PDA

View Full Version : CFO's immune to prosecution for disregarding a court order



Shalimar
07-21-2014, 08:30 AM
CFO's immune to prosecution for disregarding a court order

For a brief update on the latest lunacy within our bantario courts and wyatt's BS:



http://rfb.s3.amazonaws.com/Rights-a...tin-No-183.pdf


But no worries.. Daniel (Cyclone) and I have been at this for years and are not giving up the fight!
(And the few others that got off their asses and are involved as well of course)



This is a copy of what I posted at CGN btw here: http://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum/showthread.php/1102980-CFO-s-immune-to-prosecution-for-disregarding-a-court-order

There is already a bunch of replies there for those that can access it and see some more details etc.

Curly1
07-21-2014, 12:42 PM
Is Cyclone going to submit the 2 addresses as stated in the conditions of the original order and try again or is this a dead issue? PS the link was busted for me.

harbl_the_cat
07-21-2014, 02:10 PM
CFO's immune to prosecution for disregarding a court order

For a brief update on the latest lunacy within our bantario courts and wyatt's BS:



http://rfb.s3.amazonaws.com/Rights-a...tin-No-183.pdf


But no worries.. Daniel (Cyclone) and I have been at this for years and are not giving up the fight!
(And the few others that got off their asses and are involved as well of course)



This is a copy of what I posted at CGN btw here: http://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum/showthread.php/1102980-CFO-s-immune-to-prosecution-for-disregarding-a-court-order

There is already a bunch of replies there for those that can access it and see some more details etc.

Broken link:


http://rfb.s3.amazonaws.com/Rights-a...tin-No-183.pdf

Flashpoint
07-21-2014, 04:41 PM
Both links are still broken... what's going on? Can you sum it up?

IJ22
07-21-2014, 10:01 PM
http://rfb.s3.amazonaws.com/Rights-and-Freedoms-Bulletin-No-183.pdf

Shalimar
07-31-2014, 09:42 AM
Sorry for the delay.. I had subscription settings not set right (ugh)

All of the bulletins can be found here:

http://bulletin.rightsandfreedoms.org/download/

and that includes #183

88 louie
09-01-2014, 02:43 PM
I am not surprised at all. I've known for years of this 2 tier system. LEO's & politicians do whatever they want at the financial expense of the public.

Strangeday
09-01-2014, 03:31 PM
You know in places like Libya and Egypt when the oppressed rose up against the oppressors its guys like the those that were untouchable that felt the hangmans noose first

Lee Enfield
09-01-2014, 03:40 PM
Of course there always has been a two tiered system however hopefully the attitude of the CFO's will cost them much of their power when new legislation comes thru. Who knows maybe it will cost them their jobs as well, we can always hope.

Foxer
09-01-2014, 08:39 PM
Hold on a minute, I'm a little confused by the facts mentioned.

I looked up the original case being appealed:
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2013/2013onsc6937/2013onsc6937.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQASRGFuaWVsIE UuIEJhbG9mc2t5AAAAAAE

It would seem that the CFO is NOT refusing to obey a court order according to this judge.

As it says:


On that date, following several earlier hearing dates, Khawly J. ordered the CFO to issue an authorization under s. 19 of the Firearms Act to Daniel Balofsky permitting him to transport firearms in his vehicle. The CFO is willing to comply with Justice Khawly’s order, but only if that transportation authorization is made subject to the conditions that the CFO and the Crown claim that Khawly J. stipulated in his reasons. Khawly J.’s reasons for judgment are actually reported, and they can be found sub. nom. R. v. Balofsky, [2012] O.J. No. 6212. However, the applicant claims that order was made without conditions, and that the CFO has committed an offence by failing to issue the firearms transport authorization unconditionally.

So.. crown says there are conditions, CFO says there are conditions, judge apparently documented that there are conditions in court, CFO will issue based on those conditions.

But Daniel says there's no conditions, and wants to sue based on that. And this is due to a lack of conditions being written on the order.

BUt as the judge says:


Even if the final order does not reflect it, however, a review of the transcript from that last hearing plainly shows that Justice Khawly's order was intended to be subject to the conditions he referred to and described during the course of stating his reasons. As I have noted, those reasons are reported. Indeed, and ironically given what Mr. Balofsky claims Khawly J. decided, in the decision two months ago in Henkel v. Ontario (Chief Firearms Officer)[3], Justice Leitch of this court refers to that particular reported decision of Justice Khawly and two others[4] as demonstrative of “the repeated refusal of the Ontario Court of Justice to grant expansive ATT requests.”

