FTA Lawyer

Is that actually part of your oath? Did you happen to find it? I really would like to see it. It seems that if you're sworn to uphold what is good and holy then there must be a basis for those terms to exist. I'd be very interested to know what that is. If I were to affirm on a bible could I use that book as my reference to law? Not the oath...just plain sarcasm...I have a transcript somewhere of my call to the Bar ceremony...when I find it, I'll post the oath to be debated. FTA

Street racing takes two and current laws would only allow manslaughter charges against the driver of the car that acutally ran someone down. A street racing law would make both drivers accountable. You're actually wrong about that... Dangerous driving s. 249 of the criminal code exists if an ordinary prudent bystander would have perceived an obvious risk that lives or safety would be endangered by the person's driving. As such, both participants in a street racing scenario would be committing the offence. Dangerous driving causing bodily harm ups the jail maximum to 10 years and if death is caused it goes up again to 14 years. AND, if the circumstances are even more egregious than can be addressed by dangerous driving, you can charge criminal negligence...but you have to prove wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of others. Cause death in this way and maximum jail is life. AND, if none of the above works, the other racer who doesn't run over the victim is still guilty of manslaughter as a party to the offence (i.e. an aider or abettor). In a case called R. v. Jackson, the SCC set out that the test is objective...The risk of death need not be foreseeable. Provided the unlawful act is inherently dangerous and harm to another that is neither trivial nor transitory is its foreseeable consequence, the resultant death amounts to manslaughter. Now, with all of the above fully available to police and prosecutors for decades, one must again question whether this is just a political stunt. If life imprisonment doesn't deter a street racer, will a $10,000.00 fine? Perhaps the real issue is the failure of government to give sufficient resources to prosecute these incidents properly with the laws we have...instead of trying to pass new laws to make themselves look good. FTA

Typically dishonest post from Woody: In all, hundreds of truckloads of food worth more than $40 million are being thrown away or scavenged for unspoiled contents to be offered to domestic hunger-relief groups, said FEMA officials. Most of the meals were commercial versions of the military's Meals Ready to Eat, which were ruined despite being engineered to withstand the demands of desert and jungle climates. http://freeinternetpress.com/story.php?sid=11319 I read that part, but I don't think it gives FEMA an excuse. Basically, they over-ordered to the tune of $40 million...the explanation being that the "pressure to perform" meant that they didn't want to run out under any circumstances. Even if you accept that as top-notch boy-scout preparedness as opposed to negligent management of resources...once the true need was determined and this $40 million was found to be excess, shouldn't they have done something with it rather than put it in trucks and then toss it? I mean, they can't have planned to store it indefinitely... Maybe they can explain their due diligence here and show they fell victim to improper packaging from the manufacturer or something...but so far, FEMA doesn't seem to be putting up much that would allow one to let them off the hook on this one. FTA

The only part I like is the ability to impound immediately. As far as the rest of it goes, there are already laws on the books to deal with it. I dont get it. Excessive speeding is dangerous driving, or careless driving. Somebody dies, vehicular manslaughter. I agree with this assessment. We can put people in jail for up to five years for dangerous driving never mind the fines they could get...the concept of a provincial "street racing" offence is mostly redundant. Likely good for some votes to some politician though. FTA

Not to state the obvious, but isn't starting a thread without the link in the first place just being lazy and / or stupid? That aside...this is a pretty outrageous story. It's not like anyone in the neighbourhood could've benefitted from some free food...I can see why FEMA would just wait until it rots and throw it out. WTF!?!?! FTA

Les, I understand that if you go into traffic court tomorrow and you want to start arguing your way out of things you will have to use the current statutes and common law to do it...after all, I am a criminal lawyer. I'm trying to get at the root of your arguments to see if I can (1) wrap my head around them completely, and (2) accept their validity. Therefore, I am asking you to build the argument from its elemental form and show me the way to Freeman status without relying on societal laws to get there. My criticism was that, if the only basis for your theories is the very law you seek to impugn, then you are sunk from a logic standpoint...and I stand by that. The philosophers you list would not get you far in a societal court of law...so good thing this discussion board is no such place. The "maxims" you list are going in the right direction, but I rather hasten to say that many of them are just paraphrased examples of common-law principles (developed by society) such as, "An unrebutted affidavit stands as truth in commerce". I'm pretty sure in elemental inherent human rights there are no affidavits. Why not start from "I think therefore I am" and add in a little bit about "free will" and a few other things that are inherent to human existence and you may just convince me yet (not to quit the bar and come live with you in a commune in the wilderness...but that your argument actually works from an analytical perspective). And by the way, I am not engaging you in this as Her Majesty's loyal subject bound to honour and defend the Crown in all that is good and Holy...All I'm doing is asking you to meet the standard of knowledge and ability to justify your position that the guy in the video purports to have imposed on some CCRA desk clerk. So, comments like these are really not necessary or of value: I eagerly await your response. FTA

