FTA Lawyer

Deliberately exaggerating? I'm the one doing that? Here's what you actually said: Clearly what you were doing was using facts of a particular case to criticize what happened in the circumstances as opposed to spewing generalized rhetoric. I sincerely apologize for deliberately exaggerating your position. My point about self-representation is quite the opposite of what you suggest. The fact is I feel my services are completely worth the fees I charge and I don't think the average citizen can do as good a job as I can. I have 8 years of university (including 3 years of law school) and 5 years of practice under my belt and I'm actually pretty good at what I do. I also think I charge very fairly compared to other lawyers who might try to empty their clients' bank accounts. But, if any potential client doesn't see it that way and thinks he's getting screwed by paying me what I quote him then he is completely free to pay nothing and do it on his own. I just had a client this week come to our office and retain us to do 2 hours of research to make sure that the prep-work he had done for himself was thorough. He is comfortable speaking in public and doesn't want to pay us to argue the hearing for him...just the expertise as far as the legal research goes. He will pay around $500.00. On the other side, I recently had a client agree to pay me $200.00 per hour travel time between Calgary and Medicine Hat so I could be his lawyer for an appeal down there. He didn't trust the local lawyers and I have a particular focus on appellate work. If it looks alot like market economics of supply and demand it's because that's what it is. If you get an impaired charge as an example, there are lawyers who will run your trial for $1,500.00...lawyers who will charge between $3,000.00 and $5,000.00 and lawyers who won't leave the office for under $25,000.00. Each has varying levels of experience and skill, and no different than buying a car or seeing a dentist...you shop, you compare, and you choose. If you choose the guy who takes your house and everything else you've got and loses, that's your bad choice...not the fault of lawyers and the justice system. Now, to bring all of the above back to the plight of Ezra Levant...I watched his self-promotional embarrassment of an attendance with the AHRC investigator on You Tube...you should too. I especially like the part where he calls the woman with the pen and paper a "thug" and begs her to not dismiss the frivolous complaint against him so that the other thugs at the AHRC can hopefully "convict" him at a panel hearing so that he can take his matter to court. Yeah, this is the test-case to prove how poor unwilling parties can be dragged through expensive legal proceedings by frivolous complaints. The guy is literally begging for it! FTA

Before I do, I note that in the case I cited the judge found the dynamic entry to be acceptable...but not police wearing masks and not producing a warrant etc. As for your question...my lawyer answer is that it depends on the circumstances. But, really, that's true. Basically the judge has to decide in any case which would bring more disrepute to the administration of justice...excluding the evidence, or allowing it in knowing it was discovered by illegal activity on behalf of the police. There are several other factors that play in...for example...real evidence (that which exists independent of any Charter breach) is less likely to be excluded whereas conscriptive evidence (like a confession) that only exists because of the Charter breach is more likely to be tossed. If the admission of the evidence would lead to an unfair trial it will probably be out. If the police would have discovered the evidence inevitably in their investigation it will probably go in. In the case I cited, this is what the judge said: Would a dead body and a knife be excluded from evidence? Practically speaking...unlikely. But, the possibility that it could should be incentive enough for police to follow the law shouldn't it? FTA

This case is a direct on-point example from Calgary...it's only 8 pages, so I recommend you read the whole thing as it gives a pretty good analysis of the issues, including how a judge is to decide when to exclude evidence as a remedy for a Charter breach: TAC Team Search Warrant Case As for the home-invasion thing, the 8 year number is considered a "starting point" for sentencing in Alberta. Therefore, depending on the aggravating or mitigating circumstances, you can go up or down from there. You are correct that many first offenders will therefore ultimately get less than the starting point, but it's not that easy to argue down too much lower than 6 years no matter how good the facts are. FTA

I don't know anything about the facts of this case, but police can get express authorization in a search warrant to do a "dynamic entry". That is, if the police have reason to justify not following a knock and announce procedure in a given case, all they have to do is tell that to the authorizing judge and then someone objective can make the decision...not some donkey carrying a machine gun who joined the force to kick ass and take names. Keep in mind that a search warrant execution on a house is a form of state-sanctioned home-invasion. A home invading criminal with no prior record is looking at 8 years jail simply because of the violation of the security of a person in their home...the exact same conduct with a badge should not be something we routinely allow and should not be decided by a potentially overzealous front-line police officer. FTA

