FTA Lawyer

In context with the rant he was responding to, jbg's comment works perfectly. Oleg suggests that the courts as a rule behave illegally and breach the rules of the justice system constantly. Such statements are bereft of any logic and jbg just called him on it. The fact is that literally thousands of court cases are conducted every day in Canada and in the vast majority of cases justice is served. The majority of all persons in the system work hard, honestly and with integrity. Unfortunately, people like Oleg have one bad experience and equate that with the end of civilization as we know it. Chicken Little is now apparently wearing robes and brandishing a gavel? FTA

Hockey is an aggressive and at times violent sport. Every player on the ice is "armed" at all times, and one of the legal ways to get the puck away from your opponent is to knock him down by slamming your body into his [or hers]. The fact that penalties exist for hitting other players with your stick or fighting etc. demonstrates that getting hit with a stick or into a fight are incidents that any player must reasonably expect to occur from time to time when they participate in the sport. When a pile of 8 year olds get into a brawl, you can't really argue that it is something that will never happen given the nature of the game. That said, the lack of control displayed by the coaches, parents, and even referees suggests that little respect for the game is being taught to the players on these teams. When I was that young playing hockey we knew that if we spit on another player or got into a brawl, we were in so much trouble from our coaches and parents that it simply never happened. When I was playing junior, there were times I was specifically sent on the ice to start a fight...but by then I was an adult so it put things in a much different context. As one of the resident lawyers here, I offer this summary from a 1991 Ontario Court of Appeal decision called R. v. Leclerc: In the same year, the Supreme Court of Canada in a case called R. v. Jobidon confirmed that the ability to consent to a fist fight or brawl is limited in that you cannot consent to infliction of "serious hurt or non-trivial bodily harm" to yourself. That being said, the SCC confirmed a common law ability to consent to intentional application of force against yourself, provided that such force is "within the customary norms and rules of the game." Arguably, the law continues to sanction hockey fights, so long as you don't get too hurt. Kind of a sheet of thin ice to be walking (or skating) on if you choose to drop the gloves. What if you just win better than you thought you would and the guy decides to call the police? Think of all of the guys you have seen leaking all over the ice after a fight...probably the winner committed a criminal offence. What will the NHL do the first time a player who loses the fight and his pride to the extent he just goes and files charges? Those are my thoughts. FTA

This quote demonstrates your level of comprehension on this issue...nil. I never said anything like that I spend three hours per case...I said any given day I put in three hours more work than virtually any Crown. That's three extra hours per day over my adversary...how did you read that as only three hours per case? The police and Crown are part of the State. The State builds a case against and prosecutes my clients. I defend against that prosecution. In any given case, the State can and often does put hundreds of thousands of dollars of its resources into proving its case. In many cases, I have a few thousand at my disposal. If you really think Crown prosecutors go home because they have no more work they could do to better prepare their case (as opposed to they get paid the same whether they put in the extra work or not) then you are delerious. Take a poll of victims (or witnesses) of crime and ask how many of them first speak to the Crown an hour before the trial. By contrast, check the logs at the Remand Centre and see how many of my clients are getting prepared for trial into the late hours of the night and weeks in advance. That's the difference in outcome, in my view...not any unfair lack of resources of the State. I am in the middle of a sentence appeal right now...so I cannot discuss the details on this board at this time. What I can tell you is that the public transcripts of the sentencing hearing show that the Crown's argument to try to convince the judge to order a year and a half of jail took 3/4 of a page of transcript...with no case references and only one reference to sentencing principles from the Criminal Code. Contrast that to defence counsel's (not me another lawyer) 6 page argument with a number of references to both the Criminal Code and relevant case law. The result? A community-based conditional sentence...not jail. Is this because the State can't afford to make a better argument? Hardly. As for my comment regarding income...I don't begrudge a first-class constable of what he or she makes...and I don't for a minute fail to appreciate the occupational hazards of the job which I do not have to deal with. That was not my point. My point is that when I am defending a case where three first-class constables, two detectives and a staff sergeant are building the case for the prosecutor (or sometimes two prosecutors), all of whom make as much as or more than me, I am simply not "raping the system" for extravagent personal wealth like you seem to think I am. As for the comparison to the tainted blood acquittals...can you please show me how the acquittals on the criminal charges will bind a judge hearing a civil case (that is make it impossible for the civil judge to award damages by requiring that civil judge to adopt the decision of the criminal judge)? FTA

