While that is a compelling argument, after careful consideration, I'd have to say I agree with your pov. Just cuz.
BC Lawyers Have Exempted Themselves From Federal Money Laundering Laws!
- Thread starter wizard
- Start date
While that is a compelling argument, after careful consideration, I'd have to say I agree with your pov. Just cuz.
In 2004, the law society developed the No Cash Rule, which stops lawyers from taking cash of $7,500 or more from clients on one matter. The rule augments long-standing law society rules that stop lawyers from taking part in illegal activity or from being unwittingly involved in money laundering and terrorist financing.
... the above quote is totally false. a lawyer won't accept a payment of more than $7,500.00 from a client??? absolute crap. i've personally been billed lump sum amounts well in excess of $7,500 by lawyers. they lie about everything. this rule is not being enforced by the legal profession ...
... the bar rarely enforces misconduct against its membership ...
... the above quote is totally false. a lawyer won't accept a payment of more than $7,500.00 from a client??? absolute crap. i've personally been billed lump sum amounts well in excess of $7,500 by lawyers. they lie about everything. this rule is not being enforced by the legal profession ...
... the bar rarely enforces misconduct against its membership ...
Last edited:
Your patently false claim aside...
So have I, but if you note the word "cash", you might understand. Cheques leave a paper trail. Cash not so much.
... maybe you can explain to everyone how some unenforceable law society rule can possibly prevent a crooked lawyer from accepting a cash payment from someone. the rule is simply not enforceable ...
... i'd bet ten grand right now that the rule HAS NEVER been enforced by the law society of british columbia and it never will be ...
Lawyers have rules of conduct, if they are found in breach of them, they can, will and have been disbarred.
Well, since you seem so sure, and it is your claim and all. Perhaps proving that claim is in order.
I'm more than willing to change my tune if you actually do.
... oh sure, the guilty lawyer who's accepting dirty cash for money laundering purposes is going to report HIMSELF to the law society. get real, dude ...
How so? If I don't pay cash, then there is a record of a transaction. A simple audit is all that is required to obtain that info but since that information alone does not tell the feds about the reasons for the relationship, I see no infringement on the solicitor client privilege.
Ummm, I'll site this as a matter of fact, that you don't.
Like I said, have a good read...
2001BCSC1593
After reading through this thread there are a few point I have to comment on.
1- The only things needed to qualify as a judge should be a clean record and common sense. The 'finer points of the law' are mere loopholes and have become a huge detriment to actual justice in our justice system. Laws should be applied as written, not interpreted and open to personal points of view.
2- A crooked lawyer will have no problem taking a large sum of cash and falsifying documents etc to hide the fact.
3- It is only necessary for the lawyers to give the name of their clients if there is a large cash transaction, which is illegal, therefore the attorney/client privilidge is preserved without having the BCSC strike down the law.
4- The ultimate law of the land is The Magna Carta! This document forms the basis of all common law in the commonwealth and as clearly stated in article 63 of the document is is perpetual and cannot be changed by any written rule or law that comes after it.
http://www.constitution.org/eng/magnacar.pdf
1- The only things needed to qualify as a judge should be a clean record and common sense. The 'finer points of the law' are mere loopholes and have become a huge detriment to actual justice in our justice system. Laws should be applied as written, not interpreted and open to personal points of view.
2- A crooked lawyer will have no problem taking a large sum of cash and falsifying documents etc to hide the fact.
3- It is only necessary for the lawyers to give the name of their clients if there is a large cash transaction, which is illegal, therefore the attorney/client privilidge is preserved without having the BCSC strike down the law.
4- The ultimate law of the land is The Magna Carta! This document forms the basis of all common law in the commonwealth and as clearly stated in article 63 of the document is is perpetual and cannot be changed by any written rule or law that comes after it.
http://www.constitution.org/eng/magnacar.pdf
That's why I hope to see this case heard at the SCC.
No arguments there. It's not as if every profession doesn't have scumbags.
You should read the link I gave to cannuck.
Umm, no. The supreme law of Canada is, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The Statute of Westminster 1931, gave Canada the authority to say so.
Hell, even Britain has a Constitution (Albeit, unwritten).
Which part of perpetuity do you not understand. The statute of westminister, and everything else after the magna carta cannot change what was granted in it. Really, did forever end in 1931?
Oh brother, another one.
The Magna Carta is a basis of Law. Hell it was the basis of Law in the US too.
You might want to actually read the Magna Carta. Read up on what it is, and then come back to the thread.
The supreme Law of Canada is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
I really don't care if you can't/won't understand that.
Last edited:
Just as a small correction it is The Consolidated Constitution Acts that form the accepted supreme law of Canada. Not just the charter.
Now a couple of legal technicalities...
The current Canadian Constitution was a royal proclamation and never ratified by referendum of the people so is questionable to a lot of scholars.
We still hold the rightful holder of the Crown of England as our head of state, parliament is authorized by her and all legislation requires her approval, so we are under the rule of the heirs of King John. This would mean the Magna Carta should still apply. Particularly article 12 regarding taxation of the people and article 40 regarding having to pay fees for our rights and for justice.
I didn't concede anything. I agreed the CCA is generally accepted as the supreme law by those who don't know better. Did you read the rest of my post or were you too excited by taking the the apparent concession out of context?
Yes you did. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, is the supreme law of the land, not the Magna Carta (Unless you want to argue semantics). As I have told you several times now.
The consolidated acts of 1867 and 1982, simply made it so.
The rest of your post was irrelevant.
I see you're in your usual form Bear. Take things out of context and twist them a bit to match your viewpoint and ignore anything else. Keep up the excellent standards of trolling my friend.
I didn't twist anything. The facts are what they are. The Charter is the supreme law of the land. The consolidated acts made it so.I see you're in your usual form Bear. Take things out of context and twist them a bit to match your viewpoint and ignore anything else. Keep up the excellent standards of trolling my friend.
I only ignored the irrelevant crap you want to discuss, that is not germain to the conversation.
If you want to discuss the Magna carta, or semantics, start a thread.
Why is it I get accused of trolling when I simply state the facts of the matter?