BC Lawyers Have Exempted Themselves From Federal Money Laundering Laws!

[damngrumpy]

It true the lawyers merely manipulate the laws that are written. The court enforces the
laws that are enacted by governments. In addition someone said they wish the judges
were elected. No thanks, we would have American style justice with all the strings
pulled by special interest groups other than lawyers. Especially groups like the moral
majority, which was never the real majority.
I find it surprising that there is such a large loophole here though.

 

[CDNBear]

I find it surprising that there is such a large loophole here though.

If you are referring to the exemption. It isn't that big a loophole. It's rather small actually, quite specific, and it's not a loophole. It's a true breach of our Charter rights, IMHO.

If one were to read the courts decision that I posted earlier, one would see what the CBA were arguing agaisnt. And why the BCSC decision, was in their favour.

 

[Cannuck]

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.

He is the master troll on this forum. The funniest is when he uses a legal argument against a statement based on ethics and then uses an ethical argument against statement based on the law. The funny part is that I don't think he realizes he is doing it. I think he actually believes he is a great debater.

 

[TenPenny]

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.

A clean record and common sense won't help. Consider the thread on polygamy; many of the posters on this forum cannot grasp the fact that 'polygamy' does not automatically mean one man with multiple wives, child brides, etc etc. Now imagine if those people were judges. No wonder we have to be careful in selecting judges to simply rule on the application of law as written, many people cannot understand the written word.

 

[PoliticalNick]

A clean record and common sense won't help. Consider the thread on polygamy; many of the posters on this forum cannot grasp the fact that 'polygamy' does not automatically mean one man with multiple wives, child brides, etc etc. Now imagine if those people were judges. No wonder we have to be careful in selecting judges to simply rule on the application of law as written, many people cannot understand the written word.

I can agree that some minimum standard of education be prerequisite and there should be some type of testing to ensure we don't get any morons or wingnuts but it should not be a requirement to have been a lawyer. In fact lawyers should be barred from being judges....and politicians.

 

[CDNBear]

He is the master troll on this forum. The funniest is when he uses a legal argument against a statement based on ethics and then uses an ethical argument against statement based on the law. The funny part is that I don't think he realizes he is doing it. I think he actually believes he is a great debater.

Awww, are you not getting enough of my attention again?

You know you don't have to make things up to get my attention eh?

ETA: This is where you should be posting your emotional tear filled posts...

Crying Thread


http://forums.canadiancontent.net/members-lounge/103454-crying-thread.html

 

[Cannuck]

I can agree that some minimum standard of education be prerequisite and there should be some type of testing to ensure we don't get any morons or wingnuts but it should not be a requirement to have been a lawyer. In fact lawyers should be barred from being judges....and politicians.

I think Preston Manning was on the right track when he suggested that the first section of any new law should state the purpose of the law and how the effectiveness of the law is to be measured. Take the gun registry as but one example. Had we actually had a clearly defined purpose and a means of measuring results, we wouldn't still be arguing about the effectiveness of the bill.

That is the biggest issue I have with how our laws are implemented. There doesn't seem to be any clear goals. While we don't necessarily have to remove lawyers from the process, we should definitely include people that aren't lawyers.

 

[wizard]

I can agree that some minimum standard of education be prerequisite and there should be some type of testing to ensure we don't get any morons or wingnuts but it should not be a requirement to have been a lawyer. In fact lawyers should be barred from being judges....and politicians.

... well said! brilliant post!

... i know i'm going to get shot to smithereens by the resident sniper on this board named cdnbear for responding to this topic, but you thank you for your excellent opinion ...