Legal advice? That' ll be two Rhode Island reds per hour
Toronto Star - Ontario, Canada ... their farms to power of sale or having debt-collection problems, and they needed legal advice," said Cooper's grandson, James Morton, a Toronto lawyer. ... <http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ncl=http://www.thestar.com/News/article/552441> James Morton 1100 - 5255 Yonge Street Toronto, Ontario M2N 6P4
Very sensible piece from today's Times. I am often amazed at the comments made by American prosecutors before a trial; fortunately we don't see that type of misconduct in Canada (or at least I've never seen it!). By BARRY COBURN
Published: December 13, 2008
Washington
LOST amid the understandable clamor over the charges against Gov. Rod Blagojevich of Illinois are questions raised by the pretrial public comments about the case by the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald.
Prosecutors have a special place in our criminal justice system. The American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct note that a “prosecutor has the responsibility of a minister of justice and not simply that of an advocate,” and therefore owes a “special duty” to the court.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has emphasized that “a prosecutor has a special duty commensurate with a prosecutor’s unique power, to assure that defendants receive fair trials.” Another United States Court of Appeals has observed that “prosecutors sometimes forget that the prosecutor’s special duty is not to convict, but to secure justice.”
There is no question that these principles extend to public statements, particularly in high-profile cases that engender public interest and press coverage. The obvious risk is that a prosecutor’s statements outside the courtroom, particularly statements that pillory a defendant, will taint the pool of prospective jurors and make it less likely that a defendant can receive a fair trial. For this reason, and also because it is fundamentally fair to do so, courts limit the prerogatives of lawyers, particularly prosecutors, to make public statements about pending cases.
The court in which Mr. Blagojevich is charged, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, has a local rule mandating that a “lawyer shall not make an extrajudicial statement the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is likely to be disseminated by public media and, if so disseminated, would pose a serious and imminent threat to the fairness of an adjudicative proceeding.” The rule goes on to say that a public statement “ordinarily is likely to have such an effect when it refers to” a criminal matter and to “the character or reputation of the accused, or any opinion as to the accused’s guilt or innocence, as to the merits of the case, or as to the evidence in the case.” The American Bar Association’s model rules are similar, if not more restrictive.
Against this backdrop, it is hard to feel comfortable with Mr. Fitzgerald’s remarks in announcing the charges that Mr. Blagojevich’s conduct amounted to a “political corruption crime spree” and “would make Lincoln roll over in his grave,” that “the breadth of corruption laid out in these charges is staggering,” that Mr. Blagojevich “put a ‘for sale’ sign on the naming of a United States senator” and that his conduct was “cynical” and “appalling” and has “taken us to a truly new low.”
Any prosecutor at the center of a firestorm of publicity may find the temptation to grandstand hard to resist, but these comments are, to put it mildly, remarkably inflammatory. Mr. Fitzgerald’s expressions of revulsion, use of hyperbolic rhetoric and implicit assertion of his personal belief that the charges have merit clearly run afoul of the rules. It is one thing for a prosecutor to publicly condemn a defendant’s actions and assert a belief that he did what he is charged with doing after a trial and conviction, but another to do so before he is indicted by a grand jury.
Of course, editorial writers, pundits, bloggers, voters and anyone standing by a water cooler talking to anyone else are free to characterize Mr. Blagojevich or his conduct as they see fit, limited only by the remote risk of being sued for defamation.
But Mr. Fitzgerald is a prosecutor, a highly regarded, powerful and well-known one. His public characterizations of the charges against the governor will stick in the public mind. They will remain in the public arena, on the Internet and in the memories of citizens who, one day, may be summoned for jury duty in Mr. Blagojevich’s case.
This is not to express an opinion, one way or another, about Mr. Blagojevich’s guilt or innocence. But he is entitled to a fair trial, and it is hard to escape the conclusion that such a trial has become less likely as a result of these public remarks by this otherwise very competent and effective prosecutor.
In 1935, in a case read by virtually every law student since, the Supreme Court issued an eloquent statement of the special role of prosecutors:
“The United States attorney is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. As such, he is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law, the twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. He may prosecute with earnestness and vigor — indeed, he should do so. But, while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one.”
As able a courtroom lawyer as Mr. Fitzgerald is, he — indeed, all prosecutors — might consider limiting pejorative characterizations of a defendant to open court, after the jury is in the box.