I can see why daniel is arguing his point - but it seems pretty obvious that the judge intended for there to be conditions as recognized in the act, and that the judge considering the private prosecution did not feel the CFO was refusing to issue the document as intended by the judge.

This isn't a case of 'one law for cops one for us', this is a dispute about the interpretation of the decision. The CFO is willing to issue based on his interpretation of the decision, one that the judge considering the private case seemed to agree with.

It sounds like the original judge decided that the att should be issued with conditions and dropped the ball on the paperwork, and Daniel is trying to exploit that mistake (Can't blame him, I probably would have taken a swing at it myself).

But you're misrepresenting what's happening here. The CFO is willing to abide by the court order, he believes the court ordered the ATT with conditions and he will issue it as such. Daniel is arguing that there should be no conditions, and the judges who are reviewing the case don't buy that.

I still think wyatt is being a total douche, but it would seem that he got shot down from the beginning and is trying to stretch a point of law, not that the CFO is ignoring a court order.

Kudo's to him for taking the fight to the courts in the first place, and bravo for his determination in fighting it. We need more like him, willing to go to bat win or lose.

But... c'mon, you're completely misrepresenting what happening here at this point. He lost, he got a 'free throw' based on a judges mistake, and it didn't pan out.

IJ22
09-01-2014, 09:23 PM
Cyclones house.
All approved ranges in Ontario.
All licensed gunsmiths in Ontario.
All border crossings.

If I'm not mistaken that's essentially what cyclone sought. It also clearly meets the condition of at least two locations. Were there more conditions I'm not aware of?

Foxer
09-01-2014, 09:30 PM
If I'm not mistaken that's essentially what cyclone sought. It also clearly meets the condition of at least two locations. Were there more conditions I'm not aware of? Well certainly that was the argument, but it would appear the judge disagreed and the CFO is not required to interpret it as 'two or more' locations if they don't want to.

The judge in his ruling appears to have been quite clear that the CFO was within the bounds of law to require two specific locations only.

So when considering whether or not the cfo is disobeying a court order (rather than just being an unmitigated jerk) it would seem that he is not. Daniel based his claim that he was on the lack of additional documentation on the court order specifying this, but as the three subsequent judges seem to have agreed the trial judge was clear that he did expect their to be conditions and that the CFO's interpretation is valid.

IJ22
09-01-2014, 10:42 PM
three subsequent judges seem to have agreed the trial judge was clear that he did expect their to be conditions and that the CFO's interpretation is valid.

Somewhere I got the idea that the condition was that there be at least two locations, but in reviewing the transcripts that may have been hearsay, I don't see it there. The dialogue in the reason's for decision are muffled and unclear, I'm not sure what the conditions (if you accept for the sake of argument that conditions based on reason's for decision are even "a thing") even are. In going over it it almost seems like the judge was suggesting there be one named club to which cyclone need not have a membership, but from which he would not be turned away as a guest, and at least one named gunsmith or verifier. I don't think the judge really quite understood what a verifier is.

Anyway if you could summarize and cite for me what the conditions were exactly that would be great. :)

I'm still of the mind that the court order is ultimately all that should matter, and clearly it demands that cyclone be issued his LTATT "as sought".


http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd220/wallstuff4/CourtOrder-1_zps98a2d7b0.jpg

Foxer
09-02-2014, 12:43 AM
Somewhere I got the idea that the condition was that there be at least two locations, but in reviewing the transcripts that may have been hearsay, I don't see it there. The dialogue in the reason's for decision are muffled and unclear, I'm not sure what the conditions (if you accept for the sake of argument that conditions based on reason's for decision are even "a thing") even are. In going over it it almost seems like the judge was suggesting there be one named club to which cyclone need not have a membership, but from which he would not be turned away as a guest, and at least one named gunsmith or verifier. I don't think the judge really quite understood what a verifier is.

Anyway if you could summarize and cite for me what the conditions were exactly that would be great. :)

I'm still of the mind that the court order is ultimately all that should matter, and clearly it demands that cyclone be issued his LTATT "as sought".


http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd220/wallstuff4/CourtOrder-1_zps98a2d7b0.jpg

Sure,

Reading further, It seems to hinge on section 19 of the act:

19. (1) An individual who holds a licence authorizing the individual to possess prohibited firearms or restricted firearms may be authorized to transport a particular prohibited firearm or restricted firearm between two or more specified places for any good and sufficient reason, including, without restricting the generality of the foregoing,

The bold is mine - and the key there is 'may' be. It goes on to list examples of 'good and sufficient' places such as gun ranges, etc.