The issue isn't about how people get into a position...it's about what we do as members of society to hold them accountable in the face of their actions. Plenty of elected people prove to be corrupt...the fact of electing someone and thereby giving "power to the people" really does nothing to improve the quality of the person selected. Granted, if the corrupt person needs to get re-elected it does give one way to get rid of them...but it also opens a huge opportunity for conflict of interest. I don't want a prosecutor letting off a member of the Sikh community (just a random example btw) because the leaders of that community promise to support her bid for re-election. I'm fine with non-elected positions...because invariably there is already an elected person who is responsible. If no action is taken to remove a corrupt Chief of Police in the province, then the Solicitor General and Minister are at risk of losing their jobs. The key is to not be apathetic. When we have corruption revealed, we should be outraged and persistent in demanding heads to roll...not just shrug our shoulders say, "it figures" and sit down with a beer to watch the hockey game. FTA

Please note that the only time in these particular articles where 'person' is used is in Article 30 where they place restrictions on destructive capabilities of those entities. I would infer it is meant to protect humans. I thought you had a final thought a while ago. What is this? Rigour mortis? I thought that was supposed to straighten you out. jk What is this thing you call Canada? Is it the physical ground we walk on or the fictional corporate entity? Because physical land can't very well sign a document, and I'm not a shareholder in the corporation of Canada so really, nothing you have quoted above even exists except in the minds of evil bankers and corrupt lawyers... Sorry for the sarcasm, but I owed you one. In all seriousness, don't you get that you can't use the concept of a nation (formalized society) committing to an international treaty (many formalized societies working together) as the authority upon which you assert that it is unlawful for society to commit fraud and enslave you????? Put another way, the argument you make is that the government of Canada has no authority to impose itself upon your being and force you to be the trustee for the "person" created by the fraudulent birth certificate becuase you are protected from such involuntary societalization (is that a word?) by the very laws created by and adhered to by the society known as Canada (which you want no part of). If you cannot ground your argument in some principle of inherent human liberty without any reliance whatsoever on societal law then your argument fails completely...full stop. If you need the laws and principles that society has developed to prove that societal laws are not valid without your consent, then your logic is circular at best. Don't cite the Charter, the UN Declarations, our Constitution, any statute or common-law jurisprudence (all products of societal development) and state your case...and I'll reconsider the merits of your position. If you cannot do that, then surely you will have to concede that your entire argument is fatally flawed. Maybe you can resort to theology, maybe John Stuart Mill, maybe Descartes, maybe Darwinism...hell, I don't know, it's your argument. All I know is that the moment you need to point to the Interpretation Act or a legal definition in an Act of Parliament etc. you have blown it. FTA

I know of no legal requirement for a statute to have a preamble. As for an enacting clause, you must ensure that you are working from the official text of a statute as printed in Part III of the Canada Gazette. Many reproductions of statutes cut out the flowery crap at the beginning and just show you the substantive sections...but when you go to the Gazette, the enacting clause is there. If Les or others can find the actual Canada Gazette printing of the Income Tax Act and show me the absence of an enacting clause, then I will dig further. FTA

Did you at least notify your insurer? Material change in risk? Yup. For all purposes that matter, my address is up to date...including my insurance. And, it's important to note that my old address is still valid in that my parents still live there and are completely reliable for passing on any notices / tickets etc. FTA