Barry Coburn, a lawyer, is a former federal prosecutor.
U.S. and Canadian governments say they will ride to the rescue of the beleaguered Detroit auto makers, hoping to head off a catastrophic collapse of Chrysler LLC or General Motors Corp. that would cascade throughout the North American economy. Ottawa and Ontario will provide an estimated $3.4-billion to the Canadian units of the Detroit Three, while U.S. President George W. Bush will throw a $14-billion (U.S.) lifeline to their parent companies. Federal Industry Minister Tony Clement called a hastily arranged news conference Friday night to announce the Canadian aid package. "The seriousness of the situation dictates that we be here this evening," Mr. Clement said. The dire situation auto makers face was underlined Friday when GM announced massive cuts in production in January. Honda Motor Co. Ltd. also said it will trim output, but by a smaller amount than GM. Mr. Clement would not provide a specific figure, but he said the amount of money in the Canadian bailout represents this country's one-fifth share of the Detroit Three's North American vehicle production and on Canada maintaining that percentage. "Clearly, this amount of money is meant to be, as the U.S. is finding out, a way to keep the doors open for the domestic auto sector while they continue their long-term planning," he said. However, he stressed that the support package would reflect the interests of taxpayers and is contingent upon the auto makers working with their unions and parts suppliers on a long-term solution for the sector. It's also conditional on a U.S. deal coming together. "This is an existential moment for the auto industry," Mr. Clement added. "Is this industry going to exist in any capacity two years from now, five years from now?" Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty ironed out the details of the Canadian plan during a one-hour meeting Friday afternoon in Mr. Harper's office in traffic-choked downtown Ottawa. Ontario will contribute a portion of the funding, one source said. A senior Ottawa source noted the U.S. government must change the $700-billion (U.S.) Troubled Assets Relief Program to make it apply to auto makers. Ottawa expects the Americans to take several days to finalize a deal. Just hours after Senate Republicans killed a $14-billion (U.S.) bailout late Thursday, Mr. Bush made it clear he considers GM, Chrysler and Ford Motor Co. too big and too vital to the economy, to be allowed to fail. "The current weakened state of the economy is such that it could not withstand a body blow like a disorderly bankruptcy in the auto industry," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said. Chrysler and GM are in the most serious straits, warning that they could run out of sufficient cash to operate their businesses by the end of this month or early in January. A bankruptcy by one or both of them would create an auto industry cataclysm, likely taking down the healthiest Detroit company – Ford – and sending hundreds of suppliers into bankruptcy as well. One think tank estimated 3 million jobs in the United States alone would be vaporized. About 110,000 Canadians, mainly in Ontario, work for the Canadian units of the Detroit Three and for parts companies. Mr. McGuinty has expressed concerns that the sector is facing further job losses because, as he said, no amount of aid to the companies can make up for the fact that Americans are buying fewer cars.
Criminal jury addresses can be problematic especially if defence counsel wishes to refer to the dangers of a wrongful conviction. Recently the Court in R. v. Horan, 2008 ONCA 589 set out guidelines for what can, and cannot, be said in such addresses. The Court held:
1. A passing reference to the potential of wrongful conviction in any criminal case is not beyond the bounds of legitimate argument. For example, reminding the jury that they stand between the accused and the state to prevent the conviction of an innocent accused or that their responsibility is to protect persons from the possibility of a wrongful conviction is well within the bounds of legitimate argument.
2. Ordinarily, a reference to the history in Canada of demonstrated wrongful convictions will not assist the jury in their task. The jury is to reach its verdict on the evidence adduced in the case before them. In particular, defence counsel should not overstate the problem of wrongful convictions. For example, there is nothing in our legal history to support the suggestion that there has been a “parade” of wrongful convictions as a result of complaints by drug users, which essentially was the submission made by defence counsel in this case.
3. Counsel ought not to refer to specific cases such as the wrongful convictions of Guy Paul Morin or Thomas Sophonow or attempt to draw parallels with those cases. The circumstances that led to the miscarriages of justice in those cases were complex and multifaceted. Those circumstances will almost inevitably be quite different from the circumstances of the case the jury must deal with. For example, the wrongful convictions in Morin and Sophonow were the result, in part, of a particular type of unreliable witness, jailhouse informants. To refer to specific cases by name simply risks introducing irrelevant considerations and may draw counsel into giving evidence.