What you do not grasp is that I am not making any judgment on the merits of the complaint...though I have said I think 3 or 4 times now that I think Levant was right to publish the cartoons. You also do not grasp that there is absolutely nothing that you can do to prevent someone from filing a frivolous suit against you. You can get it dismissed, but you can't stop it before it happens. And costs awards against an impecunious frivolous Plaintiff are rather hollow comfort no? So, if innocent law-abiding folks can be forced to spend time and money that they can never recover to get out of a frivolous lawsuit in the Court of Queen's Bench, does that make the forum invalid? I say no. Obviously others here may think otherwise. FTA

In my further defence of myself (and other lawyers like me) here is a client testimonial that fits well with the topic since this was a client who really ought not to have been charged in the first place: FTA's client testimonials

jbg - I think your example about the baseless lawsuits you are defending kind of proves my point. If there was a quasi-judicial tribunal that dealt with your vexatious plaintiff's problem, she'd be filing her complaints there. Since there isn't one, she's filing them in court. The existence or lack of the tribunal is not what creates frivolous proceedings (if there was no court system, she'd be throwing rocks through your client's business windows and they'd still have to deal with her frivolity). Argus - if you don't want to pay for a lawyer...don't. Countless numbers of citizens run their own legal matters every day. Hiring a lawyer is a choice, sorry, but it is. The people who lose their house paying for their lawyer must really think he or she is good...otherwise they would choose someone less expensive, or do it themselves. And I'm speaking from actual experience, not just soap-boxing. Every month when I attend hearings in the Court of Appeal, there are at least as many people there representing themselves as there are with counsel. And, yes, the people without lawyers win sometimes too. In fact, on January 29, one of Alberta's senior appellate prosecutors was remarking to me at how a self-represented inmate with little education had filed written materials in support of his appeal which were so well-done and accurate beyond anything that the Crown had that they conceded his appeal. And when I say your complaints are baseless, it's not that I don't know that some lawyers behave in the way that you describe...billing the file for every penny regardless of outcome. The problem I have is that you are never speaking about an instance that happened...just rhetoric. For example, I haven't appeared in an Alberta Human Rts hearing before, so I chose not to comment on the fairness of the particular tribunal...you suggest all the staff are "whackos". Do you know a mentally ill person who works there and unfairly screws parties over on purpose? I think not...more rhetoric. And nobody ever goes to bat for the number of lawyers out there who do piles of pro bono work and on other files take fractions of the rate they need to charge to be profitable because they are trying to do the right thing. Last month, I spent 2 hours speaking with and appearing in court for a guy who stopped me in the hallway of the courthouse becuase I was wearing a suit and looked like a lawyer. He had a child custody trial that day...I don't do child custody matters...but he had driven 6 hours to be there and didn't have a lawyer and didn't know what to do. I appeared as amicus curae or "friend to the court" and assisted him in dealing with his matter. I suspect he kept his house that day, and his car, and whatever cash he had in his wallet...because I took nothing. In December, I settled a file and took $5,000.00 less than the retainer agreement permitted me to take...becuase in my view that meant my fee was more fair in relation to the actual amount of work I had performed for the client. Yes, you read that right...on December 31, 2007 I shorted myself five thousand dollars to make sure my client got proper value for my services. Client still has house, car, pennies in pocket etc. etc. and paid $5,000.00 less than what he originally agreed he would pay. So forgive me if I don't just accept your view that every interaction that any citizen has with any legal matter is one of financial ruin and injustice. FTA

Well, here's my problem. I am an insider in the system, I attempt to open debate about why people are apathetic about the short-comings of the system, in light of what I view as a particularly brutal example that has been put up in the original post, and I am met with comments that really amount to "lawyers suck and its all their fault...oh and lawyers suck...sucky lawyers...and they make money while they suck..." If you won't even try to effect positive change with someone who could bring about such change (maybe a bit idealistic...but I'm not yet ready to just give up) through a meaningful discussion, then well, I guess I'll just have to go on being a sucky lawyer in a sucky system...that I caused personally in the 5 years that I've been a lawyer. FTA

All things that the more of them you have, the longer the process takes and the more $$$$$$ it costs. If the fundamental complaint here is that good people like Ezra shouldn't have to be out of pocket for frivolous complaints, then forcing him to face such a complaint in a full-blown superior court setting as opposed to the intentionally stripped-down (comparatively speaking) quasi-judicial tribunal setting would have the unintended result of increased financial cost. It's not a perfect system, but tribunals are a trade-off that for the most part work very well in my opinion. FTA

Are you suggesting Canadian / NATO soldiers are going to intervene in this situation and free this kid? If they are, great. BUT... If they have to intervene, the point the original poster makes is it is a pretty piss-poor indicator of success for the mission is it not? I mean, death sentences for reading? Should we not be a little further down the path of enlightenment by now? FTA P.S. I don't intend this as a slight against our troops...I don't really think the original poster did either. The point is if the politicians can't do a better job of making effective change, then we're losing way too many good men and women in the pursuit of an ideal that is at best uncertain and at worst unattainable.

