Like it or not, we now live in a society that is completely different from when these laws
were written. Not only has the law changed but more and more, we find the moral and
mental fabric of society has changed. It was once considered a persons last will was the
departing statement, the last act of life as it were. Today we live in a society that now
believes in democracy when it is convenient, all too often people have principles that change
like the flavour of the month.
I agree the person writing the will sounds like an idiot, but the truth is a will and testament is not
to be considered a reward for service given, it is a gesture of a last act of love for one's family.
In this case the family sounds very dysfunctional to say the least. I cannot imagine a parent who
would behave like this toward his children. It is this toxic lifestyle that permits one to die early
as holding in these negative feelings has got to poison your system.
Should the judge be able to simply overturn a will under these circumstances? The answer is
yes because we are no longer living in a world that once existed a few decades ago, right or
wrong we are all victims of the world of law that together we have created either by being part
of the demand for change, or the silence of principle, that allows change to happen without a
measure of debate.
If one wants to avoid this whole will constesting, courts, lawyers, and greddy b*stard relatives, just do this simple thing. SPEND IT ALL! Cash in all your investments, RRSPs etc., and go on all the vacations you want. Have properties? SELL THEM OFF! Use the cash from those and get a decent apartment and stay there till you kick the bucket. No courts, lawyers, will contesting, and whatnot. There you go, you just beat the system.
That is of course if you want to do it this way.
No, not really...word to the wise JLM, there's a reason that smart people retain the services of legal professionals. Lawyers know for instance that legal definitions aren't related to which entry a definition of a word falls under in a general use dictionary....
You have to remember we are dealing with the decision one judge here and while his decision may be binding, it doesn't mean it was just or even sensible.
I defy you to find me a law anywhere (even something contrived by that Trudeau idiot) that states a man has to provide for his progeny after his demise.
I submit that if the Act meant "progeny" it would have stated "progeny".
So when you hear the word "children" you immediately think of people in their 50s? I say bullsh*t.
Well, if an 80 year old senior citizen says 'my children', then yes, I would expect them to be in their 50s.
You are suggesting that the most obscure meaning of the word 'children' is human beings that you have raised and cared for, either adopted by or conceived by you? That's what you consider 'most obscure'?
There is where your entire argument breaks down (just another case of a person being given authority because he/she learned some stuff out of a book) Chief Justices have stood by while the likes of David Milgaard and Paul Morin languished in prisons for years.
Held: The accused's continued conviction constitutes a miscarriage of justice. It is recommended that the conviction should be quashed and a new trial ordered.
While there is some evidence which implicates the accused in the murder, the Court is satisfied that the fresh evidence presented at the hearing, particularly as to the locations and the pattern of sexual assaults committed by a convicted serial rapist, constitutes credible evidence which taken together with the evidence adduced at trial could reasonably be expected to have affected the jury's verdict. The continued conviction of the accused would amount to a miscarriage of justice if an opportunity was not provided for a jury to consider the fresh evidence. This Court therefore advises the Minister of Justice to quash the conviction and to direct a new trial under s. 690(a) of the Criminal Code. It would be open to the Attorney General for Saskatchewan under the Code to enter a stay if that course were deemed appropriate in light of all the circumstances. However, if a stay is not entered, a new trial proceeds and a verdict of guilty is returned, then the Court would recommend that the Minister consider granting a conditional pardon to the accused with respect to any sentence imposed.They did not stand by. You're grasping at straws now.
The Supreme Court doesn't step in, they have to be petitioned, and they were. The decision (external - login to view) in Milgaards cases was:Held: The accused's continued conviction constitutes a miscarriage of justice. It is recommended that the conviction should be quashed and a new trial ordered.
They did not stand by. You're grasping at straws now.
Hey Cliff- Wake up, I need some help here.
Not after 19 years they didn't. Grasping at straws? or demonstrating flaws in the legal system?