4. In eyewitness identification cases it is not improper for defence counsel to refer to the fact that there have been wrongful convictions because of mistaken eyewitness evidence.
Today’s decision in R. v. Lane, 2008 ONCA 841 applies those rules and, arguably, takes them further. It will be a rare case where a reference to the history wrongful convictions in Canada is proper:
[88] The appellant raised several other grounds of appeal with respect to the conviction upon which we did not find it necessary to call upon Crown counsel to respond. I wish, however, to comment on one of those grounds. In his closing address, defence counsel in an exhibition of unacceptable rhetorical excess, told the jury, “the penitentiaries of this country are littered with innocent people who are in jail solely because of shoddy or corrupt police investigations.” In response to counsel’s remarks, the trial judge commented in his final instructions on miscarriages of justice involving the prosecution of Guy Paul Morin, Donald Marshall and David Milgaard. This is what he said:
You are required by your oath of office to consider the evidence in this case, the submissions of counsel and my instructions to you. If, after diligently doing so, you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the defendant, you must return a verdict of guilty against him. To decline to return a verdict of guilty if you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of the guilty of the defendant because of the miscarriages of justice in other cases would be an improper step on your part.
[89] This court in R. v. Horan 2008 ONCA 589, held that reference in a jury address to a parade of wrongful convictions outside a relevant context such as eye-witness identification risked inviting the jury to take into account irrelevant and imaginary dangers. Further “the invitation to avoid convicting so as to not add to the list of wrongfully convicted is a form of intimidation that can be compared to the timid jury instruction”: see para. 67. Those comments are of particular application to this case. The trial judge’s instruction was necessary and free of legal error.
End of the road for Studebaker leaves 648 jobless was the bleak headline in the Toronto Star on March 5, 1966, the day after word broke in Hamilton that Studebaker was dead.
The article went on:
"Company officials said the decision to close and sell the Hamilton plant, which has produced all Studebakers manufactured since 1963, was made because the car would not sell ...
"Studebaker's 411 hourly, 200 salaried and 37 field workers in Canada learned of their impending discharge by notices placed on bulletin boards at the Hamilton plant at 3:20 p.m. Most workers who were on shift left the plant in stunned silence after reading the notice."
Also affected were the 125 Studebaker dealers in Canada and 450 in the U.S.
But the news didn't come as a total surprise, for Studebaker had been in financial trouble since the mid-1950s.
In 1963, U.S. production was halted and shifted to the firm's Canadian plant in Hamilton.
Studebaker began making carriages in South Bend, Ind., in 1852, switching to cars in 1902.
A Canadian plant opened in Windsor in 1910.
Studebakers were popular throughout the '20s, with the firm usually finishing among the top 10 auto makers. But once the Depression struck, the brand struggled, halting auto production in Canada in 1936.
After World War II, Studebaker was the first on the market in 1947 with modern, post-war designs. It shifted Canadian operations from Windsor to Hamilton, taking over what had once been an Otis
The last Studebaker, a Cruiser, rolled off the line in Hamilton in March 1966 - and is now on display at the Studebaker museum in South Bend, Ind.
A publicity photo of the 1953 Studebaker Commander Regal Starlight Coupe.
JIL MCINTOSH FILE PHOTO
A 1950 Studebaker Champion, with its bullet-nose front end. Below, a 1963 Studebaker Avanti, a name that some former Studebaker employees later revived - about 150 are still made each year
Elevators factory and a wartime munitions plant.
Studebaker sales declined in the early '50s as competitors brought out redesigned models.
In 1954, Studebaker merged with Packard, another small firm that had seen better days. But neither brand prospered.
Losses mounted, and the Packard name disappeared in 1958.
Studebaker sales surged in 1959, when it introduced the compact Lark, beating out the Big Three with a small car.
(The only other North American compact was the American Motors Rambler.)
But GM, Ford and Chrysler responded in 1960 with their own compacts — the Corvair, Falcon and Valiant, respectively — and Studebaker’s sales steadily slid.
In 1960, hard hit by rivals' range of models, Studebaker began diversifying into such non-automotive fields as home appliances, electric generators, fuel additives, garden tractors and plastics.