For someone who expects rbacon to provide stats to back up his seemingly improper "blaming of cops" for in custody deaths, you seem to very thoroughly spaz about evil profiteering lawyers being the root of all problems without any stats or other objective information (as opposed to hyperbolic opinion). Bravo on such well-considered intellectual debate. FTA

I have had cases dismissed because of delay in the police / prosecution providing disclosure of the case against my client. R. v. Moore R. v. Gateway Collections As an advocate for my client...absolutely these are wins. As a citizen weighing the balance of whether justice has been served, interestingly, that is the overriding factor for a judge in making a decision on this type of an application. Ultimately, the court is asked to decide which will tend to bring the administration of justice into more disrepute...the tossing of the charges, or the forcing of an accused to undergo an unfair trial process. The problem as I see it, is that the general public doesn't give a damn. Oh sure, people spout off about the "injustice system" etc., but if asked to put tax dollars into it, or to stand up and get involved in trying to fix things...everyone is simply too busy. FTA

But here's the thing, and there's really no way to get around it...unless we are to simply rely on the opinion of Argus as opposed to the contrary opinion of some other citizen, then we have to have guidelines, and appoint someone to administer them. If we don't want our judges, who decide things like murder cases and child protection issues and estate succession matters to be tied up with "hurt feelings" in the realm of human rights complaints, then we create a quasi-judicial tribunal and appoint them (at far less pay than judges) to take on the task. See, I'm okay with that...rather than have to be governed by the laws according to Argus. Now, some will argue that the human rts tribunals are without a restrictive and clear mandate, or just plain suck at thier jobs, but they were put into authoritiy by the politicians that we elected and so works democracy. If things are as bad as some here say, then oft the chime has been seen on this board that the voters will hold those responsible accountable when the time comes. Or in other words, lobby your politicians rather than complaining here. FTA

Well, for the person who is directly defamed on the web, they might see the balance differently...but I'm glad to see that someone is at least considering my point. As to your question in response, what is the disproposrtionate harm here? I am failing to see how a person who profited off of the publication of cartoons...that he absolutely knew to be controversial (i.e. the decision to publish or not) having to shell out a few bucks responding to the complaints that any intelligent person could have foreseen is such an atrocious affront to democracy?!? As I said before, take away the tribunal and this would simply be a fight in the traditional superior court setting. The fight would still be there. Does that mean we should eliminate superior courts? I really hope that Ezra is successful in defending his right to publish the cartoons...I have always said I think he was right to do it. I just have difficulty understanding 1) Why he is surprised at the predicament he is in regarding the decision to publish; 2) Why he is choosing to ridicule the complainant's levels of literacy and penmanship; and 3) Why he thinks that the best way to be treated fairly in the process is to mock it to its very core? Some here say it's because he is a crusader...well no doubt that's true...I guess I continue to exercise my freedom of expression in suggesting that he could be conducting himself in a far more honourable fashion. FTA

The whole point of creating quasi-judicial tribunals is to remove such issues from the normal courts. Without the human rts. tribunal in this case, Ezra would simply be defending against a potentially frivolous Superior Court Statement of Claim...it wouldn't change much at all really. FTA

A Human Rts. Tribunal is a governmental agency...to the extent that Ezra feels it is infringing on his Charter Right to freedom of expression, he can argue that and prevent it from taking any steps against him for publishing the cartoons...that's not legal arrogance, that's me saying that he can rely on the "system" to protect his situation. The baseless generalized slights against lawyers will get you nowhere in this thread...Levant is one too! I can tell you that the vast majority of lawyers have never come close to being in any way involved in writing legislation. Well, under that logic, it's Ezra's system too...being that he is a "card carrying member" and all. And...next time you have cause to rely on it, strangely you'll be happy that the "system" is there and not just chaos. By the way, "society" and "legal system" are terms that inherently involve some aspect of collective rights / norms / rules. That is, to be a member of the society and its systems, sometimes you have to accept that the procedures and outcomes of those systems are not the ones that would best suit your personal situation. FTA