The challenge is that the determining authority is (you guessed it) the CFO apparently.

The law goes on to say it's not allowed to posses the items where authorization hasn't been granted, etc etc.

So the basic restrictions are that you may not transport the gun to any location without permission, and that except for defense of life or instruction of others etc it has to be somewhere that has a 'good and sufficient' reason as determined by the cfo. The CFO can decide that there is not good and sufficient reason for him to pack that gun all over the province.



I'm still of the mind that the court order is ultimately all that should matter, and clearly it demands that cyclone be issued his LTATT "as sought".


And obviously that was daniel's argument - but reading the document you posted it doesn't say "as sought" unless the type is too small for my monitor and i missed it.

It appears to say - grant a license, certificate, authorization or approval sought. Its clearly designed to be a catch all. It doesn't say 'as sought', which I read to mean that either the person is asking for a license, or they're asking for a certificate, or authorization, OR approval sought, whatever the case may be. As what is being asked for is authorization (specifically authorization to transport) the judge has ordered that the cfo provide an ATT, not 'approval sought' which would obviously be anything other than the first 3. It doesn't say "Authorization as sought". And obviously if it meant approval of the att, there'd be no point in mentioning the ATT in the first place, you could just have approval as sought.

The CFO is indeed prepared to offer authorization. So it would appear that technically he's in compliance.

There is possible room for interpretation, so obviously the three judges who looked at it after turned to the judges' remarks and felt that it was clear he did not intend to grant an att for everywhere, but rather to 2 places.

Now this does make sense - a judge is going to be reluctant to step on the authority that the law gives the CFO's as long as the letter of the law is being kept. The CFO has no reason to deny an att - but he does get to decide where the att is good for in the interests of public safety. (because we all know if Daniel was allowed to he'd drive around willy nilly with machine guns shooting up pre-schools).

I have to say, looking it over the original law suit was at best a bit of a long shot with a low probability of success. Of course, 20/20 and all that. Good on him for trying, but it was reaching.

The second case tho, Refusal to comply - he was dead in the water from the get go. That was just fishing. Remember - the other judges were not allowed to consider whether or not the original decision was correct, only whether or not it had been complied with. And obviously they felt it had. And reading it - I have to say it does appear that way. I haven't looked at the original trial transcript but if three judges read it that way AND given the language of the order, Wyatt is in compliance as much as i hate to say it. He's still a male donkey's wiener tho.

Shalimar
09-02-2014, 07:54 AM
Sure,

Reading further, It seems to hinge on section 19 of the act:

19. (1) An individual who holds a licence authorizing the individual to possess prohibited firearms or restricted firearms may be authorized to transport a particular prohibited firearm or restricted firearm between two or more specified places for any good and sufficient reason, including, without restricting the generality of the foregoing,

The bold is mine - and the key there is 'may' be. It goes on to list examples of 'good and sufficient' places such as gun ranges, etc.

The challenge is that the determining authority is (you guessed it) the CFO apparently.

The law goes on to say it's not allowed to posses the items where authorization hasn't been granted, etc etc.

So the basic restrictions are that you may not transport the gun to any location without permission, and that except for defense of life or instruction of others etc it has to be somewhere that has a 'good and sufficient' reason as determined by the cfo. The CFO can decide that there is not good and sufficient reason for him to pack that gun all over the province.



And obviously that was daniel's argument - but reading the document you posted it doesn't say "as sought" unless the type is too small for my monitor and i missed it.

It appears to say - grant a license, certificate, authorization or approval sought. Its clearly designed to be a catch all. It doesn't say 'as sought', which I read to mean that either the person is asking for a license, or they're asking for a certificate, or authorization, OR approval sought, whatever the case may be. As what is being asked for is authorization (specifically authorization to transport) the judge has ordered that the cfo provide an ATT, not 'approval sought' which would obviously be anything other than the first 3. It doesn't say "Authorization as sought". And obviously if it meant approval of the att, there'd be no point in mentioning the ATT in the first place, you could just have approval as sought.

The CFO is indeed prepared to offer authorization. So it would appear that technically he's in compliance.

There is possible room for interpretation, so obviously the three judges who looked at it after turned to the judges' remarks and felt that it was clear he did not intend to grant an att for everywhere, but rather to 2 places.