But by 1963, losses were $113 million and climbing. The automotive side had lost money every year since the merger with Packard, except in 1959, thanks to the Lark. In the final year in South Bend, Studebaker lost $25 million making cars.
Meanwhile, the non-automotive areas were showing profits.
The decision was made to shut down auto production in South Bend and consolidate operations in Hamilton, where wages were lower and the foreign exchange rate meant a 7 to 8 per cent advantage.
The Hamilton plant had been turning a profit and quality was considered a notch above the South Bend products.
Continued production in Canada spared the company a payout to dealers of up to $60 million for breach of contract.
For its final two years, the Studebaker was billed as "Canada's Own Car."
The Hamilton plant built 8,190 cars in 1963 and, operating solo, 17,614 in 1964. Production hit 18,433 the next year, of which 12,429 were sold in the U.S. and the rest in Canada, reflecting the brand's greater popularity here per capita — we have always favoured smaller, more economical vehicles than Americans do.
Another factor was the national pride involved in buying a made-in-Canada product.
The City of Hamilton bought Studebakers for use by civic officials. Studebaker loaned Miss Dominion of Canada, Jane KmitaHolubik of Regina, a new 1964 Studebaker Daytona convertible to drive during her reign.
In the U.S., the Canadian-made Studebakers were billed as the "Common Sense Car" — a good slogan for a firm that could no longer afford to make annual styling changes.
With lower overhead, Studebaker's Hamilton operation earned a small profit, but not enough to satisfy the board of directors of the U.S. parent company. Hence, the fateful shutdown announcement of March 4, 1966.
Studebakers, in their final years, failed to sell for several reasons. Styling was conservative, and a full range of products was lacking.
And Studebakers had an image problem, being associated with low-income, middle-aged people at a time when the first baby boomers were starting to drive.
As losses mounted and market share shrank, potential customers were scared off because they wondered whether Studebaker would survive.
The last Studebaker — a blue-and-white Cruiser — rolled off the assembly line in Hamilton on March 17, 1966.
This makes sense -- giving money to the Big Three when the US isn't is just a bad idea -- it is just throwing away money:
TORONTO — Federal Industry Minister Tony Clement said Ottawa is looking at providing aid to auto parts makers and car dealers, even if the U.S. government refuses to bail out the Detroit Three auto makers.
But Mr. Clement signalled it was unlikely the federal government would bail out the major auto makers in the absence of the U.S. deal, even as Canadian Auto Workers president Ken Lewenza urged Ottawa to do exactly that.
Chances of an election or coalition government are fading fast ...
Harper, Ignatieff hold budget talks
Tories describe face-to-face meeting as 'cordial and businesslike'; Liberals say PM must put forward 'credible economic plan'
STEVEN CHASE
Globe and Mail Update
OTTAWA — Prime Minister Stephen Harper met his new rival Michael Ignatieff this morning to talk about the future of Canada's deadlocked Parliament.
Government officials declined to divulge specifics about the get-together between Mr. Harper and the new Liberal Leader, except to say it took place in Ottawa's Langevin block, where the Prime Minister's main office is located.
"It was a cordial and businesslike meeting," Mr. Harper's director of communications, Kory Teneycke, said. "As the Prime Minister has previously stated, he welcomes the specific input of the opposition on the budget."
The Liberals said there were no concrete proposals at Friday's half-hour meeting.
The automaker bailout in America has failed. The sticking point was wages and a demand that auto workers accept parity with Japanese based manufacturers' US wages. The UAW refused.
The demand was really more symbolic than anything else. Wages add about $900 per vehicle and cutting them substantially would not do much to assist the manufacturers. What is more problematic is pensions and benefits -- medical plans. These add vast costs and these were not, it seems, to be cut. In Canada our social system relieves much of this burden.
That said, it may be the UAW miscalculated in refusing to take a cut. GM is hinting at bankruptcy and may go in before Christmas.
All this is making the Federal and Provincial governments here look very wise indeed. A Canadian bailout without a matching US bailout would simply be tossing away money. The delay here is a lifesaver -- unless a bailout is still forthcoming here (surely not?).
Regardless, it will be tough times ahead in Ontario's autocentred towns like Oshawa.
