FTA Lawyer

Sentencing judges have considerable discretion in making sentences concurrent or consecutive, and you are right that most often they are made to run concurrent. The "totality principle" dictates that a judge must ensure when sentencing on multiple counts that the overall sentence is not unfairly long. You see, this is what I don't understand. What does that mean? Unfairly long? If you rob a liquor store you should be punished for robbing the liquor store. If you rob the liquor store with an illegal firearm, you should be punished for robbing the liquor store, for owning an illegal firearm, and for pointing an illegal firearm, as these are multiple crimes. Why would it be unfair for the person in the first instance to get 2 years and the person in the second instance to get 10 years given the different laws violated? And why should they not in most cases be consecutive? What good is concurrent sentencing? It basically exempts the criminal from punishment for crimes which he deserves to be punished for. I can see not punishing a person twice for the same offence. I.e., it would be unfair to have consecutive sentences for pointing a firearm during a robbery, and also for using a firearm in the commision of an indictable offense. But that is the only kind of sentence which should run concurrently. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Argus, The problem is that available sentences in the Criminal Code are extremely broad. Very few crimes have minimum sentences, so a theft of say a $1500 ring could be punished by anything from probation to 2 years in jail. So, often the appropriate sentence is an artwork rather than a science experiment. And, in fashioning the appropriate sentence, it matters if the person is being punished in other ways for their conduct...either by more jail for another offence, or loss of their job, or payment of huge restitution etc. Also, if we believe that jail sentences have any deterrent effect at all, and we have any belief that punishments can be rehabilitative (which for all but the most heinous or habitual of criminals, we must believe) then we need to give an offender the opportunity to be rehabilitated before we lock 'em up and throw away the key. This is a 200+ year old principle of the common law known as the "Coke principle". A recent client of mine who was growing dope and was caught with the grow op and the fruits of it was nailed for growing and possession for the purpose of trafficking (two separate crimes that don't fit the "punishment for the same crime" scenario you mentioned...FYI known as the "Keinapple principle"). As a first offender, the court determined that the appropriate sentence for the growing was 14 months, and for the poss. for purpose was 12 months in jail. To sentence this offender to 26 months (i.e. consecutively) would be grossly out of proportion to the overall circumstances. Indeed, the 12 months was likely bumped up due to the other offence (that is, without the growing, the poss. for the purpose sentence may have been much lower and vice versa) The theory of the Coke principle is that before someone should get a greater punishment for additional bad activity, they ought to have done the previous punishment to have had the opportunity to benefit from it. If they then commit a further crime, they haven't learned their lesson, so they should then get the increased punishment. There is some truth to this, but, what many people do not understand is that only approximately 12% of criminal cases are ever set for trial, and only about 8% actually run a trial (stats loosely sourced from information given orally to the criminal bar in Calgary from the Associate Chief Judge of the Provincial Court). These numbers are due primarily to offenders wanting to plead guilty as opposed to massive wheelin' and dealin' by the Crown's office. To bring this all back to the topic of this post, the money from the gun registry would have been much better spent on courthouses, judges and prosecutors to increase our system's ability to handle actual criminals rather than law-abiding gun owners. FTA

And so the true question is, did the registry prevent this? No. Could a registry ever prevent this? No. Would a gun ban make it so that these criminals would not be able to illegally get guns? No. (keeping in mind that stealing them from a collector is illegal...not unlike buying them from a smuggler). So, I maintain my support to scrap the registry and divert the billions of dollars elsewhere (and no, not to the Liberal Party of Canada). FTA

Well, okay, I can be taught a thing or two about the nuances of Quebec...merci. FTA

Gee, I always thought there was just one God, which was the creator of everybody: muslims, jews, hindus, etc. But I'll take your word for it. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well, I'm not sure that religious leaders would all agree with you on that, but in any event, I only made the above comment based on our historical background as a majority Christian nation. That is to say, in drafting that preamble, the drafters were not concerning themselves with political correctness...the history of our democracy comes from the notion of Monarchy being direct descendants from God, a.k.a Christ's dad. The history is what it is, I'm not being an advocate for any religious viewpoint here. FTA

