FTA Lawyer

You have it right in the above post. Picking a jury in Canada for the most part involves trying to formulate in your mind a general idea of who you want on the panel...but at the end of the day, you are making assumptions that may be accurate or totally wrong. For example, in a case where I was involved at the jury selection stage, the Crown immediately used one of its challenges to dismiss a juror who was wearing a Calgary Hitman hockey jacket...the accused was a SAIT Trojan hockey player. Who knows if that guy would have been more or less likely to identify with the accused...but his clothing selection that day is what got him out of jury duty. Lawyers in our system (where you can't interrogate a potential juror) who think they can really influence the outcome of the trial based on the selection of jurors in my opinion are just kidding themselves. FTA

I hate government waste whether it is the Liberals, NDP or Tories who are in power. Fortier was smart not give into more money for this group. A report from the Auditor-General should be able to determine if there has actually been a full accounting of what was spent. Warning bells should be going off all over the PMO over this. Some incompetent bureaucrats or overpaid consultants can do a lot of damage to the credibility of the government if the signs are ignored. If we are not partisan, then we must be objective, no? Objectively, when I look at a topic entitled "What a waste...in Fortier's department" it clearly suggests that Mr. Fortier is responsible for the waste. Then, after you get criticized for taking a partisan stance, you come back with a post crediting Fortier for having stopped the waste. If you are trying to objectively denounce government waste (a laudible goal I agree) you could have chosen a much less suggestive title. FTA

The key really is for the parent to take the time to teach the kid the difference between the toy and the real thing. Ironically, I believe that taking a child along to learn about shooting real guns at an early age is one of the best ways to ensure that they don't misuse one later in life. The thing that angers me on this issue is when parents lose it on their kid for pointing a finger or a plastic gun or a stick or Leggos as Betsy notes at another kid and doing the "bang I shot you" routine. If you treat an obvious toy / imaginary gun as though it is real and admonish your child in this fashion, you lose all credibility when you try to tell them how dangerous real guns are. (hmm...mom says don't touch this 9 mm Glock pistol becuase it's really dangerous...but she said that about my left index finger too, so it must just be mom being ridiculous again right?...BANG!) FTA

I think you're right. I never heard it was a problem in Canada before. Given the right wing's obsession with judicial laxity, you would think they would favour a jury to represent the community's will on the subject of guilt or innocence. I think the system should be left in place. I wouldn't be too quick to suggest that there is a right-wing vs. left wing bias regarding juries. After all, the most recent trip to the SCC for Grant Krieger was as a result of blatant jury nullification in the face of him admitting he had trafficked marijuana. R. v. Krieger - SCC I rather suspect that the right wing was not too happy with this jury, nor with the SCC judges. FTA

First off, the vast majority of criminal cases are tried before a judge sitting without a jury. Even fewer civil cases involve juries. Second, I have never heard any defence lawyer I know say that they have elected a jury becuase they can trick them better with smoke and mirrors. If you have a sympathetic client and sympathetic facts you may favour a jury...if you have a complex technical legal defence, you typically avoid a jury. Third, the jury is the best way for our system to be kept grounded...regular people using common sense to apply the law to a set of facts. Every verdict handed down by a jury as opposed to a judge injects a little bit of public confidence in the system. I cannot see any good argument whatsoever to do away with juries. FTA

Sorry, no they dont necessarily on both counts But you aren't denying that both _do_ happen. And that when the do happen the insured is usually shocked because the mechanisms used by private insurers to set rates are extremely opaque. Actuarial formulae may not be easy to understand but at the end of the day they are pretty much math...nothing is being hidden or made opaque. If you have an accident, then you no longer fit in the category with the squeaky-clean guy who has never had one, and therefore, in actuarial terms you are now a higher-risk for a future claim. People with higher risk pay higher premiums...it isn't based on claims made or amounts paid out. FTA

No solvent insurance company in the world is in the business of paying out claims loosely...gov't or private. FTA