James Morton
1100 - 5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
This 'activist' suggests he was just paraphrasing Deuteronomy in calling for an 'extreme burning' of the judge. Well, legally that's not much of a defence -- if I use a threat of violence it's a threat of violence even if it's violence as described in the Bible. (And certainly the Bible's got lots of colorful violence to choose from).
GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. - A community activist who ran for Congress from prison, where he had been sent for warning that a judge could be tortured by God, can post bond while he appeals his conviction, an appeals court has ruled.
After being convicted and sentenced to probation in 2007 for paying people to vote in a Benton Harbor recall election, Edward Pinkney wrote an article in a small Chicago newspaper saying the judge who handled the case could be punished by God with curses, fever and "extreme burning" unless he changed his ways. James Morton 1100 - 5255 Yonge Street Toronto, Ontario M2N 6P4
The argument, simplified, is that the premium rates were unrelated to actual insurance needs, and were not set by Parliament. Thus, the premiums were a tax, because they were not related to a service provided, and the tax was not set by Parliament. Since all money bills, or taxes, within the federal power, must be set by Parliament, the rates sought were unconstitutional.
There is still scope to argue under the old Constitution.
See below for some of the decision
[79] Thus, following those statutory amendments, premiums no longer constituted a regulatory charge within the meaning of Westbank and Connaught. Rather, they became a levy on payrolls and wages. They were transformed into a tax. If this is the case, the Attorney General of Canada argues, the tax was validly imposed pursuant to Parliament's general taxation power under the Constitution Act, 1867.
[80] The scope of Parliament's taxing power is well known. Parliament may tax by any means. However, if a levy is a tax, it must be imposed in accordance with the Constitution. Section 53 of the Constitution therefore poses a problem.
K. Violation of Section 53
[81] The Constitution Act, 1867 provides that Parliament alone has the power to impose a tax and that the legislation must originate in the House of Commons:
53. Bills for appropriating any Part of the Public Revenue, or for imposing any Tax or Impost, shall originate in the House of Commons.
[82] This Court has confirmed that s. 53 reflects the ancient, but fundamental, principle of our democratic system that there should be no taxation without representation: Westbank, at para. 19, and Connaught, at para. 4. According to this principle, a tax can be imposed only by Parliament or a clearly authorized delegate of Parliament (J. E. Magnet, Constitutional Law of Canada (9th ed. 2007), vol. 1, Federalism / Aboriginal Peoples, at p. 626). ... [87] Iacobucci J., writing for a unanimous Court, noted that the delegation of the imposition of a tax is constitutional if the legislation provides expressly and unambiguously for the delegation. The delegation of the imposition of a tax is constitutional if express and unambiguous language is used in making the delegation. The animating principle is that only the legislature can impose a new tax ab initio. But if the legislature expressly and clearly authorizes the imposition of a tax by a delegated body or individual, then the requirements of the principle of "no taxation without representation" will be met. In such a situation, the delegated authority is not being used to impose a completely new tax, but only to impose a tax that has been approved by the legislature. [Emphasis added; para. 74.]
[88] According to Professor Hogg, it would be difficult to interpret Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Assn. as relating to the delegation of control over the details and mechanism of taxation (at p. 14‑8), since "that phrase was never referred to". Yet Iacobucci J. had quoted the relevant passage from Eurig (para. 71 of Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Assn.). The position taken by the Court in Eurig therefore remains valid. According to it, the taxing authority of Parliament or of a legislature may not be delegated unless that body clearly and unambiguously expresses its intent to delegate the authority. ... [92] In short, in this case concerning employment insurance, only Parliament may impose a tax ab initio. According to this Court's decisions, taxing authority must be delegated expressly and unambiguously. Once this requirement is met, the delegate may exercise the power to establish the details and mechanisms of taxation.
[93] The relevant provisions of the Employment Insurance Act must therefore be examined to determine whether, as in Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Assn., they are consistent with the principles laid down in this Court's decisions. The provisions in question, ss. 66.1 and 66.3, do not state that Parliament is delegating taxing authority to the Governor General in Council. The nature of the levy remains ambiguous. It is unclear whether Parliament still considered that it was exercising the authority to impose a regulatory charge in enacting those provisions. At the time Parliament delegated the power to collect employment insurance premiums to the Commission and the Governor General in Council, the legislation contained no statement either that its purpose was to collect a tax or that Parliament's taxing authority was being delegated to the Governor General in Council. The delegation concerned a charge that was no longer a levy for specific purposes but had become a levy for general purposes with the meaning of Westbank, but it was not specified in the Act that Parliament intended to delegate its taxing authority as such. Parliament would have had to state that it was delegating that authority to the Governor General in Council. Owing to the ambiguous nature of the levy, whether Parliament intended to delegate its taxing authority remained uncertain.