Why consecutive? Every time I see multiple charges the sentences run concurrently. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Sentencing judges have considerable discretion in making sentences concurrent or consecutive, and you are right that most often they are made to run concurrent. The "totality principle" dictates that a judge must ensure when sentencing on multiple counts that the overall sentence is not unfairly long. Ironically, it can be better (from a law and order / reduce recidivism point of view) to have concurrent sentences since subsequent convictions will lead to sentences that are jumped up from the previous one for the same type of offence. That is, if a break enter and theft and a resist arrest conviction, in the circumstances, is worth a total of 12 months jail, and the judge goes 6 months for the b & e and 6 months consecutive for the resist arrest, then on the next conviction for resist arrest the offender might get 10 months. If the judge chooses to go 12 months concurrent on both offences, then the next resist arrest conviction wold likely bring 18 months. Aside from these permutations, there are specific directions in some of the firearm offences of the Criminal Code that jail sentences for those offences must be made concurrent to any other sentences given (or currently being served by the offender). So, if these provisions were used more often, then offenders could be more commonly given longer jail sentences. FTA

I'm glad you asked... The legal reality is that Harper absolutely does not need to use the notwithstanding clause to change the definition of marriage back to it's original state...at least to begin with. As we all know, the SCC refused to decide the fourth question in the Constitutional Reference that the Liberal government put to it. For the sake of brevity, what the SCC said was that the proposed new definition of marriage would pass Charter scrutiny, but they refused to say whether keeping the old definition along with allowing same-sex civil unions would pass Charter scrutiny. Had the SCC decided this fourth question against keeping the old definition, then the notwithstanding clause would be the only available route for a government to enact such legislation. Since no pronouncement has been made by the SCC, Harper can put it to a true free vote, and if Parliament votes to put the definition back the way it was, he can then either do a reference of his own, worded in such a way as to force the SCC to give an answer, OR he could wait for people to make court applications from first instance, up to Courts of Appeal, up to the SCC. The next question, of course, is "but is there any way that the SCC would uphold the traditional definition along side a parallel civil union process"? Surprisingly, this answer is not a simple as one might think. In fact, if it was simple, in my view the SCC would have just answered question #4 on the Liberal government reference. Assuming that the SCC finds the traditional definition to be a breach of s. 15 (inequality before the law based on sexual orientation) they will then have to apply s. 1 to determine if such a limit (on a gay person's individual rights) can be "demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society". Considering that democracies such as the U.S. and Britain have "civil unions" but not out-right same-sex marriage, and that Canada is currently one of about 3 or 4 places in the world with such re-defined marriage, this question is a toss-up. I am reminded of cases that I have dealt with where individuals of certain religious persuasions have tried to avoid having photos taken for drivers' licences...the argument simply being that they are forced to choose between driving and their religion, and no one else has to so that is a s. 15 breach being inequality before the law. Many courts have answered this issue by stating that driving is a privilege, not a right, and therefore, photo requirements are a reasonable limit on the freedoms of the individuals who don't believe in having photos taken, and therefore not unconstitutional. Since marriage is not a right, but a privilege, there is potentially sound legal reasoning that could allow the SCC to say that the traditional definition of marriage along with same-sex "civil unions" passes Charter scrutiny. If this happened, then the law would stand as constitutional. If the SCC ruled the other way and struck the traditional marriage definition down, then I suspect at that point, Harper would simply leave it at that. As such, his unequivocal promise that he will never use the notwithstanding clause on the issue of SSM makes perfect sense, and is absolutely legally viable. Whether it is advisable or necessary is another thing altogether...as both of us (and I suspect many other Canadians who favoured the original definition) consider this to be a ship long-since sailed. FTA

Well, it was never my intent to get into a discussion about what the Bible does or doesn't say...I'm definitely not one who can speak with authority on the topic. I was merely pointing out that Renegade was wrong to say that the Canadian government "stays away" from using God in its legislation. The reality is that the very Charter that many minorities use to bolster their claims for "rights" specifically sets out that "Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God..." If these principles are what our country is founded upon, they ought to play a significant role in directing where our country is going. We should tolerate and even embrace Budhism, Sikhism, Muslims etc., but our country is founded on different principles than those religions, so it is okay for us, once in a while, to choose to stick to our founding principles, even if it means to limit the freedoms / rights of one of these minority groups. I for one opposed redefining marriage, but am not really interested in re-visiting the debate. That being said, Canada could have very easily, in a very respectful and tolerant manner, said...no thank you, we choose to keep marriage defined as-is, recognizing the principles on which our country, and our Charter, were founded. In this context, to use the notwithstanding clause would be to stand on tradition, ceremony and custom and would not need to be seen as intolerant or Nazi-like. The notwithstanding clause is not a reform-conservative weapon that was put in the Constitution to authorize crimes against humanity...it was a tool that would specifically allow a government to maintain its traditions and foundations even if to do so would be unfair to some minority groups. This is exactly how Quebec has used the notwithstanding clause...to protect their vision of a "distinct society". Does this make them intolerant Nazi's? No. To borrow from Gilles Duceppe, it makes them different...no better, no worse, just different. And all that being said, to allow same-sex unions with all of the incidents and privileges of marriage (without the same name) is hardly to "contemptuously deny basic rights". Marriage is not a human right. It's simply not. It is a legal incident of society, a privilege that is defined by the government. Life Liberty and Security of the Person, are human rights...they shouldn't be confused. FTA