You can lobby government, but let's face it...that's not going to work for the average person. Look how long it has taken a national organization like MADD to get anywhere with toughening drunk driving laws. The quickest and most abrupt way to fight such a law is to make a Charter challenge as an accused. If you are found to be correct (i.e. the law is unconstitutional), the judge can strike the law down with the stroke of a pen. Problem here is, you have to be in jeopardy of being convicted for an offence (and not to mention actually losing your car in the interim) to make this work, and most people do not like to take such risks. FTA

I don't think that Greg's original position has to be at odds with Hardner's. If someone makes a racist comment (in your view) you should certainly be able to write, "I find that to be a particularly racist comment" and that person can either defend or retract or re-state. If Greg's intention is to block such discussions, then I simply cannot agree with that. However, if what Greg does intend to block (which I suspect is the case) is the person who takes offense to a comment and writes, "You would say that you stupid rascist!" then I support him all the way. You can freely debate the origins and appropriateness of the word "nigger" for example without ever calling someone by that term. If just typing that word gets me turfed, well then I don't want to be here anyway. If I use it against a poster on the other hand, then I ought not be allowed to stay. FTA

The poor police and Crown have a hard time doing their jobs...oh I feel very sorry for them. I can't think of a Crown prosecutor who isn't out the door at 4:29 in the afternoon while I have a solid three more hours of work ahead of me on any given night. I win cases by simply doing my job better than my adversary...it is not a resource issue at all. In fact, a first-class constable in Calgary makes over $70,000 a year...which is just shy of what I made in the very lucrative practice of criminal law last year. Give me a break from the bullshit about all of the personal profit I am raping from the system (or send me some cash to help pay the bills). The majority of criminal accused require Legal Aid coverage to defend against the vast budgets of the police and Crown. The standard fee proscribed by Legal Aid for a one-day trial is $735.00. Add in the $82.00 you get for interviewing your client and a few other luxurious items and you might get your fees up to $1,000.00. Now, if this only represented your compensation for the actual day of trial you'd be doing okay...but here's the quote directly from the Alberta Legal Aid handbook: So yes, with rent in downtown Calgary going to $50 per square foot close to the courthouse and professional fees and legal research fees and support staff salaries etc. etc. I just have no choice but to open an extra office to stuff all of my extra cash that won't fit in the bank vault...I mean $1,000.00 for conducting a defence file from beginning to end really does give me an incredible financial advantage over the state. As for tainted blood and O.J. Simpson, it's hiarious that you put your two comments side by side and don't even see the self-destructive nature of what you said. The acquittals on criminal charges in the tainted blood case have no binding effect on civil cases...or did you not know that O.J. lost a wrongful death claim after being found not guilty? Anyway, I guess next time I have a client being put to an election about the mode of trial he wants and he's having trouble choosing between judge alone or judge and jury, I'll remind him how lucky he is that "trial by NBC opinion poll" isn't the way we do things. FTA

Sorry to be rude, but WTF does this have to do with automatic administrative punishments for driving offences? As may come as no surprise, I agree with the argument that this is taking us down a slippery slope. Alberta's provincial law regarding prostitution is doing the same thing...immediate seizure of the car you are driving at the time you are accused of communicating for the purpose of prostitution. Even if it's not your car!!! Careful who you lend your wheels to in this Province... FTA

Leafless, The problem that you really seem to have here is with the concept of the presumption of innocence. As far as you are concerned, if John Law lays an allegation, the person is nothing but a criminal who certainly does not deserve any opportunity to say otherwise. In your world, the state authorities can do no wrong. You have obviously no legitimate experience with the system or you would know that the biggest "bending of the facts" often comes from the police. And if you think for a minute that Crown prosecutors don't put their own spin on things to try to make evidence look more compelling and to make an accused look more guilty then you are being obtuse. If you understood any of this, you would get that we have an adversarial system which has proven to be a pretty reliable and fair way of administering justice for hundreds of years. The state, with its immeasurable resources does its level best (within the limits of the law) to get the evidence and take liberty away from the accused. In response, the defence does its level best (within the limits of the law) to counter the state's efforts and keep the accused free. When both sides fight the best fight possible, at the end of the day, we (society) can trust in the result because we know that everyone's interests have been argued to the fullest. You choose to call what I do "raping innocent victims". I call it making sure that people sent to jail actually belong there. When I put my spin on it, you call me "corrupt" and "loud mouthed". I guess that makes you a hyperbolic simpleton. Just because you don't understand why O.J. Simpson and those accused in the recent "tainted blood" case were acquitted, doesn't mean that the system is corrupt or unjust. FTA

