FTA Lawyer

Did the Freemen take their ball and go home? Not that I want to really revive this thread, it's probably played out it's usefulness days ago, but such an abrupt end left me feeling a bit unfulfilled... FTA

Proper management and oversight are the key issues when any public undertaking is involved. Regradless of whether an industry is run by government or by a private owner, the public interest element is not served by the concept of monetary responsibility to shareholders as the only measure of accountability. That is, if government was only expected to provide the least expensive service when it came to prisons, hospitals, schools, police, fire and EMS etc. etc. then we would not receive the quality of service that we expect / desire. Similarly, turning a prison over to a company policed only by its shareholders' profit motive means a huge risk of poor service (like increased recidivism, escapes, inhumane conditions as mentioned above). If we can create a private model with sufficient public audit-type accountability, then I don't see how that is fundamentally objectionable, just because it is privatized. FTA

I perform a particularly public job (even the odd time hitting the nightly news)...and I have represented everyone from police officers to gang members, drug dealers, murderers etc. so my concerns for safety and security are simply unaffected by my true identity being accessible on this board. As to the secrecy of people's on-line identities...don't kid yourself. All it really takes is someone to file a lawsuit against you (naming you as John Doe or even using your screen-name) and the court can order your ISP to turn over your identity...it's way easier than you might think. FTA

Are you the boy lawyer or the girl lawyer? Read the brief bit about each of our practices beside our pictures and you should be able to figure it out...only one of us fits the name FTA lawyer. If you can't decipher it, let me know and I'll come clean... FTA

You okay? What made you fly off the handle? What happened to Mr. Honourable no conflict guy...or have you changed what it means to demand someone identify themselves and then to call them a coward and a punk...have you in fact just told me how much you enjoy my on-line company? See, if I didn't know better ('cause I already wathced your video) I'd think you were a police officer the way you are ranting and attempting to intimidate me. I've been engaging in what I consider respectful dialogue...its why I'm on a discussion board. I'm not even sure what it is you are challenging me to but I have no intentions of engaging you in some kind of battle of the claim of right. I really am surprised by your outburst... Anyway, the issue of anonymity came up in a post well before your time on this board, so I won't hold it against you that you didn't just click on my screen name to find out who I am. Who am I? Not sure where this leaves us...I guess I wait and see. FTA

You are still getting de facto and de jure all f'd up. Explain to me the foundation of your statement that we have de facto courts and de facto governments. How do you suggest that you would have a de jure government, when Black's defines de facto government as exactly what you propose to do: OOPS! Freemen are the de factos! Dammit, you blew it! Oh, but wait, I forgot...all you have to do (because you are a freeman) is just twitch a little, lick your elbow turn around four times and change the definition of the words to what you want them to be! I need to know the context of your "alluded to" comments that you attribute to some Chief Justice, and I need to know the actual words before I can comment...particularly in light of the fact that you interpret the letter from the MP you posted earlier as a ringing endorsement. As to your colour of right issue, the methodology you describe is likely workable, but I fear I don't understand what you are putting up a defense against? FTA

I asked a question and you are all avoiding it. It is a good question and worthy of an answer. How can you know what you receive is a 'benefit' if you have no idea what you traded for it? I await a reply to that question. Anything else will be seen as dishonorable avoidance. Just answer the question.... Bye Why does a benefit have to be traded for something? If my mom walks over and hands me an ice cream cone and keeps walking, what have I traded? Nothing. Have I benefited? I'd say so. I like ice cream. People who say there are no stupid questions haven't hung around Maple Leaf Web lately. FTA

