FTA Lawyer

Maybe there is more to these stories that we never hear? Maybe the cops in question have a deliberate incentive to catch these people alive? Maybe these murderers (in their own minds) in question were acting in self-defense? Of course as members of the public we do not get the whole story...and in fact...we often get a deliberately slanted version of the story. I can give a number of examples where I have read media reports of my cases and wondered how in the hell the story could have been so poorly / improperly presented. And of course the police have the deck stacked against them because they have to follow the law in a pursuit and the suspects don't. I guess what I'm saying is that if officers were doing a textbook job of incident management, then it should be a hell of a lot more difficult for a suspect to fatally wound multiple members. FTA

As a lawyer, you know it is not simply a question of losing a suspect. It is not just losing a suspect , it is killing a human being. If that is not enough on its own, you know the kind of scrutiny they come under any time they shoot someone and there is the slightest question that there may have been an alternative. However the question of why so many and why are most of them RCMP is a good one and needs to be answered. I think my question was not clear. I suppose I should have said losing a suspect (and I mean they get away, not they get killed) v. losing an officer's life (i.e. determining the amount of acceptable risk for an officer to place him or herself in when trying to apprehend a suspect). If the situation is you are chasing an unidentified suspect who is fleeing the scene of an armed robbery where two store clerks have been shot, then the pursuit ought to be continued in spite of a significantly higher level of risk. When you are pursuing a known local resident who has been carrying on a continued domestic conflict and who could easily be located and apprehended later...in my view...the pursuit is much less important and should be abandoned at a much lower level of risk. FTA

Two Mounties killed in a domestic dispute. Four Mounties killed in a situation where they knew the perp was armed. Are these guys getting the right training to deal with these situations? There is only so much training you can get on unpredictable human nature. True, but I fear that both of these recent tragedies were not really "unpredicatable" and are in large part due to the fact that the RCMP as a whole, and the individual officers themselves, are not bringing the appropriate level of preparedness and risk calculation to the execution of their duties. In small-town Saskatchewan, the need for a high-speed chase is extremely rare...so when it happens it brings a level of challenge, excitement, and novelty to an otherwise "routine patrol". It is way too easy for an officer to get caught up in the moment...thinking about the great story they will have for their colleauges, friends and family once they've ended the chase by apprehending the suspect...and fail to objectively and clinically analyse the situation for all of the attendant risks and contingencies. These officers knew they were chasing down an emotionally disturbed, highly charged man who felt he had just been screwed out of a significant inheritance due to a bitter family legal dispute. They should have assumed that if and when his vehicle was stopped he would come out with a blazing shotgun, and they should have planned for the safety of themselves and anyone who might be in the general area should such an eventuality occur. If they could not sufficiently manage the risk of that situation, they ought to have backed off and let the suspect "outrun" them. He could have been arrested later in a much less emotionally erratic and much more tactically controlled set of circumstances. Sure, I have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, and when I interact with violent people at work it is after the police have already caught them and they are "controlled" so I don't pretend to know exactly what it is like to be an RCMP officer in pursuit of a suspect. But I've seen enough cases to know that complacency is what gets officers killed, and in Canada, complacency is what we do best. The fairytale is over...(why Mayerthorpe didn't tell us this I'm not sure)...the general population is increasingly less respective of the uniform, increasingly more willing to use violence, and in fact, alarmingly more likely to attack a police officer BECAUSE THEY ARE A POLICE OFFICER! If we don't make serious changes to the training and arrest / apprehension protocols to reflect this new reality, then we will literally have a nationwide dead cop epidemic on our hands. Arguably, it has already started. Let me pose a question...if it is not poor incident management that is to blame, why then does it seem that every time a suspect opens fire officers end up dead? If police are approaching volitile situations with an appropriate balance of the risk of losing a suspect versus the risk of losing a life...shouldn't more shootings at police be only "attempted" murders? FTA

Nope... I recommend you keep paying your taxes. FTA

Sorry, should have had this paragraph in the last post...after all it is the point of my argument in its entirety: FTA

In response to the last couple of posts, here is another excerpt from the minority decision of the SCC case I cited which demonstrate why I prefer these judges reasoning over that of the majority: Seems reasonable to me, and doesn't pose a threat that pregnant women will somehow end up regulated in every behaviour they do. FTA