Eureka! Well, the point is, if you are law-abiding, conscientious, and know that you will be punished for not following the law, then you don't "forget". Your suggestion that "not so law abiding citizens" could legally acquire guns and then use them [illegally] can only be true if the existing legislation is not being properly applied and enforced. This suggests a better screeing process, more police, harsher punishments for offenders etc. NOT punishing the law-abiding conscientious people (which is all that can be accomplished by more laws / red tape, or even outright bans). And your statement that it is too late to punish an owner of a legal firearm after it is stolen is exactly the mentality that is putting us in such a predicament. If your gun is stolen because you "forgot" to follow the laws on safe storage, then this is a criminal offence, punishable for up to two years in jail for a first offence, and up to five years for a subsequent offence: Criminal Code PART III FIREARMS AND OTHER WEAPONS Use Offences Careless use of firearm, etc. 86. (1) Every person commits an offence who, without lawful excuse, uses, carries, handles, ships, transports or stores a firearm, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device or any ammunition or prohibited ammunition in a careless manner or without reasonable precautions for the safety of other persons. Contravention of storage regulations, etc. (2) Every person commits an offence who contravenes a regulation made under paragraph 117(h) of the Firearms Act respecting the storage, handling, transportation, shipping, display, advertising and mail-order sales of firearms and restricted weapons. Punishment (3) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) or (2) (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment (i) in the case of a first offence, for a term not exceeding two years, and (ii) in the case of a second or subsequent offence, for a term not exceeding five years; or ( is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction. R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 86; 1991, c. 40, s. 3; 1995, c. 39, s. 139. I have never heard of a person in Alberta being sent to jail for unlawful storage of a firearm, and I venture to say it is rare nationwide. Once again, the problem is failure to enforce already existing laws. We need to strictly enforce the incredibly restrictive gun ownership laws that we already have and hammer offenders with the harshest punishments we have available before we start saying we need new laws...how would we know? We've barely test-driven the ones we have. For interest sake, take note if charges are laid in the recent death of the girl in T.O. whether or not there will be any charges for firearms-specific offences. There is a huge likelihood that murder / attempt murder or manslaughter charges will be laid without a single charge for unsafe use of a firearm, unlawful possession / storage, carrying a concealed firearm etc., even though convictions could likely come from any one of such charges and consecutive jail sentences added on top of anything else the offender might get. FTA P.S., do you have any stats or any form of substance on which to base your assertions that legal guns are used in crime and "often stolen" from legal owners who don't follow the law?

Renegade, You are way wrong on this point. Our history is one of being a Christian nation and it is only recently that we have become unwilling to recognize that fact in order to fully appease minority interests. Here is the preamble from the beloved Charter of Rights and Freedoms: SCHEDULE B CONSTITUTION ACT, 1982 PART I CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law: Take my word for it, the Supreme God being referred to here is the Christian one. I'm not saying we should be an intolerant society, guided only by Christian values, but I think the point being made by Betsy is that we ought not completely toss Christian values aside just to please minority groups. FTA

Property rights are not protected by the Charter. They were intentionally left out. For those who keep demanding examples of one group's rights being trumped by another's via the Charter (as though is doesn't happen) shame on you... The Charter is specifically designed to balance competing rights, and guide lawmakers in making decisions of when to favour one group's rights over those of another. And if you want clear examples, for starters, try the debates (SCC cases) regarding abortion (Morgentaler), assisted suicide (Rodriguez, Latimer), affirmative action, freedom of speech (Keegstra), child pornography (Sharpe). Every one of these cases has strong elements of the courts analysing competing rights and reconciling the conflict by deciding which should prevail. And the list could go on almost endlessly...but I'm not going to waste time proving to some naysayers something as clear as the fact that water is wet. FTA