Oh for God's sake, what is with the lunatics claiming lawyers never sue lawyers and it takes six figures to get someone charged criminally?!?!?!?!?! Can we please use, I don't know, reality...maybe mixed with a bit of truth, and even some facts or examples. Here's a link to my website where I've posted a judgment (yes, that's right a judgment, as in already got the order) from a case where I got my client's legal bill paid by the Crown due to the prosecutor's misconduct. CROWN PAYS COSTS FOR NEGLIGENCE Since I know the loons won't read the case, here's a couple of choice bits: Note, the bill was under $10,000.00...not even close to 6 figures, and I'm not a wacko lawyer who just happend to be sh-t ass crazy enough to do something so absurd as to hold a lawyer accountable for their actions. Well, what say the loons? FTA

I thought you had a copy of Black's: de facto = actual; existing in fact; having effect even though not formally or legally recognized de jure = existing by right or according to law Unfortunately, you don't understand the terms...and I'm not trying to be condescending. De facto doesn't mean lawful or unlawful as your ultimatum suggests...it just means in factual existence. Something can be de facto and lawful or de facto and unlawful. The state of lawfulness has no bearing on whether something exists in fact. De jure means lawful...and if something is lawful, it is so whether or not it is the de facto state of affairs. As far as your "vested interest" comment, it doesn't hold water. If your theories were sound and statutes that proscribe criminal offences using the word "person" instead of "everyone" could be ignored, then I'd have a vested interest in adopting your theory (because I could use it to get countless clients out of criminal trouble). Believe me, I'm really trying to see your side of things here...I mean that sincerely. But every time I see you and your colleagues refer to the Charter or the Criminal Code as a source of authority for the concept of a Freeman, I just can't buy that. As much of this banter is now becoming very tiresome, I am going to leave you with a suggestion that a quote from your last post has actually completely blown you out of the non-incorporated body (in the non-personem meaning) of H2O that you have been swimming in: You can't. It's your belief system, so you have no-one to blame but yourself. By your philosophy you as a human being free on the land cannot impose power over anyone...and even if you could, you certainly could not seize it...that requires conflict and violence, two things you very expressly say you never use. Anyway, look, we will simply continue to disagree as to the actual merits of your position. I understand what you are trying to assert, but I've yet to see it done without resort to the very statutes you profess to undermine. If you can show me the path then I'm prepared to acknowledge it...I just haven't seen it yet. I have no desire to turn in my birth certificate and abandon my participation in government...but I won't deny you the opportunity to try to do it for yourself. But, at the same time, don't assert that the reason I don't become a Freeman is because I am part of the "Big Secret" or am a diaper-wearing fool...maybe, just maybe, after having heard you out and considered your arguments, I choose the status quo. FTA

Crown prosecutors have absolutely no different standing in relation to criminal liability than any other citizen. Malicious prosecution is a civil tort (i.e. something you sue for to collect damages) not a criminal act. IF the prosecutor has committed fraud or mischief or obstruction as part of a malicious prosecution, then report them to the Law Society for the issue of disbarment and to the police for the criminal issue. Move on please from this goofy suggestion that Crown prosecutors have complete legal immunity. FTA

Section 15 of the Criminal Code in it's entirety: This one is really quite simple...it says that if you commit an act or omission that would be criminal in Canadian law because you are following the law imposed upon you by the de facto lawmaker (person who in fact is making and enforcing laws even if de jure (in law) they have no right to do so) you will not be convicted of an offence. So, actually, what it says is that because you don't have a choice to refuse to follow the laws being imposed upon you by a person exercising sovereign power, you won't be punished for following a law that would otherwise be considered a criminal act. It's designed to deal with a scenario like where a country is illegally occupied and the victims of such occupation are compelled by law to do criminal things. In Canada, we have an exception to s. 15 to ensure that people can't get away with war crimes or crimes against humanity by relying on this section. From a SCC case called R. v. Finta: Not only do you make up meanings to words, you appear to also just make up meanings to sections of the Criminal Code. FTA

Well, yes...to remind everyone, here is what you said: Here is a page that describes what Crown privilege really is and what it is used for (e.g. to keep national security secrets). Crown Privilege I don't see it the same way you do apparently. FTA