Careful geoffrey, that's how I got started on this whole thing. You wouldn't want to be too inquisitive, they might slap your wrist. Les, You have to understand that my profession is answering questions like those you posed to me in the laundry list. I am obligated to provide legally correct answers to someone in a solicitor-client relationship, or give them a thorough explanation of why no one "correct" answer exists. If I give summary answers to a client without proper consideration, I am exposed to negligence claims. Of course, people on this board are not my clients if they simply ask a question for the purpose of debate...but your list of questions were very specific and very obviously some of the key talking points professed by buddy in his presentation. I'm sorry, but where things approach the line of a risk that someone might take my answers as legal advice and act upon them, I have to back away. And no offence, but how can I know whether or not you are someone who would do that? As for the piles of cash you think I was motivated by in the example I gave you...I ran that case as part of a volunteer legal clinic providing services to people who literally had no money...So my Prada sunglasses are on layaway. I can handle the odd jab about lawyers and the professsion...I won't go home and cry tonight, but you really did your cause a huge disservice in my mind with your stance in post #31. It's hard to maintain an open mind and participate in meaningful discussion with someone who defends their position with attacks on my presumed bank statement. FTA

Just so my position is clear on this... I fully support Rosie's right to assert whatever conspiracy theory she believes in regarding 9/11. I don't agree with her, but I will defend her right to say it. I re-state though, that I don't see her right to speak being violated here, and I find the plea to "sign the petition" to be a disingenuous attempt to build support for the content of the message, and not the right to speak it. FTA

I seriously have no idea what I am supposed to do with this... Look, there are literally thousands of common-law decisions out there that answer most of these questions from a legal standpoint (and not all in harmony I might add). I hate to seem too much a slave to the system, but if I asnwer the above in point form like you've posed them, I am opening my insurer to a pile of claims when you or your brethren start refusing to pay taxes or speeding tickets on the advice of your legal counsel...and claim that to be me. In all honesty, I can give you a thorough legally reasoned response to all of these (I'm having flashbacks to law school exams) but it is way beyond the scope and purpose of this forum. Pick one or two that you are most in need of answers for, PM me and I'll quote you a fee. FTA P.S., this is not a cop-out...your list is simply an overwhelming burden in a spare-time discussion forum. I once called 6 hours of evidence in a Charter challenge of the constitutionality of the motor vehicle licensing regulations in Alberta that obligate drivers to have their photo taken. My client was a traditional native spiritualist who refused to renew his drivers license because the government would not allow him to do so without taking a digital photograph of him. When the trial court refused to rule on the issue (seriously, after 6 hours the judge asserted he had no jurisdiction to make the ruling) we appealed. The appeal court said it had no jurisdiction too. They were wrong, and we knew it, but the client had no resources to appeal further. A year later, the SCC would hand down a decision that confirmed we were right (about the jurisdiction issue) and only about a year or so ago, a group of Hutterites successfully fought the government on the exact same legal argument that we were making in 2001. Personally, I have refused to change the address on my driver's license from when I lived with my parents in high school. I am waiting to be ticketed under the Traffic Safety Act for this infraction (failing to report a change of residence)...so I can challenge the constitutionality of that law. In my view, the government has no right to track my address disguised in a law regarding traffic safety...where I live has nothing to do with traffic safety or my legal ability to drive or register or insure a vehicle. I know how to fight these fights, and am prepared to do so where there is merit to it...I just have trouble with the overall premise of the videos that started this thread.

I expect a lawyer to do nothing less than protect his interests and those of his private society. What was the oath that you took?I'll come up with some questions for you after dinner, if you would be so kind as to indulge me. I'm happy to have further discussion on this topic. I await your questions. In the meantime, I'll search for the transcript of the complete oath that I took if it is of interest to you. FTA

ClearWest and LesActive, Do you not see the logical disconnect in asserting that your Constitutional Charter rights have been violated by the government imposing statutes upon you without your consent? If you want to follow this line of thinking, everything you base your arguments on must exists independent of statute law. You cannot rely on statutes and man-made societal principles / laws / rights as the basis or foundation for your inherent rights. And, no matter how you slice it, the Constitution Act, 1982 is a statutory instrument. See, your guy's principled argument is completely self-destructive. If I don't consent to the imposition of the Charter, then I simply don't acknowledge your s. 15 Charter right to equality before the law and, now where are we? You are relying on man-made societally agreed norms / laws to found the rights which you then say give you the ability to not be subjected to man-made societally agreed norms / laws. Are you not? And if you are not, then please, explain it to me...because I truly have an open mind on this topic...I just can't see any merit to what is being put forth. FTA