Well that's the whole point bozo...I believe in the system that we have because it serves to protect the "GOOD innocent clients" even if it is not immediately apparent which ones they are. The spinoff is that even "BAD guilty clients" will be afforded the benefit of reasonable doubt and a fair trial. I'd much rather have that over your proposal to shoot everyone in the back of the head summarily... If you don't want me up on a soapbox reporting the good side of what I do for a living, then don't accuse me of raping the rights of innocent victims so as to help criminals not pay a societal debt...that's not what I do. And at the end of the day, I simply refuse to be embarrassed for the valid public purpose I serve as a defence lawyer just because you can't quite comprehend the justice system that we have developed over the last few centuries. FTA

You're damn right that I truly feel proud of myself. I recently received a letter from the Crown confirming that charges were being stayed against a client of mine. Turns out, the stepdaughter who had accused him of molesting her three times had made it up and finally admitted same to the police just prior to the preliminary inquiry. This is a guy whose wife left him and didn't have a friend in the world...he would have had a slug in his brain stem if you had your way based on the ALLEGATIONS made against him...instead, as a defence lawyer I helped him find some form of justice in clearing his name. I've helped people who were abused by bad police officers, got compensation from the Crown for a client who was the victim of an improper prosecution, had convictions overturned in a case where even the Crown agreed that the judge acted unfairly (and put the accused in jail for 4 years), helped keep mentally ill people out of jail, helped police officers keep their jobs in the face of disciplinary proceedings etc. etc. etc. Many people only dream of being able to have such meaningful impact on people's lives...and I have the privilege of doing it every day I go to the office. You're damn right that I truly feel proud of myself. FTA

There is plenty of mis-information about life sentences in Canada...and the bullshit in the John Howard Society link above is not helping things: Second degree murder is unintentional homicide!?!?!?!?!?!? WTF!?!?!?!?! Try manslaughter maybe? Anyway... A life sentence in Canada means LIFE...as in the rest of your natural life. The numbers part of a life sentence is just the parole eligibility component. A colleague of mine had a client who got "life 10" for manslaughter and ended up doing well over 30 years in prison becuase he couldn't toe the line long enough to stay out on parole. See, on a life sentence, even if you make parole after reaching your eligibility date, you are always still serving your life sentence. If you step out of line, your parole is breached by your PO and your ass goes directly back to prison. There's no bail provision, and the only "trial" you get on a parole breach allegation is a Parole Board review which need only be done within 90 days. No doubt there are many criticisms to be made of the system, but few people realize the true nature of a life sentence. FTA

Charles Anthony will be doing a great disservice to this board if he agrees to delete this. Frankly, I don't really like most of what ScottSA has to say at any given moment...and I think he went a bit far in making sure we all knew what he meant in the second post about "progeny of the union". BUT...while his comments are offensive (i.e. offend the sensitivities of those who would prefer not to read crude statements) they are not hate speech nor by any reasonable interpretation of the words can someone see promotion of violence. In a rather base manner, ScottSA has simply expressed his disdain for the gay rights movement by mocking the fact that they will likely seek court declarations for "rights" that defy the laws of biology and possibly physics. He said it pretty darn dumb-like (insert sound effect of yokel making "hyuk, hyuk" noise) but that's all he said. Free speech means freedom to say dumb, offensive things. We absolutely cannot allow ourselves to delete such things by stretching all logic and trying to call it hate or violence promotion. By that standard, most of MLK's speeches would have been banned...just look at the amount of violence that occurred due to the ideas he advocated. FTA

On the contrary, I am poking fun at an individual who has espoused the view that a threat to do something is the same thing as doing it and cannot recognize that some threats are puffery and ought not be met with summary execution without even a trial to make an attempt to differentiate the prankster from the terrorist. Should we take threats seriously? Absolutely. Should those who issue them be treated severely? You bet. Are most threats legitimate ones that are a fraction of a second from being carried out? Not even close. Would any advanced non-dictatorship adopt your idea and kill on site every person who ever makes a threat? I sure as hell hope not...and not because of any financial self-interest...just because I happen to believe in proportionality and fairness in my definition of justice. Recently, a very specific and serious threat was made to shoot up a courthouse in Alberta, including a particular statement about killing the judge. The response was to keep two full time armed Sherrifs in the courtroom where normally only one would be present during criminal matters and none during civil matters. Court was not cancelled...the army was not called in...but staff knew of the situation and were on heightened alert. If they ever catch the guy, should he just be able to laugh it off as a prank? No way...some people were legitimately scared by the threat. Do I want to see him executed for it? No. Fact is, he didn't do it. Death is not proportional or fair for making people scared. Whether I am a crappy lawyer or not is something that people who know me will be best-placed to determine...and I am sure that there is debate at times. But, I am a citizen and I do have a family and the last thing I would ever hope for is death or serious harm so that I can issue a bill. I bet you would not suggest the same to a police officer who depends just as much as I do on criminals for his livelihood. Your attempt at a battle of wits on this point has proven to be nothing more than an attempt...and a poor one at that. FTA

