I submit that the primary definition of the term children means minor offspring as opposed to the word "adults".
B.C. court rules against will that left out daughters
- Thread starter Praxius
- Start date
I submit that the primary definition of the term children means minor offspring as opposed to the word "adults".
So you as a fellow debater obviously consider what you consider is more valid than what I consider? :lol: Having more seniority than you some circles may consider what I consider may be more valid than what you consider. :lol:
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. :lol:
The Supreme Court doesn't step in, they have to be petitioned, and they were. The decision 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.
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.
Not after 19 years they didn't. Grasping at straws? or demonstrating flaws in the legal system?
Hey Cliff- Wake up, I need some help here. :lol::lol::lol:
You might have that right! :lol: The legal system misunderstands a lot of things. If there are flaws in one area of expertise, wouldn't it be prudent to expect there may be flaws in another area? :smile:
So, what I'm hearing, essentially, is that four daughters who were forced to work for him as slave labour, sued his estate for compensation for that fact. No surprise. The ruling is no shock. The wording might bug some people (overturning the will), but if they had simply sued the estate and won compensation I doubt anyone would take major issue with it.
Hold on Karrie- four daughters? Sounds to me like possibly one and the remote possibility of a second one, although I'm not convinced "forced" is quite the correct term. There's one thing that I guess everyone agrees on - the guy was a complete hateful A$$hole. I'm afraid that what is happening here is just another precedent for being able to overturn wills after the testator has expired. A lot of semantics also enters into this argument. Anyway glad to see another sensible mind enter the fray. :smile:
Sounds like you think it's OK for the legal system to f**k things up (and rule on it) as long as they get it right eventually. :smile:
Sounds like this case may not be over yet..............
.Court overturns man?s will on moral grounds..........
Forced?
What, they didn't have two legs and a heartbeat to walk the hell out of there? They didn't call child services if they were being abused?
Forced as Slave Labour? Bit of an emotional stretch if you ask me...... My dad forced me to mow the lawn when I was a kid.... was that slave labour?
Hardly. I know the legal system will fu¢k things up...that's why we have an appeals process. Though strangely I think you're one of those who also support capital punishment. So you think it's OK to wrongfully execute someone? I doubt it, and I won't do likewise to you and suggest such a ludicrous thing.
That's your problem, Ton, you take a case and ASSume it applies to all cases. I would suggest that capital punishment MAY be good in 1 or 2% of all murders. Can I ASSume that you think it's perfectly good that WE support Paul Bernardo and Clifford Olson in prison for decades at possibly a total expense of $1 million each? :smile:
Where did I say it was OK to wrongfully execute anyone? I've always considered myself a "common sense" sort of guy, whereas you appear to rate "knowledge" above common sense and wisdom.
I know it's a bit of an emotional stretch in your view. But frankly, I've read your view, and I've read the judge's view, and I trust the judge to know the case a bit more clearly than you do.
No I don't. I assume that you'll read the actual decision before you start yapping about the law, but I guess that makes me an @ss for assuming you'd actually inform yourself before pronouncing what is right, just, lawful, etc.
Right, and there is no such thing as 100% proof positive of guilt. That is your assumption, and your problem.
You can, but you'd be wrong again. That doesn't appear to impede you though.
You didn't. In case it wasn't clear, I was returning to you a courtesy you won't give me. You have no problem pronouncing what I seem to think. Food for thought old fart.
Ooooooooh Oooooooooooooh Karrie - Trust Judges???????????? You haven't been around court rooms much. About 30 years ago I was hit from behind by a guy who was following too close, as the the other driver and I had totally different versions of what happened it ended up in civil court. The perpetrator was dressed in a suit and brought his gorgeous wife (to support him, but she wasn't with him when the accident occurred) whereas I just went to court straight from fishing (probably had fish guts and blood on me) The f*****g judge took one look at him and one look at me and heard his side of the story and ruled me 70% to blame. That, Karrie, is an actual example of a judge in B.C. Maybe in Alberta (I hope so) you have wiser judges. :smile: For anyone interested the Judge was Judge Robert Metzger, just in case anyone is confused about his esteemibility.
Last edited:
I never said I trust the judge to be RIGHT... I said I trust the judge to know more about the case than Prax does having read a news article. Presumably he knows a bit more about what went on in the lives of those women than you me or Prax do.