But why the complacency? WTF is wrong with our society? Have we really become so apathetic (emphasis on the "pathetic") that we just shrug our shoulders when we see 6 years of delay leading to a stay of proceedings on charges of cops obstructing justice, extorting, perjuring and assaulting? Citizens rioted in the streets when Rocket Richard got suspended from a hockey game...but we all sit back in our SUV's drinking cappucino and thinking about our next chiropractic visit when we see this kind of story today. What in the hell ever happened to accountability...and the citizenry demanding it of our public officials? FTA

In today's world, almost all tribunals report their decisions and use them as precedent. An earlier post here cited such precedents that are posted on the human rts. tribunal website. You are really just wrong on this point. The tribunals certainly can be used as weapons and cost people money they will never be able to recover. That is true of every governent licensing body, enforcement agency, the better business bureau, the internet, and every court in the land. Some bodies have better procedures for weeding out frivolous and vexatious complaints than others, but they all have to deal with the issue in some fashion. I don't see how the fact that someone could put a website, pretend to be me, make all kinds of terrible statements as though I were making them, damage my business and reputation immeasurably, cost me tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees to get the site shut down and then disappear into bankruptcy is therefore cause to terminate the internet. This is the same logic of those who call for an end to human rts. tribunals because the complaint against Mr. Levant might be frivolous and vexatious. FTA

Just to be clear, the primary reason for 2 for 1 credit for pre-trial custody is not the conditions of the facility...rather it is the fact that a sentenced inmate gets earned remission (and typically does 2/3 of his or her sentence). While in remand awaiting trial, the inmate does not get earned remission. The convention of 2 for 1 credit simply brings fairness by treating all inmates equally in terms of the jail time they actually serve out of a sentence. Pre-trial credit is discretionary and judges can give reasons to give more than the conventional 2 for 1, or less. An increasingly common example is where an inmate gets sent to a psych facility for a pre-sentence assessment they are often not locked up, living in more of a dorm than a jail (even though the unit / ward itself is secure so they can't just leave). And most such assessments will be a month or so in the making. Where the conditions are considerably "easier" than normal jail, judges may just give "straight time" or 1 for 1 credit. On the other side, increased credit - up to 3 for 1 - is more commonly being used in cases where the inmate has lived in overcrowded conditions...often in almost full-time lock-up with 3 to a cell instead of 2. I'm not taking sides on this case one way or another, just thought this might clear things up a bit. FTA

Is there some part of the board software that prevents the starting of a Marc Emery thread? And simultaneously promotes empassioned pleas to address moot issues? As for the topic, Aside from the question of who was responsible for producing this training material, I saw with my own eyes the US Navy JAG Corp. Lt. Commander appear on a Canadian national news broadcast and state that there is no doubt Khadr has been abused and his rights in international law violated. Forget the f--king pamphlet...I'll run with Lt. Commander Kuebler as my reason to suspect torture by the US. Anyone able to explain to me why I shouldn't? FTA

I can certainly accept that a number of good points have been raised in this thread...on both sides. But going back to my original point, Levant is both a lawyer and a publisher (well, was I guess on the latter). You would think he would be able to make his criticisms of the tribunal and of the complaint against him in a collected and logical manner. Respect the process by complying with it (as he has done) and challenge its validity if indeed it is invalid. If he wants to garner support for his plight, he really should be able to accomplish the above without resorting to name-calling of the tribunal and making fun of the complainant for his handwritten as opposed to type-written complaint form. Rather than write things like this: He could have quoted from an only two-month old Ontario Court of Appeal case called Cusson v. Quon as follows: All government administrative tribunals must comply with the Charter...so must protect Mr. Levant's s. 2( rights as a journalist discussing a public-interest matter...even where he has published something that could otherwise run afoul of the human rts legislation. See, all of the hullaballoo could be avoided (including the hyperbole that has made it into this thread) by simply applying the law that we have to essentially exempt the Western Standard's publishing of the cartoons (relying on s. 2() while at the same time leaving the tribunal intact. Maybe Chicken Little...I mean Ezra Levant has just done a really good job of convincing alot of people that the sky is indeed falling. FTA Edited due to emoticon problem

Are we really outawing colloquial language and expressions on an internet discussion forum? What's next? Peer review of each post before it is submitted for publication? FTA oops! I mean FTA Lawyer, Esq., BA, LLB Sorry, old habits die hard.