Touche...I'll re-state...he's done nothing wrong re: his complaint & Federal Court application. FTA

Okay, time to break this down to exactly what happened: 1. Corrections Canada implemented a policy to provide meat replacements for inmates that have religious objections to things like bacon served in the standard diet to the general population. 2. This inmate raised a religious objection to bacon in his breakfast and asked for a meat replacement. 3. Corrections Canada denied this inmate's request at several levels up the chain of the complaint process...they basically said they have no budget for it and he's not entitled to have a meat replacement. 4. Corrections Canada's report regarding this inmate conveniently left out the part about how they had previously implemented the meat-replacement policy after having consulted with Human Rights personnel. 5. By Corrections Canada's own policy, this inmate is entitled to a meat replacement...as is any other inmate who raises a religious objection to bacon. 6. Corrections Canada fought this inmate right up to the Federal Court where the judge noted that there was a previous policy and apparent entitlement for this inmate that had been left out by the previous levels of decision makers. 7. This inmate "won" the chance to re-submit his complaint for consideration with ALL of the appropriate evidence and policy on the table...not hidden. 8. Because he had to pay a lawyer through all of these processes, this inmate was given costs...which are almost always granted to a successful litigant...to cover some of his legal expenses...expenses that were incurred to make the government do what it was bound legally to do from the outset...play by the rules (no matter the religion of the inmate). No one can call this inmate's application frivolous because it was based in law and relied on CSC's policy...oh, and plus he won, so kind of the antithesis of frivolity. If you think that CSC should not have this policy, well that's another story...and by all means argue your position as to why. But please, can we deal with the truth and facts of what happened here rather than continue to suggest that any inmate can complain about any piece of food on his plate for any reason and get paid $2,000.00 profit? This inmate, as Peter F has tried repeatedly to bring home to the board, has done nothing wrong, has taken no step to change the law or change policy or obtain any new right or benefit...all he did was use proper civil legal non-violent procedures (our Judeo-Christian ones) to enforce a right that the government (our government) already previously said he has. FTA

Leafless, If you are serious, then I could apply your standard to your proposed "solution" and suggest that we execute you in order to prevent you from going around killing anyone who might utter an angry phrase toward another person or God forbid a public institution. Oops...have I just signed my own death warrant?...I swear, I was only debating in good faith relying on the concept of democratic free speech...I was not threatening you! Please show me mercy! Or wait, maybe we should just stick to the idea of only punishing people for their actions not their thoughts...what do you think Mr. Orwell? FTA

If you are as brilliant as you profess, what possible relevance to the issue on this thread caused you to blather on about U of W students being "2nd rate art fags"? If the university I went to had first rate art fags does that make it better or worse than U of W? I tend to agree with Guyser (on the actual topic of the thread) that people need to assess risk everyday and that officials should give them the info they need to do so. If there is a bomb threat, I can decide for myself how to react, but surely I need to know about it in the first place. FTA

Death for threatening death...makes perfect sense.

Les, I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't go do whatever it is you want to do...if you want to be nameless and devoid of assets I will not stand in your way. The fact is, that you have presented your position as an invitation to all of the rest of us to follow suit. I have examined your invitation in good faith and am simply saying that I can't see how anyone can follow you when your whole idea is based on the false premise that you are inherently entitled as of right to the necessities of life. If you can barter something you are able to produce in exchange for fair market rental of a multimillion dollar operating theatre and the services of a cardio-thoracic surgeon should you ever be in need of such items...all the power to you (your negotiation skills would be far better than mine). I choose to rely on my Blue Cross and Alberta Health care plans and the fees I pay for same. I am satisfied to acquiesce to the fact that my name was registered by my parents at my birth without my consent. I happen to feel I get far more out of participating in society than if I were to take the path you seem to be on. I hope everything works out the way you expect it to. I just will not spend any more time trying to comprehend what appears to me to be incomprehensible. FTA