I'm not sure what about my being a lawyer makes the position I took strange... The argument I am making is one designed to simply try and educate the masses of fools who will be swayed by politicians looking to make points with meaningless notions of "tougher gun laws". I fully understand what you are saying about the political element of this issue. As for the plea bargain argument, I can give an example to again try and educate the masses about why "tougher gun laws" will have absolutely no effect. I just resolved a file by a plea bargain where a client was charged with 13 Criminal Code firearms offences. The client had no license and no registration certificates for several handguns and long rifles, and also had a crossbow, tazer, mace, nunchukas, and knives in his home in urban Calgary. One of the rifles was loaded, none of the firearms was trigger-locked or otherwise safely stored and he had a pile of ammunition, some of which was even found in the front seat of his car (and Note, for those who don't know, the tazer, the mace, and one of the handguns were prohibited weapons...i.e. cannot lawfully be owned in Canada AT ALL...the other handguns, and one of the rifles and the crossbow were restricted weapons). The weapons were discovered via search warrant after the same client was charged in a domestic scenario for having assaulted his adult daughter and threatened to harm her (editorial note...these charges were very weak and even suspect whether the daughter had manufactured the situation which is why the deal that was given for them). The client had a criminal record, but nothing of a violent nature (all property related crime). At the end of the day, without much wrangling, the Crown offered to drop the assault and threat charges and have the client sign a peace bond. Further, the Crown offered to reduce the 13 firearms counts to 4 and, in particular, dropped the charge for possession of a loaded firearm which carries a mandatory 1 year jail sentence. The final damage to the client was $2,000.00 in fines (+15% Victim surcharge) and a 1 year weapons prohibition (oh, and the Crown keeps the illegal weapons). Now, sure...some will blame me for this outcome. BUT, the fact is this is what the Crown offered in exchange for not having to suffer the burden of proving its case against my client in a trial. My point is this...if the mandatory minimum sentence for illegal possession of a loaded firearm is raised to 100 years in jail, it doesn't matter when the charge gets dropped. Further, it doesn't matter if legal gun ownership is made more difficult than it currently is...this guy completely and utterly ignored the entire set of firearms ownership laws (and other weapons) even when Alberta just recently ran an amnesty program to allow people to turn in illegal weapons without fear of punishment. And, to restate the obvious, this guy had no problem whatsoever getting his hands on a literal stockpile of illegal weapons. So, it worked out great for my client, but one must ask...WHY when you have needed to have a gun license since 1977 to own ANY firearm lawfully in Canada would the Crown not take a zero tolerance approach to a guy like this who is showing complete contempt for the law? And until the Crown as directed by the Attorney General as directed by the PM decides to actually prosecute offenders with anything more than impotence, I will continue to state that additional gun legislation is MEANINGLESS. FTA

Thats the Googled definition but what is the legal definition in Canada ? What does Crown Priviledge allow Canadian lawyers to get away with ? If you are questioned wrt your role in a crime can you use crown priviledge to get out of it and avoid any responsibility ? I know from dealing with the Law Society Of Upper Canada and many lawyers that lawyers here have a different, magical definition of extortion that is different from what is on google. I'm assuming that its very hard to file a criminal complaint against a lawyer because no one wants to take legal responsibility for it which is why you must be prepared to lay down 6 figures and hire a lawyer even to file a criminal complaint. I assume that the lawyer can invoke crown priviledge, absolving themselves of any responsibility for the crimes committed then sue which ever lawyer filed the complaint for lack of being able to prove the case and therefore false arrest. Seriously, Poly, this is about as weak as you've ever been. The links that show up on the first page alone of the Google search include definitions spelled out by the Supreme Court of Canada, the Federal Department of Justice, and the Canadian Parliament. Is that "legal" enough for you? I guess the trouble is, you'd have to read the definitions and then you'd know what Crown Privilege is and you'd have to stop insinuating that it is some kind of secret lawyer-conspiracy rule that allows us to rape and plunder at our pleasure. The rest of your assumptions are completely absurd and hopelessly wrong. Lawyers questioned about their involvement in a crime have the same Charter rights as any citizen...no more no less. An issue of solicitor-client privilege may arise but that's something that would routinely be worked out by the court. Crown (government) lawyers may be the physical persosn who assert Crown privilege as agents of the state...but the privilege is not theirs personally...it is the Crown's. If a government lawyer is alleged to have committed a crime, Crown privilege cannot be used to protect them from prosecution. Police officers salivate over the opportunity to charge lawyers with criminal offences...perhaps the difficulty you've faced is the lack of a case as opposed to the lack of anyone wanting to take responsibility. In the event that you have to file a private prosecution because the police refuse to do it then, yes, you may have to hire a lawyer...but I charged a steep $6,500.00 for a very complex private information process hearing that I did a few weeks ago...a far cry from "six figures". I can't even find the words to respond to your last paragraph because it has absolutely no foundation in reality. FTA