Now this does make sense - a judge is going to be reluctant to step on the authority that the law gives the CFO's as long as the letter of the law is being kept. The CFO has no reason to deny an att - but he does get to decide where the att is good for in the interests of public safety. (because we all know if Daniel was allowed to he'd drive around willy nilly with machine guns shooting up pre-schools).

I have to say, looking it over the original law suit was at best a bit of a long shot with a low probability of success. Of course, 20/20 and all that. Good on him for trying, but it was reaching.

The second case tho, Refusal to comply - he was dead in the water from the get go. That was just fishing. Remember - the other judges were not allowed to consider whether or not the original decision was correct, only whether or not it had been complied with. And obviously they felt it had. And reading it - I have to say it does appear that way. I haven't looked at the original trial transcript but if three judges read it that way AND given the language of the order, Wyatt is in compliance as much as i hate to say it. He's still a male donkey's wiener tho.

The law states that a reference hearing found in favor of the applicant removes the choice from the CFO since the judge has issued a court order to the CFO to issue the document sought. The CFO no longer has any authority to not issue it nor to add any conditions to it. You need to look at the original application form as well as the order issued for this.

Since the CFO is still trying to "add conditions" etc he is NOT in compliance with the court order and has deliberately tried everything to ignore it.

Shalimar
09-02-2014, 08:00 AM
Somewhere I got the idea that the condition was that there be at least two locations, but in reviewing the transcripts that may have been hearsay, I don't see it there. The dialogue in the reason's for decision are muffled and unclear, I'm not sure what the conditions (if you accept for the sake of argument that conditions based on reason's for decision are even "a thing") even are. In going over it it almost seems like the judge was suggesting there be one named club to which cyclone need not have a membership, but from which he would not be turned away as a guest, and at least one named gunsmith or verifier. I don't think the judge really quite understood what a verifier is.

Anyway if you could summarize and cite for me what the conditions were exactly that would be great. :)

I'm still of the mind that the court order is ultimately all that should matter, and clearly it demands that cyclone be issued his LTATT "as sought".


http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd220/wallstuff4/CourtOrder-1_zps98a2d7b0.jpg

There was no other "home" address.. but it was to all approved ranges, clubs, verifiers, gun smiths and border crossings. The specification of a specific club is not required since the word ALL is used on the application form. That is utilizing the same legal wording that has been used by the CFOs / CFC for years therefore it cannot be confused for anything else. Contrarry to the BS wyatt tried to pull in court and was called on it (more than once)

Foxer
09-02-2014, 08:41 AM
The law states that a reference hearing found in favor of the applicant removes the choice from the CFO since the judge has issued a court order to the CFO to issue the document sought. The CFO no longer has any authority to not issue it nor to add any conditions to it. You need to look at the original application form as well as the order issued for this.

Since the CFO is still trying to "add conditions" etc he is NOT in compliance with the court order and has deliberately tried everything to ignore it.

Well that's not how I read it at all, and clearly three other judges would tend to disagree with you. It would appear that the original judge issued an order for him to receive an authorization, and in fact he has been offered that, and it does not appear at all as tho the original judge intended it to be without restriction, and in fact that appears to be in keeping with OTHER judge's decisions on similar cases. I mean - it's relatively cut and dry, which is why you guys are getting the lawsuit against him tossed out.

Generally judges get pretty pissy when people ignore their orders. If the original judge had been of the mind that the att should be issued to 'all' places, then you wouldn't have had a lot of trouble getting a court order forcing compliance. I've dealt with people avoiding court orders before.

Have you guys run this past Ed or Solomon to see if they'd take it up for you? We could perhaps crowdfund enough to get them to take a serious look at it if they think there's merit. But I suspect they'd tell you much along the lines I have, (and the three other judges have) there just isn't a 'failure to comply' here.

It's not surprising - you can bet that Wyatt has access to good lawyers whom he would have run this past before proceeding. I'm sure he quite knew exactly how close he could 'cut' things and still be on the right side of the law. And clearly it's his intention to be a "see-you-next-tuesday".

Foxer
09-02-2014, 08:44 AM
There was no other "home" address.. but it was to all approved ranges, clubs, verifiers, gun smiths and border crossings. The specification of a specific club is not required since the word ALL is used on the application form. That is utilizing the same legal wording that has been used by the CFOs / CFC for years therefore it cannot be confused for anything else. Contrarry to the BS wyatt tried to pull in court and was called on it (more than once)

Well... you may have 'called' him on it, but it doesn't really look like the judge agreed. Obviously he agreed that Wyatt had to issue an ATT, but not that it had to be to 'all ranges' etc.