CTVWhat is that supposed to mean? The police have the wrong guys? They have no witnesses? The guys won't talk? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> So long as the police have "articulable cause" (more than mere suspicion but less than grounds for arrest) about a person's possible involvement in a crime, they can detain the person for investigation purposes. After further investigation, the police will either have reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the person has participated in a crime, at which point they will be charged, or they will not have sufficient grounds and will have to release the person from custody. For the type of people involved in a 15-person gang shootout in downtown Toronto in mid-day, there is only one way to handle them...severe punishment. Gun registries are useless, hand-gun bans are useless, social programs are potentially useful to prevent a new crop of gangsters, but at the end of the day, long penetentiary terms are the only way to try to deal with such lawless and fearless individuals. The problem with those who defend the gun registry and the proposed "new" hand-gun ban is that they really know little about the state of the law as it is (was) in Canada prior to implementing these futile, incredibly wasteful policies. For example, prior to the implementation of the gun registry in order to own any firearm legally, you needed all of the following: 1. Safety certification course (2 days) 2. A full detailed application for a FAC license, including disclosure of any mental health related incidents; 3. A criminal record check; 4. A face to face interview with the Firearms Officer of your local RCMP detachment; 5. If married or cohabiting, the full informed consent of your partner (in many cases, the signature on the form is not enough, the RCMP actually phone the partner to ask if they have any concerns with the applicant possessing a firearm) 6. Approval from both your local RCMP detachment and Ottawa. Only at this point could you get an FAC and be licensed to own a firearm. Then, if you actually did buy a gun, you had to store it: 7. Unloaded; 8. In a locked cabinet or safe OR with a trigger lock or other device that prevents the gun from being fired; 9. Separate from any ammunition (which had to be stored in its own locked compartment). Now, if you wanted to go to the next level of restrictions and attempt to own a hand-gun, you also needed in addition to all of the above: 10. A special permit to possess a restricted weapon (handgun); 11. Proof of membership in the military, a police force, or other occupation that required possession of a handgun, OR certification as a registered gun retailer or collector, OR membership in a registered shooting club / target range. 12. Storage of the handgun unloaded in a locked box, inside of a locked cabinet or safe with a trigger lock or other device that prevents the gun from being fired (that's right, three levels of protection) 13. Storage of the ammunition separate and apart in its own locked compartment. Further, aside from military, police etc. virtually no one could be legally authorized to carry a handgun. Anyone who had the special permit to possess was required to also go to the local RCMP detachment each and every time they wanted to move their handgun and obtain a permit to convey / transmit the handgun. These conveyance permits were specified for a period of hours and allowed transmitting of the handgun (unloaded, in its locked case, with trigger lock) from point "A" being your normal storage site to point "B" being the registered shooting club / range to which you were a member...nowhere else. Legal hand-gun ownership in Canada has been extremely onerous and strict for decades, so much so that the regulations that came into place (well in advance of the long-gun registry) made most individual hand-gun owners give up and sell or simply turn their hand guns over to the RCMP. This is why the Martin hand-gun ban announcement is totally f-ing preposterous...and this is not an ignorant NRA-type rant...it's reality. As others have said on this board, we have long had strict tools to fight gun crime, we just don't punish those who break the laws enough. The solution is hardly to put more laws on the books to make shooting people MORE illegal...that is stupid. The gun registry has been a 100% waste of taxpayer money, and will continue to waste more until it is scrapped. Instead of monitoring those who are already in compliance with a strict legal regulatory regime, why don't we look a little closer at why people with Criminal Code firearm bans are still shooting and killing police officers? Why don't we question why it's near impossible for a law abiding adult citizen to get a handgun to try the sport of target shooting but a 13 year old can buy as many Glock's as he wants off the back of a truck in downtown Toronto? Lawful and safe gun ownership is hardly the enemy here, and if it makes urbanites feel better to know that hand guns are "banned" and long guns are "registered" while their kids continue to get gunned down in the streets, well, then I guess all hope is truly lost... FTA Lawyer

August, You are making the assumption that Quebec players would want to play for a Quebec team. If you assume that the political leanings of Quebec hockey players are split exactly the way Quebec society is split then you would need to assume that about 50% of federalists. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well, in fact, when the Bloc first tossed out this trial balloon, a number of Quebecois NHLers were interviewed about their thoughts on it and there wasn't a single one that I'm aware of that didn't immediately say they'd wear the Maple Leaf, not the Fleur de Lis. FTA