I can't believe it, but I did listen to the whole first presentation...I don't agree with those here who have called this guy insane, and that's the problem. If he were truly insane, everyone would see that and just ignore his ranting. Unfortunately, he has some intelligence and a convincing presentation style...so many will likely be duped into believing his spew. Ask yourself this, why is it that many of his points are made by reciting the legal definition of a term that comes from a statute...when he suggests statutes are not law (unless you agree they are). He picks and chooses bits of the legal system that support his raving and simply discards stuff he doesn't like. For example, he likes to rely on Black's Law Dictionary at numerous points as his authority for certain definitions...but, when he gets to the part where he rants about the rule of law, he doesn't give you this citation from Black's: Of course, if he did give you this definition of the rule of law, it would completely dismantle his entire presentation. Another example...he says everything is an offer which you can choose to accept or not (even if it is a legal direction or order etc). He specifically relies on the principles of the law of contract and the application of the Bills of Exchange Act when discussing his theory. He suggests that no one can validly take you to court if you don't dishonor them and you "accept every offer they make" and don't create a conflict. The key, he says, is just to use a conditional acceptance of every offer (i.e. I accept, but on the following conditions). Problem is, a conditional acceptance as per the law of contract is actually a rejection, with a new offer (aka a counteroffer). His diatribe just doesn't hold water. Another example...he rails on about the magical powers of a Notary Public and how if you use all of the ins and outs of particular procedures you can get a win on any dispute. What he fails to mention is that a Notary Public gets all of his powers from a statute...yes, that's right, the same statute that he says somehow the rule of law lets you ignore (if you don't consent). So, the person on the other side of his dispute can just send him a letter that says he doesn't consent to the authority given to a Notary Public under the Act and then he's screwed...right? He suggests that his sister, who's actual title he cannot even remember, by saying "no comment" to whether he is right or not is somehow an endorsement by a federal government lawyer as to the soundness of his legal analyses...pretty weak. Maybe what I should do...in the interests of my time and everyone else's...is rather than pick apart everything he says that's wrong is just allow him to do it himself by me reminding everyone of where his starting position was for his journey into "deconstructing statutes"... He says the federal government stole his baby becuase he created the legal entity of the baby's "person" as chattel property (like any book or cowboy hat or bag of weed he may own) and then abandoned that property by the act of registration of the baby's birth, allowing the Federal government the legal right to seize that property. Okay...that's fine logic... Anyway, I know I am just a willing slave who has been brainwashed, and everything I am posting right now is just a desparate attempt by a lawyer to try and get everyone to fight in court and maintian the enslavement of all Canadian citizens...so maybe I'll just sign off. FTA

No. You should understand the difference between defending someones right to free speech and defending what they are saying. I am a huge advocate of free speech...indeed I am filing a court challenge on a file next week to defend a client's Charter right to freedom of expression. I read the "petition" as a plea to defend what Rosie is saying, not to defend the right to free speech. Otherwise, why would the author of the petition list all of the content that purports to be proof of the fact that WTC 7 was intentionally brought down? I will not lend my support to such a petition. See, the problem with your logic is that Rosie has already spoken...sure, there may be backlash and consequences for her but that is different from violating her right to speak. No matter which way you slice it, saying things that are controversial will bring you hardship to some extent. Having freedom to say those controversial things is a double-edged sword. If Rosie is truly fighting the good fight here, things will go her way...just ask the Dixie Chicks. Regardless of the side anyone takes here, you have failed to convince me that the right to free speech is at risk here. FTA

Now we must ask, do gag orders serve the public interest, or simply the interest of those involved? Should anyone really hold the sweeping powers of censorship over all media? Is that power 'abusing the privilege' when they themselves are involved in any manner?(to the moderator) Please review and let me know if this post is in any way in violation of this order. As I am personally involved in the case of Cst. Shah (and I have always been of the view that my job is to make my argument in the courtroom, not in the media or on a discussion forum) I will assume a very limited role in this discussion. I will point out that there are two different parts of this matter. One, as noted in the link provided, is a civil defamation lawsuit, where the "gag" order was made by the Court and then substantially lifted. There remains one or two affidavits sworn in support of the Anton Pillar Order (sometimes called a civil search warrant) that remain sealed in this civil action...which is now being challenged by my client and some media lawyers. The other part is a disciplinary proceeding against my client pursuant to the Police Act. This hearing was started as a public hearing by order of the Chief of Police, but was suddenly ordered by the Chief to be closed to the public prior to the last appearance. We were set to argue an application to have the charges dismissed on an allegation that jurisdiction over my client was lost due to improper conduct by the Calgary Police Service and the Calgary Police Commission when the Chief changed his mind on the status of the hearing. We are now also in the process of challenging this decision by the Chief of Police to shut the public out of this disciplinary hearing. All of the above information is public domain and not the subject of any restriction on publication or discussion at this time. I invite the members of the board to discuss the issues, and to the extent that any details of the case are public record (having occurred before the Chief directed the hearing to be closed) I may be in a position to provide some additional information. However, I will not participate in the discussion about the arguments I plan to make in Court or my client's opinion or my personal opinions on these issues as I do not want to jeopardize our position in any way when the arguments are formally made in Court. FTA

