FTA Lawyer
-
Posts
666 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by FTA Lawyer
-
-
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
-
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories
So much for the selection committee in the House of Commons being involved in selection. Another broken Harper promise.
Nicolson said he was disappointed by the selection panel."Last month they didn't get anything done because the opposition had objections to the composition of the committee," he said.
"And this month, a couple days of teleconferences had to be cancelled because no members of the opposition were available. So we're moving forward on this."
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
-
That said, I do agree that there is a grey area and the auto maker example is not as extreme as the MS case. ITOH, I don't feel car makers should be given a free hand when it comes to creating monopolies for after market service and have no issue a law that requires them to sell their tools to third party. However, as a compromise, I would not have an issue is automakers establishing certification programs for mechanics and requiring that only certified technicians are allowed to repair cars under warrentee.
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
-
MS does not have a monopoly before people buy their OS but once someone buys it they become "locked in" because the cost of changing OSes is prohibitively high. The same lock-in effect happens with vehicles because of the high initial cost. This means the after market service monopoly is worrisome even though the consumer originally had a choice of 15 vendors instead of 3.
Another example exists in the banking industry. In England, consumers that take out a 25-year mortgage from a bank are locked into that bank for the entire 25 years even though the interest rate is only fixed for the first 5 years. In Canada, thanks to government regulation, consumers have the option of shopping around for the best interest rate after each term expires. In this case, the lock-in is created by contract terms rather than technology.
IOW, The high cost of purchasing a new vehicle if one is faced with an abusive service monopoly means that I don't think it is reasonable to argue that consumers have a choice. Especially when the consumer had no way to calculate the cost of the service monopoly liability at the time of purchase.
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:
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
-
Do any of the people defending the right of car makers to use technology to shut out competition in the service market also defend the right of companies like Microsoft to use technology to shut out competitive software products. For example, companies that sell anti-virus software were quite upset when MS took away the "tools" they need to get their products to work on Vista. MS backed down because it knew it would be facing another anti-trust battle despite the fact that people can always "choose" another OS.
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
-
Notwithstanding the obvious connection between Canada and Britain, its a little ironic that this is being held up as a bid for Canadian sovereignty. Franklin was after all on a mission for another country's government that was seeking a Northwest Passage through another people's territory without so much as a by-your-leave from anyone but themselves - the very thing we're supposed to be most concerned about.
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
-
I'd say it would be best if FTA answered this. I don't see why they would open up an illegal bar if the RCMP would investigate them in the first place and cause a big scene and lose credibility with the public. There must be a loophole in the law somewhere.
Not sure if it is a "loophole" so much as it is just simply a written exception to the normal licensing rules:
CanteensCanteens are normally closed to the public. They are under the direction of the Canadian Forces, a police service, or a federal or provincial correctional training authority. Admittance is restricted to members and guests authorized by the senior officer in charge of the facility.
and this:
Hours of OperationClass C licences, except those issued for a canteen, permit the sale of liquor from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. Class C (Canteen) licensing hours are at the discretion of the senior officer in charge of the facility.
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
-
Not sure about that as you are FTA, a handle - not a person with a name and address.
I am unsure if I would be able to defame 'FTA' as FTA is not a legal entity.
A ruling on this matter can only be a few years away.
It was just an example for illustration...I'm aware that "FTA" is not a legal entity...
-
What's this, no one rushes to defend the judges on this one? Perhaps I have finally found a case whose outcome is not defensible.
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
-
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...PStory/National
My only question is does it apply to forums, blogs and other aspects of commentary. I wonder if our resident lawyers know.
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
-
While I acknowledge that there are maximum sentences that the judiciary can apply, I have long since given up on the idea that FTA could acknowledge that his profession or the judiciary could be at least part of the problem but what the hell. Link
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 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
-
Yeah and that happens, like, every day. Why, if it weren't for you and the judges cops probably be randomly shooting old ladies in the streets just for laughs.
Thank GOD we have you to protect us from that.
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 a guilty man is appropriately punished it really does not matter how the cops got the evidence, at least not insofar as whether the punishment is just or not.