[94] I accordingly conclude that the version of s. 66.1 of the Employment Insurance Act that applied in 2002 and 2003 is invalid. This means that employment insurance premiums were collected unlawfully, without the necessary legislative authorization. The same conclusion must be reached as regards the version of s. 66.3 that applied in 2005 and the premiums collected that year. In the circumstances of this case, which involves the improper exercise of a power conferred on Parliament, I would suspend the declaration of invalidity to allow the consequences of that invalidity to be rectified. I would dismiss the appellants' other claims and affirm the judgments of the Court of Appeal and the Quebec Superior Court with respect to them.
Now this is funny -- government restraint at it's best!
WASHINGTON (AFP) - Hillary Clinton will have to accept less pay than her predecessor as secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, to avoid running foul of an obscure provision in the US Constitution.
Congress late Wednesday adopted a measure to award Senator Clinton, president-elect Barack Obama's nominee for the top diplomatic job, a salary of 186,600 dollars -- 4,700 dollars less than Rice's pay now of 191,300 dollars.
No member of Congress can take a job in the executive branch if that post saw a salary increase during their term, according to Article One, Section Six of the Constitution.
Therefore, Senator Clinton cannot become secretary of state without reverting to Rice's pre-January 2007 salary of 186,600 dollars.
Provided she is confirmed by the Senate, the former first lady will still be taking home more than she earns now as a senator for New York -- 169,300 dollars.
A joint resolution fixing the pay irregularity passed through the House of Representatives and Senate on Wednesday and now awaits the signature of President George W. Bush.
My Lord, I have consider'd in my mind The late demand that you did sound me in.
KING RICHARD III
Well, let that pass. Dorset is fled to Richmond.
BUCKINGHAM
I hear that news, my lord.
KING RICHARD III
Stanley, he is your wife's son well, look to it.
BUCKINGHAM
My lord, I claim your gift, my due by promise, For which your honour and your faith is pawn'd; The earldom of Hereford and the moveables The which you promised I should possess.
KING RICHARD III
Stanley, look to your wife; if she convey Letters to Richmond, you shall answer it.
BUCKINGHAM
What says your highness to my just demand?
KING RICHARD III
As I remember, Henry the Sixth Did prophesy that Richmond should be king, When Richmond was a little peevish boy. A king, perhaps, perhaps,--
BUCKINGHAM
My lord!
KING RICHARD III
How chance the prophet could not at that time Have told me, I being by, that I should kill him?
BUCKINGHAM
My lord, your promise for the earldom,--
KING RICHARD III
Richmond! When last I was at Exeter, The mayor in courtesy show'd me the castle, And call'd it Rougemont: at which name I started, Because a bard of Ireland told me once I should not live long after I saw Richmond.
BUCKINGHAM
My Lord!
KING RICHARD III
Ay, what's o'clock?
BUCKINGHAM
I am thus bold to put your grace in mind Of what you promised me.
KING RICHARD III
Well, but what's o'clock?
BUCKINGHAM
Upon the stroke of ten.
KING RICHARD III
Well, let it strike.
BUCKINGHAM
Why let it strike?
KING RICHARD III
Because that, like a Jack, thou keep'st the stroke Betwixt thy begging and my meditation. I am not in the giving vein to-day.
BUCKINGHAM
Why, then resolve me whether you will or no.
KING RICHARD III
Tut, tut, Thou troublest me; am not in the vein.
Exeunt all but BUCKINGHAM
BUCKINGHAM
Is it even so? rewards he my true service With such deep contempt made I him king for this? O, let me think on Hastings, and be gone To Brecknock, while my fearful head is on!
Christy Clark on January 7th, 2007, wrote on her blog (www.christyclark.ca) the following:
Stephen Harper wants to elect senators.
The Senate is a powerful institution. It can block or send back any legislation coming from the Commons. But the number of seats B.C. gets in the Senate is wildly out of whack.
Changing the Senate is a tricky thing. You can’t do it without opening and rewriting the Constitution. No one who remembers the Meech Lake debate wants to do that.