Trust me...it's true! FTA

Let me stir the pot a bit... Please, no one take the following comments as a suggestion...but do we have the problems in government that we do because of a lack of a history of violence to our unscrupulous political leaders? I mean, would leaders be so quick to set up secret programs to divert public money for improper purposes if in the past the odd assassination (or even attempt) had occurred? Is it a function of what appears to be the "Canadian identity" that we are just too damn nice? Just putting a thought out there for the board to mull over. FTA <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Don't think so. The US has its own corruption, and a history of assasinations. In fact, much of the world is rife with corruption, even in countries where the government is often overthrown and executed for their corruption. No, I think the problem is a lack of public oversight. We just don't know what the hell they are doing, so they know they can get away with it. Again, Martin promised a new opennes, but once in power his government turned out to be even more secretive than Chretien's. We need to give the AG's offie a lot more power and let her look into any public spending program she wants, as often as she wants, and issue public reports. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Can't argue with that. FTA

Well, you presuppose that smart people are all money-grubbers... I was on the Dean's list (top 10%) each of my 3 years of law school. I turned down offers of employment from 3 of the highest-paying national law firms in Canada to take employment that I love to do and allows me to see my family...but that's another topic... Let me put this one out there...If the public system we currently have pays a doctor $1000.00 to do a hip surgery (just a made up number) but it takes 18 months to get it, what is the difficulty in allowing a "private system" doctor to charge $2,000.00 to do it in 6 months where $1,000.00 comes from the gov't and the extra from the patient? If the only issue is the concern about doctors fleeing to the private system, that's easy...legislate a tour of duty in the public system (either for the first 5 years of license or for "x" number of hours each year). Alberta's law society is not currently doing this, but a number of other jurisdictions do (i.e. require every lawyer who is a member of the bar to perform a certain amount of Legal Aid work). Wouldn't this work to allay the concern about only dumb doctors in the public system? (which I'm not convinced would happen anyway...many doctors are not in it for money...in fact, many are involved in free legal clinics and organizations like Doctors Without Borders at the expense of losing time that could be spent making more cash). FTA

Let me stir the pot a bit... Please, no one take the following comments as a suggestion...but do we have the problems in government that we do because of a lack of a history of violence to our unscrupulous political leaders? I mean, would leaders be so quick to set up secret programs to divert public money for improper purposes if in the past the odd assassination (or even attempt) had occurred? Is it a function of what appears to be the "Canadian identity" that we are just too damn nice? Just putting a thought out there for the board to mull over. FTA

I join legamus in wanting someone to explain to me the actual problems...not B.S. about us becoming like the U.S. I can see the potential for problems in NAFTA as is suggested, but let me ask this...have we not always had private-for-profit delivery of public health services? I'm pretty sure the answer is yes. Doctor's clinics are for-profit...the more patients a doctor sees and treats, the more money he or she can make. If the doctor can save money on tongue depressors and stethoscopes, then he or she puts more cash in his or her jeans at the end of the day. The services are still public though, because there are set rates that the doc can charge back to the provincial health care plan, and that's how he or she gets paid...the patients don't have to bring in the cash. A true public not-for-profit system would have government doctors, paid set salaries regardless of the number of procedures they completed in a given month. Why can't the health system work the same as Legal Aid for lawyers. If someone wants to hire me they can do so by paying me a retainer and my subsequent bills out of their own pocket. However, if they qualify for Legal Aid, then they can still hire me, I perform the same service, but instead of getting paid "privately" I get paid "publicly" from the government budget set aside for Legal Aid. Almost invariably I make less money on the public purse than when I have a private retainer, but the point is that clients can access my services in either fashion. There are also some true public servant lawyers who are staff members with Legal Aid...they are government employees with set salaries. The system seems to work pretty well in terms of providing access to legal service, so wouldn't a similar program improve access to health service for everyone (i.e. shorten wait times) without compromising the service provided? I'm not saying kill medicare...but right now I don't see a downside to the private / public mix like with Legal Aid. Anyone got ideas / comments? FTA

