FTA Lawyer

Can the government not make a policy change on its own? It does so at its peril I suppose, especially in a minority situation...but is there really a case to be made that governmental policy cannot be changed without full debates in Parliament? FTA P.S. I'm honestly asking...I don't know the answer.

Someone who is a big supporter of increased gun control, please explain to me one possible way that a school principal having access to the federal firearms registry would prevent a shooting tragedy. Perhaps if so many in society were not so bloody stupid, we wouldn't have the rampages at all! FTA

Canadian Press Two months of nothing...how many average Canadians can make puppies for two months and still expect to be taken seriously...let alone keep their job. Good on Harper and Nicholson. By the way, can you find one person who says that this judge is a bad pick? He's a direct appointment to the Court of Appeal by Cretien and now Harper has not let bullshit get in the way of nominating him for the SCC. Seems like a completely non-partisan, merit based appointment. Damn Harper and his hidden agenda!!!!! FTA

Okay, but how do you stop the automaker from setting a 2 year, $10,000.00 certification programme before they will give their seal of approval to a non-dealer mechanic? I think we can agree that very few independent guys would go through such a program, so the consumer still has to go to the dealer for service...or have their warranty cancelled? At what point do we recognize that the marketplace is far better at regulating many things than is government? Should we pass legislation to force Coke to give its recipe to generic cola makers so the world can share in cheaper access to the refreshing taste of Coke? After all, if you want the taste of Coke, you have no choice whatsoever but to buy Coke! I know, a bit flippant...after all you were talking about high cost of marketplace entry type things...which Coke is not. Okay, should we not legislate huge corporate homebuilders into handing out copies of their blueprints...that their architects and engineers produced...so that independent homebuilders have the same opportunity to get hired by me to build my next palace? Again, I'm being a bit over the top, but what is it about car manufacturers that they should be singled out that they should be prevented from protecting their intellectual property when everyone esle can? Personally, I think this is why the availability of initial choice in the market is key to the issue. I remember Jay Leno complaining in a car magazine one time that his Ferrari F40 was a pain in the ass because it is not really meant for daily driving...and the clutch always blows up on it...at a cost of about $20,000.00 to fix each time. You simply must get your parts and your mechanic from Italy...there is no other option. BUT...the option is to buy a different supercar...or no supercar at all. Since no one seems to be citing that all manufacturers are intentionally making it so only they can service their cars, then am I not right that you can just not buy from the ones that are doing that? FTA

For all of the mindless "I know you are but what am I" going on here, you fools should all run for public office. For the love of all things good and holy...Some people cheat on their spouses and then lie about it...irrespective of their political affiliations. I would not have thought that necessary to point out, but look at this ridiculous thread... Humans are not perfect. Show me a perfect politician and I'll show you a person who has gone to very great lengths to keep truth out of the public domain. While the cheating on the spouse is certainly unimpressive, it is the effortless lying about it that would worry me if this guy wanted to be my representative. FTA

Is this really a matter capable of debate amongst reasonable people? Other than sensationalist media types, does anyone really think that our Prime Minister doesn't know that Nfld. did not sign up in 1867? As an appellate lawyer who reads loads of transcripts of other people speaking in court, I think I can spot a completely meaningless blooper...and that's what this was. FTA

Well, I hear what you are saying...sort of... The fact is that in about 3 seconds you can find plenty of reliable third-party information about automobile repair costs before you buy: Consumer Reports Also, being a discriminating buyer, you can lease a car and never incur the prohibitive cost of ownership...or the cost of maintenance for the most part (if your lease is shorter than or equal to the warranty). In any event, the difference that I am trying to point out is that I can by an HP computer...running Vista, or a Compaq...running Vista, or an IBM...running, you guessed it, Vista. You get my point. I really do not believe that there is one single automobile computer component software company out there that no matter whether you buy Ford, GM, Toyota, Nissan etc. you have to be at the mercy of that single company. I just don't think your analogy is a sound one. FTA

I agree with you in principle that lack of money should not bar someone from running for political office...but you still have failed to convince me that is the case. You say you have the accountant criteria likely met...so what is the monetary fee that is barring you? Be specific, and you may well find people willing to send you a couple bucks. FTA

It's an interesting point...but I don't think that any auto maker can claim the market share that Microsoft does. If Ford Motor Co. gets its computer modules installed on most of the world's cars and then shuts out all competition on fixing said modules then you will have a scenario equivalent to the Microsoft one. Until then, I can choose not to buy Ford (if they were doing this on their own cars) and instead buy any of about 15 other automakers' products. The word monopoly simply doesn't come to mind when I think cars. FTA

When you consider that an Act of the British Parliament was required to establish Canadian sovereignty, I don't see the irony actually. In any event, it is the location of the loss of the ships that makes Canada looking to salvage them related to a bid for control of those waterways. FTA

I hate to break it to you, but if you cannot manage to comply with simple eligibility requirements...and if you cannot find a single accountant willing to audit a no expenses and no donations campaign for a reasonable fee, then you will have little success in your political career. You have failed to persuade me that your right to run for public office has been unlawfully infringed. Here's a thought...maybe use the money you were going to spend on a documentary... FTA