You raise alcohol - what's acceptable? I asked the question before - one drink a day, three drinks a day? Can she smoke? What drugs can she take? What can she not eat? Do we really want to use our resources to harass pregnant women this way? Will the law be applied the same in Toronto as in Red Deer where community standards are different? We will have anti-abortionists pushing to have the law applied in a draconian fashion and feminists wanting to get the law overturned. And of course you can be sure that we will find that more mininority women are ones charged under the law -- aboriginals, blacks. There is not a prayer the politicians would touch this with a ten foot pole. Are you a politician? Your "answer" to my question didn't even attempt to answer my question. What do you say to the kid in my example? Once you finish that answer, then move on to the rest... Your argument contains a massive leap of logic...why pray tell would legislation pertaining to one substance lead inexorably to the regulation of every possible substance known to man?? The issue is not about setting objective living standards for pregnant women en masse...sure, by imposing one regulation, there is bound to be people lobbying for other regulations to be added, but there is absolutely no logic in saying that we must have a full comprehensive code or nothing at all...that makes absolutely no sense! With reference to the facts of the SCC decision I have been talking about, my basic proposition is this... 1. Sniffing glue while pregnant is harmful to the unborn child; 2. There is nothing even remotely objectionable about using our legal system to prevent pregnant women from sniffing glue in order to protect the child; 3. We can outlaw pregnant women from sniffing glue without outlawing them from any other activity or behaviour whatsoever; 4. We ought not allow pregnant women to sniff glue simply because some interest group might then later ask us to outlaw pregnant women from eating french fries. (etc.) It's a total cop-out... Any child under 18 (in Alberta) has been outlawed from smoking or drinking...based on your argument, it is necessary that they also be outlawed from eating poorly, not sleeping enough and swimming less than 2 hours after eating, we need "massive regulations" to implement the drinking and smoking ban and we need to fully categorize every substance that a minor might ingest as either legal or illegal (or legal but only up to certain amounts)...IT'S AN ABSURD ARGUMENT! No one has tried to outrageously extend the law's control over teenager behaviour simply because we have restricted their ability to drink and smoke. There is no reason to believe that if we outlawed pregnant women from drinking or sniffing glue or both that such a "ban" wouldn't operate exactly the same way that it does with minors and alcohol and tobacco. You keep saying, like the majority of the SCC that even one small restriction on a pregnant woman's behaviour MUST lead to an all-out assault on every aspect of her daily life...I keep saying WHY?...No it doesn't...if you have a particularly objectively harmful behaviour and there is a proper case for outlawing it...then outlaw it. If someone tries to make you outlaw a behaviour which cannot be easily and objectively defined as harmful then simply say "no, that would be unreasonably intrusive". FTA

What "makes sense and manageable" are very nice words but there is no objective test by which to put them into effect. Some people would argue that any alcohol during pregnancy is harmful; likewise smoking. What about a woman who does not eat properly denying the fetus proper nutrition? Who is to say what drugs can be taken and what not? Do we create a huge bureaucracy chasing after pregnant women to make sure they are behaving properly. You don't need a licence to get pregnant - it's a private matter. And the government should stay out of pregnant women's lives. Well, we already dictate which drugs / plants can be legally grown or ingested by the public at large, why can't the same be done for pregnant women in particular? We say by law that a 17 year old (in Alberta) cannot ingest alcohol...what is so difficult about saying by law that a pregnant woman cannot ingest alcohol? Can we enforce / police it with any real measure of reliability? No. BUT if we catch a pregnant woman hammered out of her skull such a law would allow us to make an effort to prevent the poor little bastard from being born with FAS, rather than just watch it happen and say "too bad you didn't have a better mother...but hey, we could hardly be expected to interfere with her private life..." Are you advocating legalization of crack and crystal meth because it's not entirely clear if viagra is safe?...so we just better leave it as a "private issue" and not attempt to regulate drugs at all? Pregnancy is hardly private when we have state-funded medical care, welfare, and child welfare systems...particularly in a case where the woman had popped out 3 previous "private products" and summarily handed them over to the government to take care of them. If a woman wants no government official to be able to tell her that she can't sniff glue throughout her pregnancy, then she damn-well better not look to the government for any of the above services when she produces the severly disabled child that everyone was able to reliably predict she was creating. Aside from the practical difficulties that you are asserting and the notion of keeping government out of private life...let me ask you a very simple question...what will you say to a severly retarded 10 year old who can't read, speak or walk because his mom abused drugs while pregnant, and we (as government / society) knew it, watched her do it, and decided it was not our place to tell her not to do it? FTA