My whole point is simply that habeas corpus applications allow a prisoner who feels that their incarceration is unlawful to require the person imprisoning them to justify to an impartial judge that they are in fact doing so legally. This is all nitpicking by lawyers - who, of course, care NOTHING about justice, and everything about their petty, if often insane rules of evidence and law and precise interpretations of minute definitions. People forget that national laws and constitutional protections were never intended to be used with regard to wars fought on foreign shores. As for international law which DOES deal with war, it was never intended to deal with combatants who owe no allegiance to any international body, and whose word can not be relied upon in any way, shape or form to cease combat upon cessation of hostilities. Khadr is not a citizen of Afghanistan, and was not fighting for any national government. So even if the Afghanistan government had surrendered (it has not, it is still in hiding, still engaged in hostilities) Khadr could not be released to them upon cessation of hostilities. Realistically, if released, he would probably immediately seek out similar minded Islamists and engage in continued violence, whether in Canada or Afghanistan or elsewhere. But lawyers don't care about what a person is likely to do, of course. All they'll do is say "Well, he broke no law here, because we don't consider killing the American soldier to be murder, so let him go. If he kills a few dozen people later, in a way we do accept to be murder, well, then the law will deal with him". One solution. Let him live with FTA. No doubt he will abandon all his Islamist ways walk in gay pride parades and become a member of the Liberal party. Or he'll blow up FTA and his family, but hey, then the law can deal with him, right? Argus, God forbid you or anyone you know or care about ever gets mistreated by someone in a position of trust / power / authority...or worse yet ever actually finds yourself wrongfully accused / detained / convicted of something...because you will have nothing but a "nitpicking lawyer" to get you out of the situation. You truly are feeble-minded if you don't understand that rules of evidence and application of the rule of law are concepts designed to protect against abuse. You have an indefensible concept of JUSTICE if what it means to you is completely disregarding law and fairness for someone accused of doing wrong...as long as you are personally convinced based on media reports that the person is guilty. If Khadr is the devil-child you say he is, I certainly don't want him to live in my basement. That being said, if the US government can't implement a fair procedure that sees them present and prove their case against him in a reasonably timely manner, then I say he should be released. Going back to my earlier point, if there is so much clear and cogent evidence of Khadr's guilt, why can't the US government just put him on trial and prove their case? Why would they be afraid of having to answer to a judge in a habeas corpus application? Why have they "accidentally" forgotten to declare him an Illegal Enemy Combatant? Seems to me like a pretty important thing that you wouldn't just forget to do with a horrific murderous terrorist don't you think? Why does a brown guy labelled a "terrorist" suddenly have no right whatsoever to say, "wait a minute...I disagree" before he is locked away indefinitely? From an analysis of procedural fairness / natural justice how is Khadr any different than a Jew in a Nazi concentration camp right now? (Please note...I am making this a procedural comparison...not suggesting that in terms of substantive innocence that Khadr is like an innocent Jewish child). See, Jews in such camps were detained by government officials on charges that they were committing crimes against Germany. No proof ever presented...no valid process / trial / hearing...just allegations. Is Bush the next Hitler? No, I'm not suggesting that at all...and it may very well be that Khadr should ultimately be imprisoned for his actions as a child soldier. What I am pointing out though, is that if you detain someone indefinitely, without following your own laws that purport to permit you to do so, without ever proving your justification for doing so, and indeed you outlaw the centuries old legal procedure that would allow that detainee to challenge his incarceration, then you are giving yourself the same credibility as a gaoler that one would give to the "warden" of a Nazi concertration camp. Follow the law, follow the procedures (designed to prevent arbitrariness) allow people to defend themselves fully, allow detainees to challenge their detention...then prosecute to your heart's content...and then when you convict you do so with credibility, colour of right, and above all with justice. FTA

My whole point is simply that habeas corpus applications allow a prisoner who feels that their incarceration is unlawful to require the person imprisoning them to justify to an impartial judge that they are in fact doing so legally. In the situation of the US and their Guantanamo detainees, they have passed legislation which completely outlaws any court from having jurisdiction to hear a habeas corpus application...which of course means that it is legally impossible for a detainee to challenge the lawfulness of their detention. Now why would any state / government pass such legislation unless they knew damn well that they were unlawfully imprisoning people? I mean, really, if you are only keeping people in Guantanamo in accordance with the rule of law, then why be afraid of those people asking a judge to review the situation? FTA