I'm not saying that's the RIGHT decision, but it's the decision you got. I've seen lots of judges and arbitrators give decisions that have other judges and lawyers shaking their heads.

Fire me off a copy of the original trial transcript, i'm curious to see precisely what the judge said.

IJ22
09-02-2014, 09:48 AM
It appears to say - grant a license, certificate, authorization or approval sought. Its clearly designed to be a catch all. It doesn't say 'as sought'


Fair enough, but in this context I don't think it makes a meaningful difference. Worded either way the end result is "issue him his LTATT."



The CFO is indeed prepared to offer authorization. So it would appear that technically he's in compliance.


I wish that would apply to me with CRA. I was prepared to pay my taxes your honour, so technically I was in compliance. OK so I didn't actually pay them. Details details. :)





Remember - the other judges were not allowed to consider whether or not the original decision was correct, only whether or not it had been complied with. And obviously they felt it had.


Correct. Which is why many of us are seeing hopping marsupials around the court. :)



given the language of the order, Wyatt is in compliance as much as i hate to say it.

Again, what language is that, exactly?

Foxer
09-02-2014, 10:04 AM
Fair enough, but in this context I don't think it makes a meaningful difference. Worded either way the end result is "issue him his LTATT."

It is true that the document in context of the court decision would require him to issue an att.


I wish that would apply to me with CRA. I was prepared to pay my taxes your honour, so technically I was in compliance. OK so I didn't actually pay them. Details details.

Ha :) Well in a way it does. If you offer to pay your taxes, but the tax department says 'do not pay, we think you owe more and won't accept this payment till it's settled', and it goes to court and a judge agrees with you, then you will have to pay at that point BUT you wouldn't be responsible for interest or the like on the disputed amount. Moreover - if the CRA STILL chose not to accept your payment then you couldn't be found to be at fault.

Similar thing here - he's willing to issue it, obviously that's not acceptable to daniel, so he can't issue it. Not his 'fault' so to speak.


Correct. Which is why many of us are seeing hopping marsupials around the court.

LOL - well, he could have gone in other directions which might have had better results for him if he truly believed the judge's intent was to order the 'no restrictions' att. By choosing the route they did they eliminated any reconsideration of the judgement.


Again, what language is that, exactly?

As i posted - he was instructed to issue an att. He is willing to issue an att. It does not indicate that the att should be for all ranges or the like. That - coupled with the judge's decision testimony (which i've only heard paraphrased by other judges, haven't seen the original yet) would indicate that wyatt is in compliance by issuing a "2 point" att.

IJ22
09-02-2014, 11:27 AM
As i posted - he was instructed to issue an att. He is willing to issue an att. It does not indicate that the att should be for all ranges or the like. That - coupled with the judge's decision testimony (which i've only heard paraphrased by other judges, haven't seen the original yet) would indicate that wyatt is in compliance by issuing a "2 point" att.

Unfortunately in the decision testimony, at the part that people are referring to as the "conditions", there is crosstalk that resulted in what was supposed to be clarification of the order actually confusing the order. You can find it here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/128294143/Balofsky-Judgment


Anyway, I think we've been around the mulberry bush on this one. Just one final point from your link above, I noticed that the court was saying that issuing the LTATT as ordered, without the additional endorsements, would allow Daniel to drive around with a firearm in his car at all times. I believe that to be egregiously in error, as Daniel would still be required to be en route to or from a range if carrying a firearm. It ignores wholesale the reality that LTATT's of the nature that Daniel was requesting were commonly issued for years. In no way would complying with the order by giving Daniel what he sought be precedent setting.

Foxer
09-02-2014, 10:14 PM
Unfortunately in the decision testimony, at the part that people are referring to as the "conditions", there is crosstalk that resulted in what was supposed to be clarification of the order actually confusing the order. It's an interesting read. The judge obviously felt that Daniel was 'playing games' a little bit, and in fact that's probably true, the CFO was playing games and Daniel was trying to force them to be more limited as to what they could do. But regardless, the Judge obviously felt that the CFO was being more reasonable and that Daniel was 'trying to make a point' more than anything.

It's also fairly obvious that the judge only 'demanded' that it be one verifier, one gunsmith and one range. He clearly hoped they'd sit down and see if they couldn't figure out something they both could live with beyond that and was quite specific that he would have no opposition to more IF THE CFO AGREED. The judge seemed to find it quite reasonable that the LTATT only include those ranges in the province where he could be guaranteed admittance either as a guest or member, and that he wasn't going to go for an 'open ended' att.