I find it remarkable in a thread about a guy spending the better part of two decades in jail for a crime that he ought not to have been convicted for that almost immediately people are talking about the evil defence lawyers getting people off on "technicalities". Those "technicalities" are otherwise known as the rule of law and due process and are precisely the objective structure built into an otherwise fallible human system which are designed to protect all citizens from miscarriages of justice. Without what Rue calls "technicalities" we would have a system based entirely on subjective gut reaction or intuition of police officers, prosecutors, and judges. Sure, most of them would try to do the right thing and many times their instincts would be correct...but many times not. I have always characterized my role in the criminal justice system not in terms of "getting people off" but in ensuring safe convictions. Don't forget that only approximately 8-12 % of criminal matters are ever set for trial, and ultimately only about 6-8% ever actually run a trial. The vast majority of accused people plead guilty. For the tiny minority who actually maintain their innocence and exercise their right to a trial, I will make no apologies if I make the Crown's job of securing a conviction as difficult as legally possible. That way, when I lose a trial and my client goes to jail, I shouldn't have to worry for the next 20 years about whether or not my client belongs behind bars. FTA

I think the difference is the alcoholic was convicted of a crime and refraining from alcohol is part of the sentence. Convicted criminals are forced to give up their rights. But getting pregnant isn't a criminal offence. Right, I know, what I'm saying is that many people, including the SCC have reasoned that we couldn't possibly impose on a pregnant woman by confining her to a hospital to prevent her from harming her unborn child through glue-sniffing...because it opens up the "slippery slope" for us to confine her for doing anything remotely unhealthy like eating too much etc. My comparison to banning an alcoholic from drinking to prevent him or her from harming others in society shows that we can effectively use the law to prevent a specific harm without being helplessly subject to the infamous "slippery slope". We have been banning alcoholics from drinking via probation orders for decades...we have yet to see a court order that same alcoholic to stop smoking or lose 20 pounds or not go to McDonalds. It is a fear-mongering argument that doesn't hold up to scrutiny. In my view, we ought to accept the blatantly obvious fact that physical trauma to an unborn child results in a child who suffers the consequences of the physical truama. Where an expectant mother is willingly inflicting physical trauma on her unborn child through , we ought to take measures to stop such behaviour. Parliament was fully prepared to make it a criminal offence for a pregnant woman to sniff glue if she does so with the intent of causing a miscarriage (i.e. abortion)...but so long as she intends to give birth to a totally f--cked up baby, we are not prepared to do anything due to the mythical risk that she might later be told she can't drink coffee?!?! Something is wrong with that. FTA

Now just try to write a regulation to that effect. Have you seen the Federal Income Tax Act and its associated Regulations? Where there's a will there's a way... FTA Just what we need - more interference in our lives. Regulations on how much booze they can drink, how many cigarettes they can smoke, how often they can go to Mcdonalds. And supposing they are taking prescribed medication that might harm the fetus. Do they need a social worker's permission? And can neighbors snitch on them if they think the woman is doing something to harm the fetus? The anti-abortionists would have a field day ratting on pregnant women. Look, my point is we can draw the line where it makes sense and is manageable...can anyone put up an argument that shows the down side of making it illegal for a pregnant woman to repeatedly sniff glue throughout her pregnancy? If we can agree on certain conduct as being so clearly harmful to an unborn child that it should be made illegal, then why do we implement no restrictions by arguing that it would be absurd to regulate the number of trips to McDonalds? I don't get that. What would you say if the expectant mother was ingesting Thalidimide? Should we just let her do it because trying to stop her from taking Tylenol would be silly? Do you want to raise the deformed brain damaged children...because I know I don't. FTA

Now just try to write a regulation to that effect. Have you seen the Federal Income Tax Act and its associated Regulations? Where there's a will there's a way... FTA