You'll have to wait for another day for any judgment related to the law of self defence. My client was acquitted of all charges because the Crown's case fell apart. The judge had reasonable doubt that an assault even happened, let alone with a knife. We never had to even argue the issue of self-defence. News Story FTA

I, like moderateamerican, can read this thread and understand what is being said, but to actually compose any post of my own in comprehensible French would be trop difficile pour moi to say the least. Certainly doesn't mean those of you who do speak French should not post French threads. FTA Avocate

Hopefully FTA can chime in on this one too. A couple of years ago a man was arrested at the CNE with a "shoe camera" taking "upskirt" shots. He did not coerce nor jostle any woman to get the shot. He simply manipulated his camera to see where the sun dont shine. The women were oblivious. Thus they had not lost anything, nothing was stolen from them nor were they harmed in anyway. Couple that with public domain and they could be photographed in public anyway, and assuming they fell down they too could be photographed with their undies showing, I was wondering how was that a crime ? Stay with me here. The women had no idea , thus they were not harmed physically nor mentally. It was not until it became public did anyone step forward and say they were violated . All of them had no idea . But the guy was charged , cannot remember with what, and IIRC he was convicted. But essentially there was no "victim" , but there was a crime. What am I missing? Seeing how the papparazi can hide in bushes to take shots of celebs, how is this different? How was Brittany pantiless shots any different other than the angle? Forgive me if my "chiming in" here comes across as rude... Everyone has full free access to all Federal and Provincial legislation (including the Criminal Code) on the CANLII Website...look it up! (Or at least try to look it up on your own first to be informed about the topic you are posting on...or send me a retainer...) Voyerism FTA

Too many posters here with fantastic ideas...few of which are well-informed. The Criminal Code has specified procedures for seizing and forfeiture of proceeds of crime...there's an entire part of the code (Part XII.2) devoted to the subject. These procedures are routinely used and convicted criminals very rarely ever attempt to argue the seizure / forfeiture to try to get their stuff back. Also, being in possession of the proceeds of crime is itself a criminal offence (s. 354). Revenue Canada can do a net worth tax assessment on anyone who apparently has massive assets and no reported legitimate income. People who are victimized by "rich" individuals are free to pursue their civil court remedy just like any other person who claims to have been wronged by a fellow citizen. Financial gain to the criminal is an aggravating factor in sentencing for many offences...if they made money off their crime they get more severe sentences. These are all legitimate, presently on the books, lawful ways to disavow rich criminals of their fortunes, to the extent that those fortunes are proceeds of crime. If they are just rich (lawfully) then too bad for us that we have to cover the costs of taking away their liberty. It is not a crime to have money (again, assuming lawfully obtained) and there is simply no lawful basis on which to mete out criminal justice in a different manner depending on the size of one's bank account. FTA

There's that word "probably" again... Don't worry, I will use my Royal Prerogative to pardon you. FTA

Ahh, yes...In fact, just the other day I declared the 10 block radius around my office to be my sovereign territory and since then I routinely issue directives that passers-by be smitten by lightning...and it just happens! FTA

No. I mean "crown priviledge". It was in the paper a few weeks ago about some lawyer that was going to weasel his way out of trouble by invoking "crown privelidge" to avoid answering questions regarding criminal behaviour. If you want to say that someone is using a principle for the ulterior purpose of "weasel[ing] his way out of trouble...to avoid answering questions regarding criminal behaviour" then look it up and know what it means before you spew your self-acknowledged ignorance. Seriously, do you not even know how to use Google? Crown Privilege Search Results FTA