I can't follow you William Ashley. It seems to me you are free to do whatever the hell you want to your car (subject to safety and traffic legislation). If you can't modify it the way you want becuase the manufacturer won't lend you its tools then I recommend not modifying...or do so at your own risk. No one forced you to buy a vehicle whose manufacturer doesn't share its tools...if that is so important to you. I'm quite sure that I cannot fix my GE coffee-maker without a GE part. If GE doesn't want to have distributors for that part, then I either buy direct from GE or get a new coffeemaker. I don't think I'd lobby my MP for a coffee-maker repairman's "right" to fix my coffee-maker. My dad sold an Oldsmobile International he once owned, in part because you had to remove the engine to change the spark plugs...and he didn't like spending multiple hundreds of dollars for something that should cost $50.00. I agree with fellowtraveller. You cannot force a manufacturer to support an independent secondary industry by legislating restrictions on how they do business. I suspect this same NDP MP will be very upset if his bill passes and 10,000 autoworkers lose their jobs because the companies they work for lose serious repair and maintenance profits to independent mechanics. FTA

Looking for ships lost in your territorial waters is something countries tend to do. It seems very obvious to me that the CDN government jumping into this search at this point in time is an obvious attempt to support a bid for sovereignty in the Arctic. I am uncertain whether the people deciding such issues will be impressed by the effort. It seems to me that will be the true measure of whether this is money well-spent. FTA

Having this year successfully argued in the Supreme Court of Canada about the difference between first and second degree murder, I am again baffled by the media's inability to properly explain the issue, and the public's unwillingness to learn. In Canada, any murder conviction is an automatic life sentence. That's it...could not be any more simple. As a convicted murderer, you will never finish serving your sentence until you yourself are dead. The difference in penalty is only regarding parole elligibility (please note...not parole, but parole elligibility). First degree murder automatically means you cannot even apply for parole until you serve 25 years. Second degree murder is not automatically anything. The sentencing judge will set the parole elligibility which has to be a minimum of 10 years. Again, elligibility...not parole. Once you are elligible, you apply to the National Parole Board for parole and they will either grant or deny based on a multitude of criteria (the propriety of which I do not comment on in this post). If you get parole, you are always subject to conditions, breaches of which result in parole revocation without any trial and almost without any form of due process. After all, you are still serving your sentence, so being out is truly a privilege and not a right at this point. The exception to the above is the "faint hope clause". If you get parole elligibility set at more than 15 years (automatic in 1st deg., by the judge in 2nd deg.) then after you serve at least 15 years, you can apply to a judge for approval to apply to a jury to seek a reduction in your elligibility. If the judge finds your application could succeed, then you get to try to convince the jury. If they unanimously agree, then you get the ability to apply early to the National Parole Board for parole. The NPB will always have the final say on whether you actually get parole. As for the substantive difference, people often mistakenly believe that 1st degree murder is for brutal killing whereas 2nd degree is for some less horrific form of murder. Actually, the brutality (or lack of) has nothing whatsoever to do with it. For a murder to attract the automatic more serious punishment of a 1st degree murder, it has to have been planned and the plan must have been deliberated upon. That is, the offender has to actually have a plan and take some time to reflect on the pros and cons of such plan. Even after such consideration, if a person goes ahead and commits the murder, then they do so with the highest moral blameworthiness. So, if I make a very simple plan to put poison in a child-molester's drink and I consider the consequences of the plan...and decide to go ahead with it, I am guilty of first degree murder. It doesn't matter that the murder was not gruesome and the victim was evil. On the contrary, if I have no plan, don't particularly weigh what I am about to do and on an apparent whim commit a horrendous murder such as what happened on that bus, it will be second degree murder. Again, it doesn't matter that the murder is horrific and violent and that the victim is a blameless good kid. Hope this helps. FTA

Not sure if it is a "loophole" so much as it is just simply a written exception to the normal licensing rules: Canteen license and this: The facilities are perfectly legal...what remains to be seen I think is whether the activities going on in the facilities meet the same standard. FTA

It was just an example for illustration...I'm aware that "FTA" is not a legal entity...

I've got nothing to refute your reliance on this one as evidence of justice gone wrong...I would come unglued if my kids were the victims after several previous convictions. I'll still look to see if I can find the actual judgment to see if there is any legitimate explanation for the latest sentence, but I won't be surprised if I can't find one. FTA

I think there can be no other interpretation than the case applies to any public commentary. What is important to note is that the fair comment defence only applies to comment not "reporting of facts". It is not the medium you choose, but the substance of your statements that matters. If you wrongfully post here as a matter of fact that FTA is not actually a certified lawyer and is just lying to everyone to boost his credibility, then you are defaming me and are not protected. If you post that FTA is primarily a criminal lawyer and therefore is a bonehead when it comes to non-criminal issues, then you are commenting with your fair opinion based on fact, and therfore, even if your post defames me, you are protected. Now, of course, since I answered your question, you're not going to give such a nasty opinion of me are you? FTA