Your right of course. It's the people who steal the guns from people that follow the gun laws that are shooting people......putting more rstrictions on gun ownership, specifically gun storage and holding gun owner liable for their weapons will make a dent. Okay, per this post and August's last one, I'll restate...illegal guns isn't the only problem...I guess it's more of a duo... 1. Illegal guns and 2. Those who will commit crimes with guns. All of the firearms legislation in the world can't eliminate either. Someone who will commit a gun crime will do so with a registered legal gun or with a piece bought in Mexico off the back of a truck...it doesn't matter to them. What I'm really saying (and have said many times before) is that we have a HUGE net of firearms laws as it is...both regulatory and adopted into the Criminal Code. Effective policing and enforcement of existing laws is not present, so everyone advocates tougher laws...including more restrictions on ownership / access. It's an illogical, mindless, meaningless approach...and it's grossly unfair to the tens of thousands of fully law-abiding gun owners whose weapons are less of a risk to the public than your average foul ball at a baseball game. Really...if I keep my guns in my home in urban Calgary (long rifles...no handguns) and I keep them according to law...THEY ARE SAFE! As I am supposed to do, I keep my gun locked in a safe (or trigger locked or otherwise disabled) unloaded and locked separate and apart from the ammunition. The likelihood of my guns being stolen and used in a crime exists, sure...but is WAY lower than the likelihood of my car being so used. The perpetual call for tougher guns laws is absurd...because we don't even come close to using the very harsh ones that are already on the books. The day I see a client of mine not get offered a deal from the Crown to drop the firearms charges that carry a mandatory 1 year jail sentence in exchange for a plea to other offences and the day I see a judge toss a client of mine in jail for the maximum jail sentence...then...if gun crimes don't slow up...then we can talk about tougher laws. FTA

I promised in another thread to find and reproduce the oath that I took as a lawyer in Alberta. I figured it made sense to put it in a topic of it's own. I'll leave it to someone else to start the discussion based on the content of the oath itself. I, [insert name of lawyer], of the City of [insert place of residence], in the Province of Alberta, do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II her heirs and successors according to law, that I will, as a barrister and solicitor, conduct all causes and matters faithfully and to the best of my ability. I will not seek to destroy anyone's property. I will not promote suits upon frivolous pretenses. I will not pervert the law to favour or prejudice anyone, but in all things will conduct myself truly and with integrity. I will uphold and maintain the sovereign's interests and that of my fellow citizens according to the law in force in Alberta. So help me God. FTA

