vary between 3:30 p.m.
and 6 p.m., depending upon
when court concludes.
4:30 p.m. – Arrive at NFPTC,
then sit in holding tank.
8:00 p.m. – Board transport,
again handcuffed and shackled
to go to FRCC.
8:30 p.m. – Arrive at FRCC; strip
searched and returned to living
unit; a frozen meal is provided;
the meal is so bad that most
inmates don’t eat it.
As can be seen, the travel time is
extensive. In all, this trip to court to
chat with counsel for 10 minutes
and sign two documents entailed
13 hours in various holding cells
and three hours on prisoner transport
vehicles (handcuffed, shackled
and locked in a small cage).
This is a miserable 16-hour day for
the inmate. Had counsel instead
mailed the forms, or made use of
the video appearance system, the
inmate might have walked to
records, made the appearance, and
been back to the living unit in an
hour or two at most.
Please take a moment and think
about this 16-hour day before making
scheduling decisions. Your
client will thank you, or at least
think less ill of you.
Dear Sir,
Respectfully,
William J. Mastop
c/o Fraser Regional
Correctional Centre
I had occasion to read the March
edition of the Advocate and in particular
the Letters to the Editor. I
perused them immediately after
reading the obituaries (simply to
verify that my name is not there).
As one who has read (and enjoyed)
every one of Mr. Lecovin’s letters
to the editor, I am nevertheless disappointed.
Surely (I know, don’t
call me “Shirley”) someone else
must be writing to the Advocate.
Has the practice of law come to the
point where no one has time or
inclination to comment upon the
various vicissitudes and peculiari-