This is why I have commented in earlier threads that the denial of a detainee's right to make habeas corpus applications is so outrageous. Basically, the US is prepared to unlawfully incarcerate someone, set up a farce for a "hearing" and when they can't even comply with their own simplistic preconditions, just send him back to his cell...indefinitely. How is that not in and of itself a crime against humanity / war crime? FTA

I have a family member (core sample technician) who described her recent time in Ft. Mac. as a literal hell on earth. I have a good friend (welder) who describes his jaunts up there as doing bits of prison time. I was last in the city of Ft. Mac. in 1993, and I have no desire to ever return...especially since I now have children. The quality of life is brutal...which is why the massive salaries...even young invincible male houligans need a reason to subject themselves to horrible conditions. Many oil companies operating up there are establishing settlements in towns in Northern B.C. and flying their workers in and out of Ft. Mac. to avoid having them be subjected to the intolerable living conditions (and because you cannot find a place to live...regardless of cost). Alberta Justice has been trying to hire more Crown Prosecutors for the city for months and months...but can't find anyone willing to sign up, in spite of large relocation bonuses and salary premiums. Notwithstanding the above, I acknowledge that living in an oil boom-town is not for everyone, but for many who are there, it is a way to save hundreds of thousands of dollars in a short period of time and move to a better quality of life later on. I will never work there, but I certainly don't slight anyone who chooses to. Further, I don't see anything wrong with a doctor trying to give fair warning to people on the other side of the country that recruiting propaganda may not be telling the whole story about Ft. Mac. BUT I also don't see anything wrong with the government officials trying to keep constriants on alleged unfair criticism. In my view, if the doctor acted irresponsibly in his comments, then the college should be involved. Similarly, if the doctor was well-founded in his criticisms, then the college should be involved from the perspective of supporting its members who are still battling away in the centre of Alberta's oil-boom. FTA

An update... Court Rules Against Police Chief Victory for openness and transparency. FTA

Thank you Geoff for succinctly putting in two paragraphs the basic issue here. (This forum sometimes works!)I haven't followed this court case closely and most articles seem to focus on innuendo or personality, only mentioning in passing the genuine stakes. (BTW, I'm not so sure that Conrad's shareholders don't have a case but your post at least makes clear what the question is.) I think you have left out one particularly important element Geoffrey...As I understand it, the main complaint is not with the concept of non-compete payments, but rather, with the concept of Hollinger Int'l making non-compete payments to its own corporate subsidiary, Hollinger Inc. (owned by Black). That is, millions of dollars going into Conrad Black's pocket directly in exchange for his promise that Hollinger won't compete with Hollinger. In his position as a fiduciary to both of the companies, Black could not legally and ethically compete with those businesses, so why pay him to not compete when he's already obligated to not compete? That all being said, I think he's going to be acquitted...from what I've seen, Radler's deal was simply too sweet, and he's called himself a liar about 50 times under cross-examination...the jury is going to be confused by all the non-compete stuff and suspicious of Radler...likely means Conrad goes home at the end of the day. FTA

I don't see it as partisan so much as realistic...I'm a conservative supporter generally speaking, and I can hardly argue that the new agreement doesn't owe its existence to the lawsuit filed by human rights groups. That being said, is anyone else concerned by this comment? I mean, evidence of a problem would be convenient wouldn't it? FTA

Check out this link for the Law Society of Alberta Code of Professional Conduct...Chapter 1 deals with the issue of the OP from the perspective of a lawyer. Code of Professional Conduct The following excerpt (particularly the last paragraph) I think does a good job of drawing the distinction between respect for democracy and the administration of justice and respect for any particular law: FTA

I've never before wished we had recall legislation, but I would be prepared to draft up a petition for every single useless, idiotic, pathetic MP to have the whole f-ing house booted for unanimously supporting a Parliamentary investigation into something so mind-numbingly stupid. Shane Doan is a pro hockey player in the public eye...I don't care about how this might affect him (he's a big boy and will deal with it). Similarly, I don't care about how the morale of Team Canada is affected...they are all big boys and will deal with it. I JUST WROTE A MASSIVE CHEQUE TO FINANCE THIS F--KING ASSININE BEHAVIOUR!!!!!!!!!!!!! I think I may reconsider my opposition to joining forces with Freeman Menard... FTA