On the face of it it sounds a bit rough that a woman can do anything she wants even if it endangers her fetus. But I shudder at the alternative - anti-abortionists calling the police every time they see a pregnant woman drinking a beer or smoking a cigarette. I'm not sure it's fair to label the people who would complain as "anti-abortionists"...I support abortions but I am also in favour of the tactic that the child services people used in the case I cited...but that's a bit of an aside... Here's the thing with your argument...which amounts to the same "slippery slope" reasoning adopted by the SCC on the issue. We draw lines in the sand in every facet of our lives. On one side...legal conduct, on the other...not legal. To suggest that we couldn't come up with a proper test / procedure that would need to be followed to ensure due process and prevent against major intrusions into the personal autonomy of pregnant women is bordering on embarrassing. Consider this...we routinely ban alcoholics from possessing, using or consuming alcohol as part of their probation when sentenced for a crime they committed while under the influence...and we routinely put them in jail if they breach this alcohol ban. How is that any different from banning a mother from sniffing glue while she is pregnant?...and then locking her up to force her to stop sniffing glue if she won't comply? Especially where she takes no responsibility for her brain-damaged kids after she expels them from her body and the state is left to care for them? Why is it that such a blatant disregard for her soon to be children must be completely permitted by the courts because it might be difficult to draw lines? We could expressly list the circumstances under which a court would be justified in confining someone to protect their unborn child, and we could expressly list things that would not. This does not have to be an all or nothing kind of intrusion. Consider the following comments from the dissenting judges' opinion: Personally, I much prefer the reasoning of the dissent than the majority of the SCC on this issue. FTA

Signing a "social contract" is a psychology-based method of encouraging voluntary compliance...it has none of the compulsory elements of a "ban". That being said, if cash incentives can prevent addicts from giving birth to horribly damaged babies which will end up costing the state hundreds of times more to care for than the cash incentives themselves, then I'm all for it. This issue came to a head long ago in a 1997 Supreme Court of Canada decision called Winnipeg Child and Family Services v. G. (D.F.). SCC Judgment After a mother had three children apprehended and made wards of the state, two of which had been irreparably brain damaged due to her glue-sniffing habbit, the Winnipeg Child and Family Services got a court order compelling the mom to be confined against her will to a hospital / treatment facility to stop her from glue-sniffing during her fourth pregnancy. The SCC overturned the order saying that the unborn child had no legal rights and that the courts "parental" jurisdiction (to protect those who cannot protect themselves) could not be extended to a fetus. Further, the court found that to dictate a woman's lifestyle to her in the name of protecting her unborn child was too much of a limit on her personal autonomy and could lead to women being confined for things like eating too much or climbing ladders while pregnant etc. Two judges dissented and tried to impose responsibility on a woman who carries a pregnancy and also tried to do away with the antiquated concept that a child does not exist in law until born alive...but to no avail. FTA

You are the person paying for it. (I will presume that part of your wealth is exacted from you in the form of taxation on a periodic basis against your will. Not many people can escape it.) Wait. Please clarify. What intervention? Do you mean "tax-payer funded" health-care? or personal health-care decisions? I hadn't considered that it would be a treatment covered by government health care...seems to me if you want to stop your period and there is no apparent medical necessity for doing so...it ought to be out of your own pocket. As far as "intervention" it's a term of art that my nurse wife uses all of the time...basically, any medical treatment / procedure is an intervention. If you have a natural child-birth, there is no medical intervention. If a doc comes in and uses forceps to deliver the baby...intervention. It wasn't an attemtp to make a broad-scope comment on health care policy. FTA

Well, hell then: why not just go all the way and use the word? Why don't we start calling all cats "dogs" from this day forth? I don't know, I guess because cats are cats not dogs. Kidding aside... The following definition for the word "society" is copied from dictionary.com: A group of humans broadly distinguished from other groups by mutual interests, participation in characteristic relationships, shared institutions, and a common culture. The point is that societies are literally defined by the relationships and institutions that their respective members share. The word "marriage" was not simply a meaningless moniker...it was an integral element of what defined our society as a significant manifestation of our characteristic relationships and shared institutions. Like it or not, the decision to remove the opposite sex component of the legal definition of marriage was a fundamental adjustment to the definition of Canadian society. Was it right or wrong? Hard to know how to answer that. I personally did not support the change of definition of marriage but I'm prepared to follow the will of the people on this one...the problem I have is that with a decision as important as this, to have a vote which is restricted by party discipline in the House leaves me unconvinced that the best representation of the will of the people is being advanced. If a free vote in Parliament supports the re-definition as it currently stands, then I accept that the "fundamental adjustment to the definition of Canadian society" as I have called it is valid and simply a part of where we are going collectively as Canadians. If a free vote were to support the reversal back to the old definition, then I would argue that the "notwithstanding clause" was expressly designed for such a situation and it ought to be implemented. FTA