It is pretty pathetic to try an bring the OSC into what in nothing more than political muckraking on the part of the opposition parties (particularily from the NDP who is supposed to hate US intrusion into Canadian affairs).The information that has come out so far suggests that the Goodales's office did inform people of their intention to make an announcement but it is not clear whether the timing and/or procedures followed regarding announcements of annoucements was appropriate. But not following procedures is a lot different from insider trading. The fact that the opposition parties seem to be determined to confuse and manipulate the public on this point shows how few ethics the opposition parties have in their pursuit of power at all costs. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well, hold on now...the one thing I wonder is if we accept that Paul Martin and other high-rank Liberals knew nothing of the sponsorship scandal (which I am prepared to accept), then how can we possibly take the word of Goodale or anyone else who categorically denies there was a leak that lead to insider trading? I'm not trying to be partisan at all here, but really, if you asked Martin before Fraser's report about whether money was being improperly sent to ad firms in Quebec, presumably he would have categorically denied that at the time (since he didn't know about it). I certainly don't want Gomery #2 on this thing, but I can't see the harm in getting a report from the regulatory bodies whose mandate it is to police these kinds of incidents. I'd rather hear from them that there was no leak than to take Goodale's word for it. FTA

Justin Trudeau? FTA

PolyNewbie, Perhaps things are different in Ontario... I confirm that lawyers are self-regulated, but otherwise, let me dispel a number of the criticisms you are making, at least as far as I can say for the situation in Alberta. If you want to know if lawyers ever get reported to the police by the Law Society of Alberta, you can ask one Peter Petracek...his address is currently the Bowden Federal Penetentiary. Oh, and the people he defrauded...yeah, I'm still paying for that via my annual levy into the Law Society Assurance Fund. Keep in mind he stole the money a decade or two before I even got called to the bar. Hardly a "gang of thugs" that guarantees it will pay back individuals who's money is mishandled by one of it's members...at the very least it's better than the Hell's Angels' return policy on bad crack. And the Law Society of Alberta hardly sits on its thumbs when complaints roll in...take a look at the following link for a list of suspensions and disbarments for the years 2004 and 2005. Law Society of Alberta You don't need a lawyer to report a lawyer to the police, and no one can be successfully sued for making a police report unless it is false and malicious. I went to university for 8 years and then a year of articling before being called to the bar. My current hourly rate is $150.00 for private retainers and the notional hourly rate for Legal Aid matters (which is about half of my practice) is $80.00. My principal who I articled to is a Queen's Counsel with 25 years at the bar and his hourly rate on most of his work is $275.00. Most oil-rig workers with 6 months of on the job training make more money than me, let alone a GP. Out of a lawyer's hourly rate he or she pays for his office expenses, assistant's salary, subscriptions to case research services etc. etc. Running a law practice is not cheap. There are entire firms of lawyers in Alberta that do almost exclusively contingency fee practices for personal injury matters. Most personal injury files will be resolved in under 3 years...unless there are unresolved issues regarding the nature and extent of the plaintiff's injuries. And even then, there is a whole industry of economists who do "structured settlements" so that law suits can resolve without waiting around to see if the plaintiff is going to get better or not. If you are in Alberta, call me... Many of my cases involve applications to the courts for relief under the Charter where an individual's rights have been breached. A number of my current files of this type involve applications for prisioners who have been unlawfully treated while in custody. Literally just on Monday of this week I appeared in court pro bono (that's for free in case you didn't know) for a guy who was being wrongfully held in custody on a traffic warrant...and I got him released. In all probability I will never see a single cent for this service, but it was the right thing to do to prevent an ongoing injustice. In your neck of the woods try Clayton Ruby...one of Canada's most famous lawyers. My understanding is that he still handles cases for people who can't pay, even though he can command top dollar for his services. There are thousands of others all across Canada who's names will nver be famous who will do the same. You probably won't ever believe what I say PolyNewbie, but my clients know better. FTA P.S. No offence Pocket Rocket...I can take a well placed joke anytime.