If I have it right (someone correct me if I'm wrong) the police contact the crown and tell them they think there is a basis for charges. The crown then assesses the evidence gathered and decides whether to proceed. There is also another method available in some cases and that is to for a private individual go lay an 'information' before a justice of the peace, but I don't know much about it. I think I'll PM FTA Lawyer and ask him/her to join us in this discussion. At first instance, the police have a pretty wide discretion to decide whether to lay a charge or not. It's not necessarily proper (i.e. they have a sworn duty to uphold the law, so if they have reasonable and probable grounds to believe an offence has been committed, arguably, they should be obligated to lay a charge) but the practical reality is that it's up to the individual officer (as anyone who has been given a warning for speeding or fighting in a bar etc. would know). Once the police decide to charge, they do up all of the paperwork that compels the person to appear in court (or, if they are not prepared to release the accused, run a bail hearing in front of a JP or provincial court judge) and from that point on, the police have no formal authority to control the charges. The Crown then gets a file and typically has a screening unit review the allegations. The Crown makes its own assessment of whether the prosecution is (1) in the public interest; and (2) has a reasonable likelihood of conviction. If either of these criteria cannot be met, then the Crown will do a number of things like make a plea bargain, divert to alternative measures, enter a peace bond etc. or even just drop the charges outright. At this stage, the complainant / victim and the police have no ability to "drop" the charges...it is simply not their call. That being said, if a Crown is faced with a victim and a cop saying that they don't think the charges should proceed, there will be a pretty high motivation for the Crown to ditch the file. The above procedure applies probably 90% of the time. In some cases which are still relatively rare, the Crown becomes involved at the investigative stage and actually works directly with the police in developing the investigation and directing charges. These scenarios are mostly limited to organized crime / large drug production / child exploitation types of investigations. Hope this helps. FTA

Let me alert you all to a case that I am currently working on by giving you a couple of links to check out. As with other times I have posted about current cases, I will not participate in the discussion or reveal details etc...as I only consider it appropriate for me to make my arguments in the courtroom, not in the media or on a discussion board. That being said, I have authority from my client to bring awareness to his plight, and so I do. For the background... Police Blog (or do a web search of "Taufiq Shah" and "Jack Beaton" and follow the hits) To get a sense of the current situation, listen to the story here (you have to scroll down the page for the story "Public or Not") Radio Interview I am interested to know what people think of the situation. FTA

I'm vehemently against this lightbulb ban...it is totally f--king Easy-Bake Oven sales! FTA

The best way to avoid these problems is a well-trained and well-funded defence lawyer...he / she is the front line of protection against wrongful conviction. My job is to demonstrate the tunnel-vision, dissect the junk science, uncover the prosecutorial or police misconduct. Unfortunately, too many people who spew righteous indignation about wrongful convictions are not willing to stand up for defence lawyers or to commit new funding to Legal Aid. A Legal Aid lawyer getting $600.00 to run a trial is hardly going to be able to provide the same level of "justice" that the O.J. Simpson's of the world can afford. FTA