Poly, I watched the movie, and I agree...it really is something everyone should watch. I will give you that much. I will also admit that I can see the problems that are inherent in a fractional reserve system of money. However, let me pose a question to you. If we were to eliminate money as private debt, would we not all as citizens be forced to vastly reduce our material possessions? I'm pretty sure the answer must be yes. Now, maybe advocates of such monetary reform will say that is the answer to many of our environmental problems including how to reduce greenhouse gasses...I'm not sure. I guess what I'm saying is...in order to be a young professional with a wife and two kids and own a house and two cars and everything else I have...don't I need fractional reserve monetary theory? Otherwise, I could not own any of these things until I was my dad's age and I had already made the money I would use to buy the stuff (rather than use credit). Perhaps the likes of Geoffrey can help me out on this? FTA P.S. I won't accept that this is a BIG SECRET conspiracy...the sheer number of quotes in the movie demonstrate that this issue has been written about by economists, presidents and other thinkers for decades...there is a difference between a massive clandestine conspiracy and an issue that the masses of the population simply ignore through complacency.

Crown privilege is the right of the government and its agents to screw someone over, bankrupt him, jail him, defame him, and get away with it. Who are you people? This same idiotic exchange has happened before...and I direct you to review the response I gave back then...Crown Privilege FTA

FTA...he is saying You are Number One !!! He now loves lawyers. He's had an epiphany! His wit and cunning arguments are simply too much for me (I suck at keyboard-o-graphic art). FTA

This is why we have judicial oversight of Parliament. The government can attempt to put forward whatever law it thinks is a good idea...whether it limits the Charter or not. The courts (and ultimately the SCC) will decide whether that law is "demonstrably justified" or not. That all being said, if a government ever got the courage to use the notwithstanding clause, then it wouldn't matter how unconstitutional the SCC says the law is. FTA

Section 33 is the notwithstanding clause. I think you are a bit confused. FTA

Draconian gun legislation is the "perfect storm" scenario for a whole bunch of repeats of the Mayerthorpe tragedy. The government (non-partisan) has no idea how many tens of thousands of un-registered firearms are out there right now in spite of the registry...in the hands of people who will never use them to harm anyone...but just try to take them away. I'm serious. The cigarette analogy is way off when it comes to rural Canadians. They are far more likely to subscribe to the "out of my cold dead hands" catch-phrase of the NRA. The OP is not an outrageous suggestion for a compromise...but I keep coming back to Geoffrey's sentiment. The people following the law already are the only ones who can be affected by additional laws. Your speeding example has it wrong...it's not that Geoffrey and I say wipe out speeding laws...what we're saying is, making it more illegal to speed isn't going to change anything. Similarly, issuing permits to allow drivers to go the speed limit will not help either. No matter what you do, the problem is illegal guns. Ban guns altogether...illegal guns will be your problem. Allow semi-auto rifles for rural people at home and only gun club ownership for cities...illegal guns will be your problem. What people seem to perpetually fail to grasp is that Canada has one of the most strict regimens for lawful gun ownership...and has had since the late 70's (and earlier for handguns). In practical terms, there's no such thing as lawful gun ownership for personal protection in Canada. Locked in a safe separate and apart from the ammo does you no good if an intruder comes into your house. More cops with more resources on the street is the best way to help reduce these instances of gratuitous gun violence...not more laws to supplement the massive set of laws we already have. FTA

How about telling us everything FTA ? Is this the only promise you make or are there other secret promises ? Are you a representative of the crown ? Secret promises???? I just said I would post the form of oath I took upon becoming a lawyer...here...in public (keeping in mind I took the oath in a public courtroom...being recorded...available for any member of the public to get a copy of). WTF are you talking about???? You ask if I am a representative of the Crown? The simple answer is no. I am an officer of the court and I did swear an oath to Her Majesty the Queen...but I do not have lawful authority to bind the Crown to any legal obligation, and indeed, I am an adversary to the Crown in basically all of the work I do (as I am a criminal defence lawyer) so, again, the answer to your question is no. FTA