Well this thread could cause a stir as between male and female members... I tend to be a minimalist when it comes to health-care intervention. I don't even take Tylenol if I can manage to tough it through a headache. I think "elective" surgery is stupid (unless it can be said to be psychologically "necessary" in certain cases) and my immediate reaction to this story is that we ought not mess with our biology out of mere convenience. Now, all that said, I guess if Health Canada ok's it, and your doctor recommends (or at least doesn't advise against) it and you are informed of the risks and still want it...who am I to say anything about your decision? FTA

Garth Turner is 100% correct on this issue...if the committee wants to provide as a benefit to MP's a certain amount of money which can be used to pay mortgage expenses for homes in Ottawa, then be up front about it and make a specific allowance for it...don't have people "converting" the meal allowance for some completely unrelated purpose. The CRA won't allow me to claim expenses for my law practice in excess of the proscribed limits by simply subiitting the receipts under a category of expenses that I don't actually incur (e.g. I can claim up to "x" percent of my housing costs to account for a home office...I can't exceed that percentage and further defray my housing costs by simply using the available allowance for client meals / entertainment which I don't actually incur). As for the total compensation issue, I actually agree that we need to be sure we are paying enough money to ensure top quality MP's. In the legal realm for example, when I started my articling position, the big firms in Calgary were paying approximately 48% higher salary than the Alberta Crown Prosecutors' Office...trust me, the prosecutorial talent pool for the next few years was noticeably weak. Provincial Court judges in Alberta make a bit more than $200,000 per year, and I know a number of incredibly qualified senior lawyers who have no interest in becoming a judge because they would have to take too big of a pay cut. I don't propose that we want people who are only looking for a big paycheque, but when someone can get a significantly better standard of living doing something else, then they probably will. The sad reality is that many MP's today are people looking for a big paycheque because what they are actually qualified to do in the "real world" would bring them incredibly lower remuneration. They couldn't be happier that more highly qualified potential candidates simply aren't interested. FTA

I don't know what scares me more, these guys desecrating a war memorial or this kind of liberal indifference to it shown above. I agree and disagree with Gerry on this one. Agree - It was a drunken idiot..."kid" maybe a relative term. Punishment is needed but calling for lengthy jail time is silly. This is hardly the first time an inebriated a--hole relieved himself on public property. In the normal course, assuming no prior criminal record, he would be looking at community service or a fine or both. Now, the fact that what he pissed on was a sacred war memorial I am satisfied should warrant a higher than normal sentence...but that means stricter and longer probation and a higher fine...not jail. I think even most veterans would rather see him forced to spend a hundred hours helping other veterans for his crime rather than sitting in a lock-up for a couple of weeks and having no true appreciation for why what he did was so wrong. Disagree - Any Prime Minister would be daft, and indeed disappointing, if he or she simply ignored a story like this. Not because it is "scoring political points", but because it is the right thing to do to officially stand up for the veterans, the monument, and all that Canada represents when it comes to honouring fallen soldiers. The response was very appropriate in my view...Harper pointed out that the actions of this prick did not represent any identifiable group of Canadians and should obviously not be taken as a sign that Canada as a whole does not respect its veterans. Not sure why Gerry is so against a Prime Minister being patriotic. You see, the thing is that when a PM (or any politician) does something right, and for the right reasons, it will by necessary implication increase his popularity or "score politcial points"...this doesn't somehow make good conduct therefore wrong or "dirty". I dare say that it has been some time since Canadians have been able to be proud of anything their PM has done (and this is not partisan...I was disgusted by the Emmerson floor cross just as much as I was appalled about any Liberal indiscretions for example) and so if Canadians are moved to feel good about Harper because he phoned into the Ottawa radio station then I say it's good for Canada, including Her vets. FTA