This is just the latest red-herring lame-ass attempt to pretend that we are doing something about CO2 emissions. Let's see, which would reduce CO2 emissions more: 1. closing drive-thru's 2. leaving cars shut off at home. We so want to stop global warming...except if it significantly changes our way of life in any way. Here's one: 3. Ban all non-essential pleasure air-travel. We would save astronomical amounts of carbon from being combusted with this one, but dammit, we like polluting the shit out of the environment so we can vacation on a beach on the other side of the planet instead of the beach 100 miles from our house. FTA

I will readily concede that lawyers could do better to improve the system, judges, clerks, and "joe public" too (eg. make it a priority to use tax $$ to hire good prosecutors and judges). Hell, I'm one of the first to openly criticize improper judicial conduct in real life: Judge Loses Composure Judge Falls Asleep Judge Decides Case Before All Witnesses Heard Judge Decides Case Before All Witnesses Heard I am appearing in this thread to be always defending the system because no one else is...and a whole pile of people pulling up unfair anecdotal evidence of a broken justice system makes it look like it is so. Now, the critics will likely read the cases I have cited above and blame me more for the ills of society. After all, I have successfully appealed convictions for some pretty serious stuff. But it all fits in with my desire to adhere to the rule of law. I have no problem with criminals being convicted and sent to jail...but only if it is done fairly. As for the article you posted, I saw it earlier and it certainly does make one wonder what to do. People with hundreds of convictions are hardly upstanding citizens. Should judges and lawyers bear responsibility for such situations? In some cases I'm sure they should. Should mental health professionals take their share of the blame? Likely for some cases also. Teachers? Maybe. Parents? More than a few times. And the list goes on and on... I certainly don't have all of the answers, but I will likely continue to argue strongly against justice-system bashing that is misleading or unfairly inflammatory. I guess I just can't help myself. FTA

I'm sure the 92 year old dead lady and her family take great comfort in knowing that cops lying to get warrants which then lead to unlawful raids which then lead to old ladies getting killed by lying cops only happens once in a while. You're right, I really should stop advocating that police follow the law...what was I thinking? FTA

If the cops lied to get the warrants and filled a 92 year old woman with 39 bullets...would you still say punishing the individual cops is "justice"? Oh what a tangled web we weave... FTA

Violent offenders don't typically get early parole classification. Read the BCCA decision on the laugher Ngyuen...the courts are saying what you are saying about being part of a really serious crime. Do I think it's an appropriate sentence? I won't pretend for a minute that if it were me or my family I'd have a tough time with it...but if it's what the law supports, then I accept it as appropriate. Lobbying for increased sentence lengths is also appropriate if that is your belief...but random slashing at the system without actual facts and refusing to acknowledge things that go right in the system and blaming lawyers and judges for all of the ills of society don't make you look very credible. FTA

What part of the BCCA decision is "but covering". I gave you the link. Click it, read it (oh, I mean re-read it) and quote the "but covering" part. I have two friends who are lawyers who are paralyzed. One is quadrapelegic, one parapelegic. Both were young athletic men in their prime when they were injured. One in a car accident, one shot in a drive-by shooting. One is now a provincial MLA, the other I kind of lost track of over the past year. Kent Hehr Niether is wasting away looking at eyelids...and by his picture attending the court proceedings, neither is the victim in this case. I doubt you know the offender's immigration status so, really, your comments were not well-placed. Fair comment on the family opinion thing...I am often on the other side of that issue saying that the courts should not decide based on what the family wants. Our sentences used to be much longer and our criminal element has grown by 10 million? Cites? FTA

Even when the point is jabbed right into your eye you miss it. I don't propose to minimize how devastating it must be for a young man to be made a quadrapelegic, but he is not a "corpse that can only stare at his eyelids" nor is he "drooling for the rest of his life". But the fear-monger image of a person that seriously paralyzed incites people more, so you continue to use it even when it is pointed out to you that it is false. I'll beleive you when you say you've read the Court of Appeal's reasons...but can you point out to me what part you consider to be "but-covering"? See, your analysis makes no sense to me because when I read it, I see an appeal court that says the trial judge was wrong to minimize the involvement of the "puncher" to such an extent that he was given a conditional sentence. It says that "swarming" incidents must be punished more severely, especially where the victim suffers devastating injury. Who is covering whose "but" exactly? BC Court of Appeal - R. v. Nguyen I would have thought that even you could say that the above reasoning is very good and you could commend the BC Court of Appeal for correcting the wrong that the trial judge did...but instead you find fault in their decision too by calling it "but covering". Can you explain? As for being happy with 10 years for the attacker, I'm telling you what the mom said she thought her son, the victim's, reaction would be...and what the sister of the victim said she felt about it. Maybe you should respect their opinions of justice rather than spaz on their behalf that the system is broken. Is it possible they have a more informed perspective on this case than you? With all of your unintelligent references to immigrants and deportation, what would you say about this case if a white 4th generation Canadian was the offender? Why does his ancestry factor in to the equation for you? FTA