LesActive, I think I finally caught you. Many have just dismissed you as a fool with an affinity for tin-foil, which I admit has been hard for me to resist...but I have chosen to try to dispel your claims by proper debate. As a result, I have been sifting through the piles of rhetoric about lawyers honouring their masters and the Monopoly analogies etc. looking for the fatal flaw to your propositions that I figured must be there but I just couldn't put my finger on...until now. Your fallacy goes directly to the root of your whole position...when I asked what you think you are entitled to as a birthright, you said: "We are all entitled to the necessities of life." Based on our Constitution, or human rights legislation, or common law or some other form of societal norm / more / consensus that has developed in our advanced democracy that is correct...but these are the very restirctions of inherent liberty that you rail against and propose to shed from your existence. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN INHERENT BIRTHRIGHT TO THE NECESSITIES OF LIFE Survival of the fittest hardly has room for communism. If you reject government and society in the manner that you propose, you reject the only thing that prevents me or any other biological creature on this planet from deciding to kill and eat you at my pleasure. Inherently, as things that live on this planet we are in competition with the other living things to obtain what we need to survive...but we sure as hell don't have a "right" to obtain those things. Just ask a hungry Grizzley bear if you have an inherent right to be left alone to run in the meadow. You have no more right to demand another human (or a group of humans represented by a government) to leave you alone than you do the Grizzley. Unless you can talk your way out of this one, then I am ready to end my willingness to entertain the validity of your master plan. FTA

I think Rob Menard will tell you that I put an honest effort into hearing him out and trying to see his point of view...in fact I met him by chance at the courthouse in Calgary and we had a pleasant chat. (total aside...for those who doubted that he was actively implementing his Freeman on the Land scheme I can tell you that I saw him do it with my own eyes...I still can't buy it, but he is indeed doing it) That said, I have no clue what it is that you are saying about your version of separating the legal person from the real you. How exactly am I a debtor if I have a shit-pile of money? If indeed you are a creditor because you are proposing to turn over everything you have to the treasury of the Gov't. of Canada, are you not only entitled to the amount of value that you have put in? What exactly do you think that you are entitled as a birth-right? What if the Gov't. does not accept your proposed gift...your lawyers do know that a gift requires consent of the recipient don't they? Otherwise, we could just gift the Sydney Tar-Pools to the USA and they could pay to clean them up... If you have given up your equitable interest in all future assets, do you need to get a chit-sheet signed by the Finance Minister every time you want to by a cheeseburger or a bar of soap? Can you prove that Canada is insolvent? I mean, Geoffrey might have to chime in on this point, but I don't think the country is insolvent by any definition of that term that I know of. Please believe me that I am not trying to be condescending or mocking of your chosen way of life...I just don't get it without some more details. FTA

Thank you for finding the link...what reading the judgment leads to is another rebuke of the media and their constant willingness to incite without much care for facts or truth. The inmate didn't "win" anything but the right to a new hearing by a fresh investigator...mostly because the report submitted to justify denying him a meat substitute left out the parts where the Human Rights Commission and the CSC had already established policies which say that denying a meat substitute for people on a halal diet is discriminatory... Gee, maybe public officials acting in good faith ought not hide material evidence that doesn't help their position? Maybe people here will have to retract their comments about "Liberal Judges" ruining the country...this judge did nothing of the sort...she compensated a litigant for $2,000.00 of his expenses in calling the Federal government to task for 1) Not following their own policies and 2) Trying to hide that fact. All of a sudden I am really beginning to like what this inmate did here. FTA

I'd like to know how much money was spent by the Federal Gov't to fight this rather than just accommodate the request? Betsy says...just give him extra eggs...but that's the problem, they didn't offer this guy anything but a flip of the metaphorical middle finger it would appear. Also, I second Peter F in pointing out that there was no riot, hunger strike, assault on a guard, or call for a Jihad against the Canadian Government...you can't criticize this guy for following the available administrative / court complaint process. FTA

For a judge to now get cute about an acquittal versus "factual innocence" in what would appear to be an attempt to rationalize short-changing Mr. Truscott on compensation is enough to make a buzzard puke... In our justice system, you benefit from a presumption of innocence...that is, if you are acquitted the presumption has not been displaced and in law you are innocent. In any event, such semantics are completely offensive...the conviction has been deemed a "miscarriage of justice" that means it was bad...Truscott had the best years of his life taken from him...wrongfully...no amount of money is enough in my view. FTA

In what way does an expert police officer testifying in an objective and unbiased manner affect his ability to properly carry out his duties? If he is hired as a prosecution expert and the blood-spatter analysis doesn't support the Crown's theory of the case does he have to lie to avoid getting in trouble with the Executive Office of the EPS? If they refuse to call him as a witness becuase he won't spew the prosecution's preferred slant and get a hack to come in and give the expert opinion they want, is he wrong to speak out against that? Why is the only option suggested for a man of integrity and a true sense of justice and fairness to leave the police force? Have we really reached a point in our society that someone who fits this bill is unfit to be a police officer? What in the hell is going on in this country?!?! FTA