I didn't mean to confuse the issue with the ALS example...all I was getting at was that there may well be valid reasons that an individual (or their spouse or family members) would not want to wait around for 20 years on the hopes that maybe he or she might regain some functions. Death can indeed be merciful. As to the question of doctors "encouraging death", I guess my response is that this outcome / breakthrough / whatever you want to call it should simply be added to the pile of knowledge to make up valid informed consent. That is, when the doctor is seeking instructions on whether to discontinue life support, he or she should be careful to distinguish whether the particular patient is someone who could re-generate these brain cell networks and be clear to advise the family on the relative likelihood of this happening. These situations are horrible, and are always a matter of playing the odds...and there is no way of knowing what the "other" outcome would be. How many families have (and now will) care for essentially comatose loved ones for 20 or 30 years only to have them pass away without ever regaining any function? I simply hope that I am never put in the position that I have to make this decision on anyone's behalf...but if it does happen, I sure hope they have formalized their wishes in a personal directive beforehand so I can take some comfort in making the decision that I know they actually said they wanted for themselves. FTA

As a lawyer who challenges procedures, policies and legislation for their constitutional validity, I am constantly keeping an eye out for what is usually referred to as a "test case". That is, if you want to get the courts to give you a favourable ruling on a particular issue, you want to put the best possible fact scenario forward. Challenging the democratic validity of the Catholic School Board using O'Malley as your test case client would be foolish. Sure, maybe there were a few times that the Board was somewhat abrupt in cutting him off or unduly married to proper procedure in ruling his requests for debate as being out of order, but in the overall scheme, given his apparently virulent approach to every issue, any court in the land will rule in favour of the Board on this one...they were literally ground to a halt by his shenanigans and the only people left to suffer would have been the kids teachers, parents etc. in the system. Due process is not absolute...you are only entitled to its full protections if you seek to participate in good faith...your bad behaviour can legally result in your loss of due process (for example, if you disrupt a courtroom...or fail to appear...your criminal trial can be conducted in your absence), and in my view (albeit as an outsider watching the news) that is what happened to O'Malley. FTA

The post of yours that I criticized makes an incongruous statement that suggests Supreme Court Justices are a "bunch of pedophiles and perverts". How exactly does the current government's proposal to raise the age of consent (which above I demonstrate my support for) translate into the Supreme Court bench being pedophiles????!!!!???? If the age of legal consent is brought up to 16, then I don't see it as "so low" especially when a significant percentage of kids today will already have had a sexual encounter by then (I have no stats...just anecdotal). This early onset of sexual activity is precisely the reason for keeping an exception in the law for a 14 year old (within a certain number of years to their partner). If we do not allow this exception, we are ignoring the reality of society's current level of acceptance of sexual behaviour and unduly criminalizing otherwise natural and legal activity. Keep in mind, the current state of the law is that a 14 year old can fully consent to sex with anyone of any age. The exception is for as low as a 12 year old to consent to sex with someone who is no more than 2 years older than them. The new proposal would mean that a teen would have to be 16 before they could consent to sex with anyone of any age, with an exception for as low as 14 to consent to sex with someone as old as 19. This close in age exception is what much of the early part of this thread was debating about...i.e. is 5 years too broad. Another thing to remember is that what we are talking about is consent in law or de jure...meaning at what age is it legally possible for a teen to consent to sex. It is another question altogether to determine whether there is consent in fact or de facto...meaning, any 40 year old claiming that his 14 year old partner was involved in consensual sex (devoid of any unlawful coercion or influence) is going to have a damn hard time convincing a judge or jury. Anyway, my point in all of this was, I think you make some good points about needing to use the law effectively to protect children and then lose all credibility for your viewpoint by spouting off about how Supreme Court judges are pedophiles and perverts...it is really unwarranted and has no logical or persuasive value. FTA

