• 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Thanks for voting!

Top of page



Recent comments

  • monte
    January 18, 2013 - 06:12

    What a joke..he knew the stuff was stolen. Goes to show you that if you pay a lawyer enough they will say anything in stuff..Court system is a big time joke..the crown should get off their lazy asses and appeal this sentence. Stuff is being stolen from hard working honest people to feed druggies..i can see a time coming in the future when we go back to the wild west days where everyone took care of their own issues.

  • u dimas
    January 18, 2013 - 05:46

    I wander how much goods they didn`t recovered, he should watched day & night for 5 years GUILTY DIRT BAG, IT should have got the same as the other two crooks. Justices is gone on the side of the crook`s .

    January 17, 2013 - 23:27

    One can certainly understand the fustration of police. What are our courts going to do next - pass out lollipops?

  • Judy
    January 17, 2013 - 19:53

    NL just doesn't have "a reliable back-bone justice system" whatsoever. Are most of the Judges actually gullible enough or blind enough or stupid enough to actually believe all the manipulating, false witnesses, lying, and anything that's thrown at them from the Defense. The Offender / Criminal gets more favoritism and believed over the victims. Who the heck investigated this and believed that Kelloway DIDN'T know these items were stolen and these guys were giving him cheap prices out of the goodnes of their heart. If that's the case, Kelloway is not much of a businessman, but sure is a manipulator because he pulled the wool over the court's eyes.

  • WS
    January 17, 2013 - 15:55

    "Some of the items were not recovered, but had been seen in Kelloway's possession during surveillance." If Kelloway is so innocent, return the stuff he had at one time to the owners. What did he do with it.??

  • Foghorn Leghorn
    January 17, 2013 - 15:49

    So much for the deterrence aspect of a judge's sentence. The person buying the stolen property should get a stiffer sentence than those who steal it in the first place. If they never had a market for it, they may not have stolen the goods.

  • Dee
    January 17, 2013 - 15:36

    As the old saying goes money talks.

  • Donna Byneshewsky
    January 17, 2013 - 15:13

    Pleads guilty and gets away with it. As bad as the individual who was not charged for attacking the handicapped man.

  • Joe it all
    January 17, 2013 - 14:18

    The police must feel so fustrated when all their hard work is for nothing. We might be all better off if the police kicked the living shit out of all the criminals involved and put the items on display for the hardworking owners of this stuff to claim in they have any proof it is theirs. Habitat for Humanity could have the rest!! Oh and we could certainly use some real judges!!

  • Whaddaya At ?
    January 17, 2013 - 14:11

    The businessman conveniently pretends to be stupid and naive when he received goods that he knew had to have been stolen, and he's not sent to jail ?. What's up with that ?. His lawyer also knows darn well that her client didn't ask any questions when he received the goods because he didn't want to be told they were stolen. It's amazing that his lawyer and the judge could keep a straight face. No wonder the justice system is such a joke.

  • Just The Facts
    January 17, 2013 - 14:02

    How naive is this judge? Colin Flynn must have just fallen off the turnip truck!

  • skipper
    January 17, 2013 - 13:42

    What level of education is needed to be a judge in NFLD?

  • sc
    January 17, 2013 - 13:06

    This 'businessman' gets a year's probation and, according to the CBC, 4 months' house arrest. The others involved in this crime ring get more than 3 years in jail. I suppose the judge felt that they are not as 'upstanding' as is this member of the business community. I doubt that anyone believes that Kelloway didn't know the items were stolen. Wouldn't one be automatically suspicious of the origins of goods that people were selling, presumably for much less than they were worth, out of the back of their trucks? Can anyone really be so naïve to believe that these 'good Samaritans' obtained the stuff honestly? I would have hoped the judge would have been as suspicious of this defence as are most people. I thought that receiving stolen property was a serious offence. Apparently the court disagrees.

  • Irene
    January 17, 2013 - 12:37

    I didn't realize that igrorance of the law was a defence.

  • Republic-of-Newfoundland
    January 17, 2013 - 11:16

    Kelloway's lawyer Erin Breen told Judge Colin Flynn that Kelloway had no idea the items were stolen and that he's admitted he should have asked questions. Really? I have seen these two guys in the stories related to this. Two guys like this show up at your door selling all this stuff, and you are baffeled they were not stand up citizens of the community? The judge should add two more years for being a complete dimb-ass.