Call it what you want. To make a long story short: you will refuse to pay taxes. Now, do not get me wrong. Trust me, I believe you are in the right and I will not fault you for refusing to pay taxes. However, your "business plan" is unoriginal. I am sure there are many people who do the same. My suspicion is that their success is a function of how private their highly original plans are kept. I have one question for you: Why the fanfare? While I am at it. This: is a peculiar statement. Do you know something about how police officers operate that we do not know? I certainly am interested to see how FreemanMenard's venture works out. I hope that he will keep us posted. As to the other comment, I only wish that I could tell all of you everything that I have learned / observed about police officer's behaviour in the course of my job. Unfortunately, much of my knowledge is privileged or is otherwise not able to be released due to ongoing matters. I can enlighten you about one particular story where my 19 year old client, born in Afghanistan, lived here since infancy, no criminal record, found himself in the middle of a road-rage induced brawl. He was charged with a multitude of very serious indictable offences including assault causing bodily harm for using his car to run down one of the white combatants. There was no evidence of these crimes mind you, other than the fact that my client's car was indeed at the scene. In fact, eyewitnesses described a completely different set of facts from what the complainants had told the police...but the poor kid was charged anyway. The Crown would later stay the charges after I implored him to actually listen to the audiotape of the interrogation that my client was subjected to. Among other things, the officers screamed at my client that they had a flight waiting to take f--king terrorists back to Guantanamo and that he was going to be on it if he didn't confess to what he had done. They told him that because of him his mom and dad and grandmother (all Canadian citizens) were going to be deported back to Afghanistan, and that they had already spoken to immigration officials in this regard (complete lie). And on it went. Thankfully, my guy managed to maintain his composure and not make a confession. Oh, and plus, the complainants later recanted their bullshit stories and fled the jurisdiction...so actually, my guy was innocent. I also know of a case that the police fabricated a 911 call in order to gain entry to a home that they suspected of being a drug house. It was a drug house, I'll be fair about that, but one officer actually took the lie so far as to describe on the witness stand, under oath how he passed EMS staff leaving as they walked up to the front door. The problem...EMS has some pretty damn good records of where their people are and what they are doing at all times. You can make up a 911 call, but you can't make paramedics who clearly were never there appear out of thin air. Crown stayed these charges literally immediately before the lying officer was going to be forced to explain why there were no EMS personnel ever dispatched to that location, and why he placed his service revolver to the head of the accused's dog and threatened to kill it if he didn't admit that the drugs in the house were his. I've posted on other threads that I will still call the police if I need help, and I accept that most officers are honest and just trying their best to do a very difficult and thankless job. That being said, the number of situations like the above that I keep seeing are on the rise, and it causes me to get pretty critical about police threat / intimidation tactics. That's a small sample of what was behind my comment. FTA

Yes, one regular person to 8 - 12 of theirs the lay person is chosen by them. Have you ever made a complaint to a professional society ? Have you taken their courses on ethics ? From the Law Society of Alberta website: Law Society of Alberta So, for us, it's 5 lawyers for every 1 layperson...and no, we don't get to pick the non-lawyers. And, even if we did, how does that make it a "secret society" when 4 "outsiders" are benchers? FTA

beaten, I have no doubt that you have had a bad personal experience with the justice system...I will never deny you that. The fact is though, that your arguments are simply false. Now, it is true that not every lawyer has the courage to go after other lawyers or "rock the boat" as it were...but that doesn't translate into a conclusion that all lawyers are corrupt and "in bed" with each other or that a $70 million lawsuit is the only thing that can be done or that it will cost "six figures" to ever get justice or hold a bad lawyer accountable for their actions. I am not a big-time lawyer...never had a massive case with national attention (although one currently brewing) and I am not "black-balled". I still routinely get hired by other lawyers to write legal arguments for them for the Court of Appeal. And in fact, the case that I went after the Crown and got my client's bills paid...I was an articling student when that started and a first year lawyer by the end. You hardly need Clayton Ruby or Edward Greenspan to get justice...just someone willing to do what's right. Do I wish more lawyers would do so? Yes. Do I think your comments against the entire profession are well-founded? No. FTA

I suspect Rob is waiting for an answer to his question, if he's still even watching this thread, and just became frustrated by your tactics. By ball do you mean our delusion of being of being free, not above law but sanguine alongside it? The statutes are yours if you want them. Enjoy! "Eternal Vigilance is the price of Liberty" You're either willing to go along with ever increasing restraints on your liberty or you're not. I see many deceptive practices where you don't. I see advantages to political/spiritual separation from the state where you see benefits to sticking with the system. Now what? Were you looking to be fulfilled by a happy ending? Nope, just was a weird way for 12 pages of discourse to end that's all. I don't buy into what you are preaching, but by all means pursue it to your collective hearts' content. I'm not looking to stop you. FTA

OOPS...I apparently didn't see the fact that BOTH of us have the Fair Trading Act listed in our list of practice areas. So, I apologize for the misleading goose-chase I may have sent people on. In any event, if my realizing my mistake only after sideshow chose the "sexy female lawyer" doesn't reveal it, I am in fact, the less-sexy male half of the partnership. FTA