From the article: The human body is indeed capable of incredible things...but we must be careful not to write about these miracle scenarios as though this man's problems are now resolved. If after 20 years of being "on leave" he is looking at another 10 to be able to reach the level of speech and mobility of a 10 year old then, in my view, it's not worth the wait. It's bad enough to simply lose the best 2 or 3 decades of your life, (thankfully for his he has no memory of his "absence"), but what of someone who is actually aware of what is going on around them for that length of time but can't move or communicate in any way? Recently, a highly respected Federal Crown prosecutor in Calgary passed away following a battle with ALS (Lou Gherig's Disease). To me there could be little worse than being fully functional mentally, but lose the function of your body entirely. One of the only merciful things about ALS I suppose is that it works much more quickly than in terms of decades. 20 years in that kind of condition would be the worst cruelty I could ever imagine. Medical science is always learning...so this kind of story is important to remind us not to accept every impossibility of today as being an impossibility for tomorrow. That said, what I think is even more important about this story is that it underscores the importance of having not only a will, but a personal directive and an enduring power of attorney...so that if you are ever incapacitated in such a manner, there are clear legal parameters set out to ensure that what YOU want done with you and your assets is what happens. (And no, I do not do wills and estates so this is not a plug for my services) FTA

A good point totally blown by the idiocy that follows it... FTA

Injustice Buster, I didn't say your case was outlandish and unmeritorious...I don't pretend to know the first thing about you or your case from a few posts on a discussion forum. My point has simply been one of trying to avoid being pegged as a "nut job". Again, I am not calling you that, what I am saying is that if you present your case in a way that makes it easy for a bureaucrat to conclude that you are a nut job, then that is almost certainly what will happen. As for my Charter litigation experience, I am no Clayton Ruby and have only been arguing cases in Alberta courtrooms since 2000 (2000-2003 as a law student and articling, since 2003 as a full-fledged lawyer). That being said, I have litigated a significant amount of Charter cases in that time. Many lawyers intentionally shy away from Charter issues, I actively seek them out. This past month in Alberta the Hutterite religion won a court challenge regarding their Charter rights being infringed by the government requiring them to have photos on driver's licenses. Clayton Ruby argued a similar case in Ontario 6 months or so ago. I litigated this issue as a law student way back in 2000 in the Provincial Court and Court of Queen's Bench...so I like to think I was a pioneer on the issue. Criminal cases provide the most opportunity to argue Charter issues, and probably 75% of my trial matters contain one or more Charter arguments. Most cases never get officially reported...the sheer volume of cases prevents it. Typically, cases which have some signifcance or particular importance will get officially reported, so it is notable when one of your cases does get picked up and written about. Our website is not complete on the "Our Cases" tab because it is very difficult to get consent from criminal clients to post their cases on the internet. If you search the Alberta Courts Website with my last name you will find 7 reported cases since 2003, and searching my partner's last name will yield 9 reported cases since 2002 (She's a year senior to me). You will also see that of these 16 cases, 9 are in the Court of Appeal. These are not all Charter cases but there are very few young lawyers who can lay claim to as many reported cases as us...in fact, many lawyers who've got ten years seniority to us can't say as much. Alberta Courts Judgment Search Okay, that's enough blowing my own horn... Kindred, Criminal cases all too often exist because a mentally or physically challenged person has slipped through the proverbial cracks in the system. Believe me, I work hard to sort out the frivolous cases from those who are just not being heard due to an inability to effectively communicate. Last month I finally managed to get criminal charges dropped (incidentally by using a Charter challenge) against a 60 year old woman suffering from an organic brain disorder. She was charged with criminal mischief for annoying police by calling them too often to report what she believed were criminal offences. This woman was charged in December of 2004 and it took me until May of 2006 to get her charges dropped...to date I have received no compensation for this file, and doubt that the client will ever be able to pay me anything for my time. Last year I had the opportunity to be in a group of about 100 people who heard Justice Beverly McLachlin, C.J.C., deliver a speech at the University of Calgary about the problem of mental ilness being criminalized because where our social assistance system fails, the criminal justice system cleans up the mess. I am very much in tune with advocating on behalf of those with disabilities to ensure that what looks like criminal behaviour is not improperly dealt with in the criminal system when really all that is needed is better social assistance programs. On a more personal level, I have an epileptic seizure disorder which thankfully is fully controlled by medication. I am a member of the Epilepsy Association of Calgary and I am currently working with administrators of the association to provide free legal advice to other members and people in the general public about issues related to epilepsy and employment, driving, and if it arises, criminal charges. I am only one guy, trying to make a go of a private law practice, but I like to think that I have done and continue to do more than my share looking out for those with disabilities. FTA