Harper says he has come up with a way to avoid all that ugliness.
He won’t open the Constitution. He won’t change the Senate, and he won’t give any province new seats. He’ll just have general elections for senators and appoint whoever wins.
Ms. Clark was quite correct -- that's what Stephen Harper said he'd do. Whether that's the right approach or not can be argued but he certainly did not follow through.
Facing the loss of power after the New Year, Prime Minister Stephen Harper plans to fill all 18 vacancies in the Senate before Christmas.
Of course, if Prime Minister Ignatieff appoints Senators I will won't complain; but he didn't promise Senate elections... .
Today's decision in Clarke v. Insight Components (Canada) Inc., 2008 ONCA 837 holds that a clear contract limiting several to the minimum statutory amounts is binding.
This is an important victory for employers.
The relevant contract clause upheld provides:
Termination of Employment – Your employment may be terminated for cause at any time in which event you shall be entitled to only the amount of your salary and vacation pay earned up to the effective date of termination. Your employment may be terminated without cause for any reason upon the provision of reasonable notice equal to the requirements of the applicable employment or labour standards legislation. By signing below, you agree that upon the receipt of your entitlements in accordance with this legislation, no further amounts will be due and payable to you whether under statute or common law.
Under Canadian law a forced sale is probably voidable and not void. That means that the person forcing the sale does not have a right to keep the items taken but a bona fide purchaser for value gets good title. The situation is made even more complex where the forced sale is made by a State -- it looks more like an expropriation than a theft. Now, the Nazi grab of paintings across Europe (the famed Rape of Europa) was so clearly not a legitimate governmental action that restoration is not really problematic. But what about pieces taken in less obviously improper ways? Should the Elgin Marbles be returned? The question is non-trivial.
Two paintings stolen by Nazis returned to Montrealer's estate
JAMES ADAMS
From Thursday's Globe and Mail
Two paintings belonging to the late Montreal art dealer Max Stern that were stolen by the Nazis just before the start of the Second World War were returned yesterday to his estate at a ceremony in Berlin.
One of the paintings - Flight from Egypt, attributed to the circle of 16th-century Dutch master Jan Wellens de Cock and formerly in the collection of German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer - was unveiled at the event. The second, Girl from the Sabine Mountains by the 19th-century German court painter Franz Xaver Winterhalter, was not shown.
However, the estate confirmed the Winterhalter was in its possession after the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston, in a landmark decision last month, ordered its previous owner, Baroness Maria-Louise Bissonnette of Rhode Island, to return it to Mr. Stern's trustees. It's expected both paintings will be lent to Canadian art galleries for exhibition.
Yesterday's restitution is the latest victory in a continuing attempt by the Max Stern Art Restitution Project, started in 2002 at Montreal's Concordia University, to locate and claim more than 400 artworks that once belonged to Mr. Stern or his family. In a little more than two years, five of those artworks have been successfully reclaimed by the estate, two of which are now on loan to the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts. Another 30 or 40 Stern paintings have been located in public and private galleries, mostly in Germany, Austria, the Netherlands and the United States, and negotiations are under way to have some of them returned.
Girl from the Sabine Mountains was taken from the late art dealer Max Stern in Germany in 1937. He came to Canada in 1941.
Mr. Stern, who died in Montreal in 1987, came to Canada in 1941. Six years later, he became the owner of the Dominion Gallery in Montreal. He'd been forced to flee his native Germany in late 1937, shortly after the Nazis coerced him into selling more than 220 artworks from his Dusseldorf dealership to a Nazi-approved auctioneer in Cologne. Other works were forcibly consigned or confiscated in the following three or four years.
I read an interesting survey yesterday about who takes public transit in Canada. It seems to be heavily skewed towards youth and low income people. I suppose that makes sense -- people without cars take buses.
But what was more interesting was that higher income people, even in the urban centres, tend never to take public transit.
I pondered this on the subway downtown today.
Squeezed into the subway car I recalled how, 15 years ago, the ride from Finch Station, Toronto to downtown was reliably 30 minutes but is now, unreliably, 45 minutes. I thought how the bus system is often late, cramped and seldom pleasant. Then I realized that but for habit I'd probably drive downtown every time.