What more will it take for action by our government to attempt to stop its citizens (even ones accused of very bad things, who have very bad parents) from being subjected to such injustice? A Lt. Commander in the US NAVY JAG Corp saying that Khadr has been abused and his rights under international law violated does it for me... FTA

With all due respect to Argus, I think you have made his point far more effectively. Look, I've never run a Human Rts. tribunal case...so I'm not going to speak to whether or not they are fair. They may very well turn out an unjust result in this case. If they do, then you go to the Court of Queen's Bench and argue to have the decision overturned. If Queen's Bench doesn't give you what you want, try the Court of Appeal, then the SCC. I do believe in the overall fairness of our courts in Canada, imperfect as they certainly are. Is it a hidden secret that I have a vested interest in legal proceedings? I am a lawyer...I do make my living helping people with legal problems...not sure where the "breaking news" is on that point. But here's the thing...the point I make that seems not to be getting through is that we all benefit from such tribunals. Oh, sure, we love to criticize the hell out of their existence, but we sure would scream more if: 1. There was no mechanism whatsoever to monitor dangerous convicts once released from prison (National Parole Board) 2. A sour gas well got put up on your neghbour's land, 10 feet from your bedroom (Energy / Utilities Board - now split boards in Alberta) 3. You had no one to complain to if your bank freely released all of your personal information to anyone who asked for it (Information and Privacy Commissioner) 4. You had to take a police chief telling you to pound sand as the final word after you complained about one of his officers beating up your wife during a traffic stop (Law Enforcement Review Board) 5. You got fired becuase you went to a meeting with co-workers to discuss forming a union in your workplace (Labour Relations Board). 6. You got fired because you are black. (Human Rts. Tribunal) And on and on and on and on... The alternative to these admin. tribunals are lengthy and far more costly formal court proceedings. Generally, the public is very well-served by the business of these boards and tribunals...even though frivolous and vexatious complaints are submitted at times to each and every one of them. Or, as I said before, I suppose we could go back to the days of the wild west out here in Alberta and just shoot people who deserve shootin' 'cuz they done double-crossed us here good folk. Frankly, I think you would find far more injustice in that society than if Ezra Levant finds himself having to battle off some improper complaint in a hearing room somewhere. FTA

Well, seeing as this is my first response to the criticisms of my post, I suggest it may be a bit premature to say that I've already been "out-debated". Mr. Levant's right to freedom of expression is enshrined in the Charter. So is freedom of religion and many other things. Unless he would like to go back to the days of pistol duels (which he very well might prefer) all I am saying is that he can't use the laws when they serve to protect him and then piss on them when they cause him grief. That's what I mean when I refer to the "system" and having to "respect" it if you want it to work for you. (i.e. The societal principle that we should not tolerate frivolous actions is a product of our developed legal system. But, the existence of a Human Rights Tribunal is also a product of that same developed legal system. Sometimes you have to take the good with the bad so to speak.) Also, I'm not arguing that frivolous claims are to be embraced...on the contrary. I am asked to give dozens of opinions regarding Legal Aid coverage in this province, and I often take the view that coverage should be denied...due to lack of merit. By your logic, because several people apply to Legal Aid for frivolous reasons, we should scrap the Legal Aid system altogether. Seems to me that means many meritorious applicants would miss out. I am simply taking the view that society at large has chosen to implement a tribunal to protect human rights by receiving and reviewing complaints from individuals who feel aggrieved. Common sense tells you that some complaints will be valid, some will be misguided and some will be outright in bad faith. Yes, I hope that all bad faith complaints are dismissed as early as possible. Yes I hope that all misguided complaints are determined sooner rather than later. BUT, I don't want to see valid complaints become the victim of the rantings of a person like Levant, who regardless of your view of his beliefs, clearly intends to evoke critical reactions with his publications. Don't forget, I support Levant's publishing of the cartoons. I think he made the right call, and I admire that he had the guts to do it. But come on...he can't possibly be surprised that he put himself into a political hot-zone by doing so. And, I don't have to support the manner in which he is attempting to stick up for himself now if I want to be a defender of free speech. Ridiculing someone who complains against you for his poor handwriting isn't much of a compelling substantive argument. Publically referring to the tribunal as a kangaroo court while simultaneously asking it to treat you with respect and fairness makes no sense to me. I've acted in discipline hearings for university students, police officers and inmates, including parole hearings...all with varying degrees of procedural fairness and administrative integrity. I have had more success than failure...sometimes dealing with maddening unfairness (in my opinion) but I have never referred to a panel or hearing officer as a kangaroo. For a shining example that just hit the paper today, check this out: "Secrets" in Police Discipline Do I think my client got treated unfairly by the process? You bet. Did I rail like a fool about it on a blog? Nope. I simply made my argument to the hearing officer, and ended the discipline hearing...and then opposed the subsequent court challenge...and won that too. I worked with the system. I think Levant should do the same. Let the all-wise members of this board now tally the score on who's winning the debate FTA