I suspect that the reason you have found no credible forum for your complaints against lawyers is because your comments lack credibility. You may have a legitimate complaint with a lawyer you dealt with, but if you start your complaint to the Law Society with an allegation that every lawyer in the world is a professional liar, who controls the media, the courts, and the government, you are setting yourself up for the other party to just say you are crazy and deserving of little consideration. You simply cannot gain respect by making broad statements about an entire profession based on one member who allegedly lied about a contract. Most lawyers do not fit the description that you favour. FTA <{POST_SNAPBACK}> First of all the reason I cannot complain about this is that the supreme court declared that siblings can not complain to the law society regarding lawyers behaviour. She can simply do anything she wants. The reason that she did this is that I have inferiour genetics. She has no complaint against me. I come from a family that makes the Paul Bernardo family life seem like a vacation in Disneyland. She has been screwing me since she was 8 years old and my mother the psychopath has supported it. The reason that every single one of you is responsible is that she is plain and simply nuts and the rest of you should know better than to think you can take away people rights like this as a matter of convenience. You petitioned the supreme court of Canada to take away subling of lawyers rights because you knew this kind of stuff would happen all the time and it would place a drain on the skeleton staff of the law society that could not be tolerated. This happened in 2002 Christmas day. How do you like that one eh ? Yeah I am seaming mad and I have every right to be that way. I am gainfully employed, educated, never been accused of a crime or diagnosed with a mental illness. Its not that I am a violent person but let this happen 50 more times and what do you think the chances of someone getting a long gun and shooting a pile of judges is ? You are nothing more than a gang of manipulative weasels and you are as guilty as she is by association. Even more if you are not crazy like she is. So there ya go. I can win my case I am assured, I just need to put 80 K on the table first. I don't have 80 K extra lying around and as you know she could drag this on for 20 years in the courts. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well, I obviously don't know anything about your particular case...and I'm quite sure that nothing I can say will convince you that all lawyers are not bad...so I guess I'll leave it at that. FTA

I suspect that the reason you have found no credible forum for your complaints against lawyers is because your comments lack credibility. You may have a legitimate complaint with a lawyer you dealt with, but if you start your complaint to the Law Society with an allegation that every lawyer in the world is a professional liar, who controls the media, the courts, and the government, you are setting yourself up for the other party to just say you are crazy and deserving of little consideration. You simply cannot gain respect by making broad statements about an entire profession based on one member who allegedly lied about a contract. Most lawyers do not fit the description that you favour. FTA

The generalized comments about lawyers on this thread are simply absurd. I know a number of lawyers who are of the highest ethical standards...and also some of the most successful and well-respected in the profession. I also know a number of lawyers who I wouldn't trust for anything. But I can say the exact same thing of doctors, teachers, accountants, cab drivers, welfare recipients... There's good and bad people everywhere in life. To suggest that lawyers are trained to lie, cheat, manipulate etc. is completely false. Every lawyer knows that his or her case is made or lost by the facts. If you cannot prove the facts you need to make your legal argument, then you are sunk. What we are trained to do is be discriminating and very analytical when it comes to figuring out what the facts actually are. When a police officer files a report, his "facts" are usually different from the accused's "facts", both of which are often different from other witnesses "facts". Forgive me if I am skillful in demonstrating that certain versions of the facts are less likely to be true than others. Make no mistake about it though, in order to do this, I need evidence...without it I have no case. As far as allegations of the "myths" about lawyers being ethical in court...instead of ranting about a bad experience that you were personally invested in, go sit in court on any given day and watch a trial or a hearing of some sort...you will invariably see a high standard of integrity and respect being demonstrated by most lawyers. As far as being forced to have a lawyer, there is no jurisdiction in the entire country that I am aware of where an individual party cannot represent themselves. Notwithstanding this freedom, most litigants choose lawyers to act for them because they can objectively review the case (without emotional bias or attachment) and because they are professional advocates. I know I will likely get nowhere on changing certain people's rabid contempt for the legal profession, however, I nevertheless feel it important for me to stand up for myself and my colleagues. FTA

kimmy, You are mistaken...we have dangerous offender applications: Justice Canada FTA

Well honestly, if you want to make some kind of analogy to Rosa Parks, then you ought to get your ass off the basement couch where I would bet you have been doing most of your crusade for legalized pot...go to a public place, call the cops, smoke a joint in front of them, get charged with simple possession and take a run at the law which you deem to be "unethical". Follow the lead of Mr. Krieger if you're not sure how to make a test-case in our system. Otherwise, you're just a pot-head in your basement bitching how the man is screwing you by trying to keep your bud away from you. I don't mean this response as a personal attack, because of course I don't know anything about you, but come on...step up and BE Rosa if you want to suggest a similarity. Who knows, maybe you will be a hero for pot smokers nationwide if you can demonstrate the "victimless" nature of your crime and convince the court that marijuana possession is not properly the subject of the criminal law. FTA