There is a serious structural issue in the subway north of Sheppard -- it's being addressed by work (you can see it on Yonge just north of Finch) but repairs are taking away from potential subway expansion.
Yesterday Toronto's mayor said transit fares would not go up this year. I suppose that's good; people are hurting and a fare increase would be hard. But the system is already grossly overcrowded and underfunded. Perhaps other urban centres are better but my sense is not.
Well I better finish this post; I'm being jostled by the crowd.
James Morton
1100 - 5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
With thanks to Louise Harris for pointing this out:
So, what have we learned in two thousand years?
"The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance." (Cicero, 55 BCE)
The increasingly awful story from Chicago about Obama's replacement seems to emphasize that politics and funding must be transparent. The story below suggests that, beyond mere bribery (bad enough), a component in the Senate seat for consideration story was the ability to raise campaign cash. We in the Liberal Party were badly hurt by funding problems -- that's why the initial reforms by Jean Chretien made sense (I think they went too far but that's opinion). We need to keep funding open so everyone can see how much (and from where) political contributions are. (nb, the Jackson here is the son of the civil rights leader and not the civil rights leader)
WASHINGTON — Federal authorities on Wednesday identified Democratic Representative Jesse Jackson Jr. of Illinois as the potential United States Senate candidate who was portrayed in court papers made public Tuesday as being the most deeply enmeshed in the alleged scheme by Gov. Rod Blagojevich to benefit from his appointment of a new senator to the seat vacated by President-elect Barack Obama.
In a brief decision released earlier this month the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Lacroix, 2008 SCC 67 reaffirmed the rule that circumstantial evidence, standing alone, will lead to a criminal conviction only where there is no other reasonable explanation for circumstances proven.
The Court held:
The issue is whether the guilty verdicts entered by the trial judge are unreasonable. We agree with Chamberland J.A.’s conclusion in dissent that [translation] “[t]he circumstantial evidence has so little weight that it was unreasonable to convict the appellant of the assault on L.V.”
In dissent below Chamberland J.A. wrote:
[34] Dans R. c. Charemski et R. c. Cooper, la Cour suprême enseigne qu'en présence d'une preuve uniquement circonstancielle, le juge du procès doit être convaincu hors de tout doute raisonnable que la culpabilité de l'accusé est la seule conclusion logique ou rationnelle.
What is surprising is that the story below appears to be a repeat of the Julius Melnitzer case from London Ontario about twenty years ago.
It seems that Dreier was selling forged promissory notes and buyers accepted them because of his position as a leading lawyer. This is almost exactly the same as the Melnitzer case (well, he had forged securities and was borrowing against them but that's much of a muchness).
The only significant difference is that Dreier was working for much higher stakes and never had any hope of recovery -- Melnitzer could, in theory, have gotten away with it had things panned out perfectly (not that they ever do)
Dreier law firm in turmoil after founder's arrest
Wed Dec 10, 2008
By Martha Graybow
NEW YORK, Dec 10 (Reuters) - The arrest of high-profile New York lawyer Marc Dreier for investment fraud has "had a neutron bomb-like effect" on his 250-attorney firm, with lawyers quitting and the law practice overdue on its rent and other bills, according to court papers.
Dreier LLP also has discovered that millions of dollars appear to be missing from client escrow accounts, firm controller John Provenzano said in a sworn statement filed by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, which is seeking to freeze the assets of Dreier and his firm.
Pursuant to section 54-3(a) of the Liberal Party's Constitution, following Mr. Dion's resignation, the National Executive, in consultation with Caucus, was entrusted with the responsibility of appointing an interim Liberal Leader.
This decision comes at an historic time for Canada. Our Interim Leader will be called upon to lead our Caucus and our Party through a volatile Parliament, and a possible federal election in the midst of the worst economic crisis in memory. For this reason, the National Executive opted to take the unprecedented step of expanding the consultations to include members of the Liberal Party's Council of Presidents, as well as past candidates and Commission club presidents.
These consultations revealed an overwhelming consensus in favour of one individual and the National Executive has now reflected on the consultations it has undertaken.
As such, I am pleased to announce that the National Executive has voted unanimously to appoint Michael Ignatieff as Interim Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada.
While this is the case, it is important to remind Canadians and Liberal Party members that the Leadership Convention to be held in Vancouver from April 30 to May 3, 2009 will continue as planned.