If the cops lied to get the warrants to search a serial killer's home, and turned up a dead victim, and a live prisoner, would you still say it was unjust to send that serial killer to prison?
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
-
Do you actually think this is an appropriate sentence for someone who used an axe to sever someone's spinal column?
I mean, even if you leave aside the fact that with 2 for 1 time served, and parole after 1/3 of a sentence he'll probably serve no more than 2 years, ten years is still far, far too lenient for this cold, vicious crime. Fifty years would be closer to justice.
And btw, when you go to attack someone in concert with a guy carrying an axe - you ought to be held liable for anything that person does with the axe. I mean, how do you not know your pal is carrying an axe? How do you not know what damage an axe does if it hits someone?
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
-
That's funny, I've argued for serious jail time for white criminals on this thread, so you fellas automatically think if it was a white guy wielding the axe I'd change my tune? And as far as my "staring at eyelids", comment, why don't you interview 10 who have become quadrapelegics after a normal life and get back to us.
My concern with crimes committed by immigrants has to do with the number of known criminals/gang memebers who are allowed to enter this country, and those immigrants who end up committing crimes here. If they get kicked out, they simply disappear. That's another element of our "justice" system that needs overhaul, but I won't hold my breath expecting you two to see the light on this issue either.
The newscast I linked to on the swarm attack showed how the main reason an appeal was made on the giggling convict was they got his giggling on tape. Again, if he would have kept his mouth shut, he'd still be in house arrest. As for the family of the victim, justice is justice, regardless of what family members think. You yourself believe this and ignore the opinions of family members when they disagree with the court's decisions. So now that you've got an agreeing opinion you play the other side of the street!
Ten years actually comes out to, what, under seven? For attempted murder, I know in Canada that's probably considered a lengthly time, but our sentences used to be much longer. What changed? The way we view violent crime, and the way we view criminals. They are now considered more of a victim than the actual victims. Also, in Canada we haven't significantly added more capacity to the prison system while our population, and therefore our criminal element has grown by almost 10 million.
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.
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
-
I've read the appeal court's reasons for overturning the ruling, and it's a bunch of but covering. The bottom line is this stupid immigrant's son would have walked with 20 months conditional if he had only kept his mouth shut. Yeah he punched, but he was participating in attempted murder, which obviously means nothing to you.
So you, FTA, must be the shining example of objectivity whilest defending the true and noble justice system of our land, eh?, crying with your clients like you do. You obviously couldn't see injustice if it attacked you with an axe. No doubt you'd be happy with 10 years for the attacker while you drooled for the rest of your life.
10 years for forcing another person into a corpse that can only stare at their eyelids or the ceiling is not enough, neither is 3 or 20 months of house arrest. Which ever of these kids is an immigrant should be evicted from the country along with their families for starters, but this punk who will be free Jan of 09 has our 'justice' system to thank. In his old country, he'd probably get executed, but then he'd never be stupid enough to break such laws in that country.
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
To begin, I do not consider Mr. Nguyen’s involvement in the attack to be minimal. Even though Mr. Nguyen’s physical involvement was limited to punching Mr. Levy, he was an integral participant in a “swarming”, i.e., an unprovoked, violent, and cowardly attack on a defenceless person: R. v. N.(C.) (2006), 213 C.C.C. (3d) 56 (Ont. C.A.) at para. 26. While Mr. Nguyen did not know that Mr. Green and Mr. Quintana had weapons, he nonetheless agreed to join with them in beating up Mr. Levy, and he must have known that it was likely that Mr. Levy would suffer some degree of bodily harm. While undoubtedly it may be appropriate in swarming cases to distinguish, to some degree, those who used weapons from those who did not, it is not open to Mr. Nyugen to minimize his culpability “by offering his individual involvement alone, divorced from the context of the collective action”: R. v. M.(J.S.), 2005 BCCA 417, 200 C.C.C. (3d) 400 at para. 64; see also R. v. Helm, 2006 BCCA 240, 210 C.C.C. (3d) 218 at para. 4. Those who choose to participate in gang-like violence cannot expect to have their culpability determined without regard to the totality of the harm inflicted. Each is accountable for the collective action.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
Tories' death-penalty stance
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted
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.