You have to go a long way down the road before ever getting to s.33. I've explained on this board many times that the Charter is designed to internally allow Charter breaches...and your question gives me one more chance to explain how that works. The rights and freedoms protected in the Charter are not absolute...and indeed are all subject to "such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society" as set out in s. 1 of the Charter. So, as long as the limit is prescribed by law (i.e. in a written piece of legislation), is imposed for a "pressing and substantial" (i.e. sufficiently important) reason, and the means of the limit are reasonable in proportion to the importance of the objective, then s. 1 "saves" a law which otherwise breaches the Charter. For a limit to be "reasonable in proportion to the importance of the objective" it must be fair and not arbitrary, carefully designed to achieve the objective, and rationally connected to the objective. It must also impair the Charter right as little as possible (i.e. least restrictive alternative) and there must be proportionality between the benefit obtained by the limit as compared to the harm caused to the Charter right being limited. That is the gist of 25 years of Charter law as it relates to s.1 in 3 paragraphs. Obviously, there are all kinds of nuances, but this shows you the general idea. Now, if someone believes that their Charter right is unlawfully limited by a law, they have to challenge the law in court. If the court finds a breach, does the s. 1 analysis above and decides that the breach cannot be saved, then the law has to be struck for being unconstitutional. It is only at this point that a government would need to resort to s. 33 to re-enact a law that has been struck (notwithstanding failure to comply with the Charter). All of that being said, a government could enact a law with reference to s. 33 in a preemptive way, but that is political suicide so it will never happen. So, with all of this in mind, now you can make some arguments about whether the limit to s. 2 should be saved under s. 1 for the law in question. FTA

This deserves several responses. Lawyers in Canada are lower in honour and integrity than crack addicted gutter whores. The profession is self regulated so that we have crack addicted gutter whores regulating the other crack addicted gutter whores plying their wares in the streets (i.e. dealing with the public). On top of this we have non-elected judges who are asked to be judges after being only lawyers and having the requisite 7 years of schooling. Schooling that by the way none can ever fail since you can be severely intelectually retarded and still pass all of the criteria. Lawyering is the easies of all academic studies and requires no intelect at all to master to the point of being called to the bar. A brilliant lawyer is only a crooked and unethical one who is able to main his licence to practice while screwing everyone they can. I now turn to your observation of my painting the entire profession with one very wide and all encompasing brush. This is because the profession has lumped all types of lawyers into one generic term "lawyer" at least in Canada and they all want to be part of that class. It was not always this way and there where distinct legal professionals with different functions. Lawyers, Solicitors, and Barristers. Each has different traning and provided different services to the public. Today their are happy to all be lawyers so let the crap that pours out of one group inundate the whole lot untill they distinguish themselves by breaking up the profession into distinct types. Till then they should all be equally dispised and shat on whenever one gets the chance. Finally, the Judge is not a proper person to be appointed in any legitimate society and should always be an elected possition so that what they do can also be judge by society. This GRAP about men with honour and integrity miraculously getting picked into being Judges for life and that by being above the law and above accountability this is somehow good for society is nothing but HOGWASH. "I cannot accept .... that we are to judge Pope and King (or Judges) unlike other men, with a favorable presumption that they did no wrong. If there is any presumption it is the other way against holder of power, increasing as the power increases. Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility. Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it. " Lord Acton This, on the other hand, deserves very little response. There is no logic, reason, thought, legitimacy, intelligence, or accurate evidence underlying anything you have written. I have defended against your "crack-addicted gutter-whore" comments many times before and you just don't ever come up with anything valid. Are some lawyers bad? You bet. Anymore than some doctors, dentists, accountants, teachers, etc. are bad? Nope. Are there legitimate criticisms of the self-regulation model of discipline? There sure are. Have you made out a single one of them in any comprehensible fashion? Not even close. (Note...lawyers are hardly the only self-regulating profession...is this the deciding factor on whether you are a gutter-whore?) Can we debate the merits of appointing judges versus electing them? Indeed. Can "you" be included in "we" in that debate? Apparently not...you just don't know how to participate in a civil discourse (that's legal speak for talking nicely...and don't worry, I'll eat the bill on that bit of advice) FTA