Again tho, as long as the CFO was willing to grant an att to one range, one gunsmith and one verifier then he was in compliance with the order. The judge does quite clearly state that he's making an order to issue the att "as I have outlined it", not as it was originally applied for. The rest, as he says, is between the two of them.

The part missing from the puzzle is what happened between this court date and the attempt to file against Wyatt for failing to comply. And that is puzzling because the judge here was obviously quite willing to meet again should a reasonable conclusion not be reached. I suspect that Daniel was firm in demanding that the ATT be open to include all ranges, including ones he was not currently a member of nor could he expect regular guest rights and this lead to the second impasse.



I noticed that the court was saying that issuing the LTATT as ordered, without the additional endorsements, would allow Daniel to drive around with a firearm in his car at all times. I believe that to be egregiously in error, as Daniel would still be required to be en route to or from a range if carrying a firearm. It ignores wholesale the reality that LTATT's of the nature that Daniel was requesting were commonly issued for years. In no way would complying with the order by giving Daniel what he sought be precedent setting.

It has been argued by the authorities that if you could go to ANY gun club regardless of whether or not you could shoot there, then you're always or frequently between your home and SOME gun club and therefore it's not in the interests of 'safety' to allow that. Now, we both know that's not likely. "direct route' tends to nullify that. But it would seem the judge wasn't prepared to go there and didn't feel it was entirely relevant in any case.

The judge seems to argue that the bottom line is the law intended att's only to those places which were 'reasonable' and had 'purpose', and there's no purpose driving a gun to a range you can't shoot at. And therein lies the issue - i suspect if daniel had shown up with a long list of clubs that guaranteed his right to shoot as a guest the CFO would have had limited options but to grant to those locations. But I suspect he was still pushing for the whole 'any range' thing. We don't know from the testimony of course.

I think att's are stupid. I don't need one for my Mare's leg and could drive around all day with that in the car, and yet for some reason I don't :) And i think the judge could have resolved it much better by just saying the att had to be good for "any range at which he had shooting privlidges" - meaning any range that would let him shoot there. But - obviously there was more to it on both sides, wyatt trying to keep gun owners 'in check' and Daniel pushing for looser rules.

But you can still see why a judge would not say that Wyatt was in voilation of the court order, It's clear from the judgement that the judge did not intend for an 'any range' att.

RangeBob
09-02-2014, 11:08 PM
As I understand this mess there are three things going on.

#1) the original Sept 21, 2012 where the judge set down a few thoughts about how the ATT should be worded. As the judge said "I am making an order to the CFO to authorize a long-term authorization to transport to Mr. Balofsky, as I have outlined it. I am asking Mr. MacDonald to sit down with CFO personnel and with Mr. Balofsky to draft said authorization. it would list as well one named gunsmith or verifier."

#2) The judicial order. It was written based upon Section 76 of the Firearms act. Two things
a) The Firearms Act section 76 has the three possibilities the order had, but the order added the word 'sought'.
b) lots of common law that says that the trial transcript doesn't matter. The order trumps. The CFO ignored the order, and went with the trial transcript in #1.

3) The appeal. Although the appeal stressed the trial transcript #1 more than the order, the biggie at the appeal was that the judge couldn't order the CFO to do an illegal thing, and that an ATT without 'two specific places' couldn't be issued. To my mind this basically says that from 1995 through 2013 that the CFOs were doing illegal things since they wrote 'home' and 'any CFO approved range in Ontario' as the two specific places, and those were the places that cyclone sought.

Shalimar
09-02-2014, 11:18 PM
As I understand this mess there are three things going on.

#1) the original Sept 21, 2012 where the judge set down a few thoughts about how the ATT should be worded. As the judge said "I am making an order to the CFO to authorize a long-term authorization to transport to Mr. Balofsky, as I have outlined it. I am asking Mr. MacDonald to sit down with CFO personnel and with Mr. Balofsky to draft said authorization. it would list as well one named gunsmith or verifier."

#2) The judicial order. It was written based upon Section 76 of the Firearms act. Two things
a) The Firearms Act section 76 has the three possibilities the order had, but the order added the word 'sought'.
b) lots of common law that says that the trial transcript doesn't matter. The order trumps. The CFO ignored the order, and went with the trial transcript in #1.

3) The appeal. Although the appeal stressed the trial transcript #1 more than the order, the biggie at the appeal was that the judge couldn't order the CFO to do an illegal thing, and that an ATT without 'two specific places' couldn't be issued. To my mind this basically says that from 1995 through 2013 that the CFOs were doing illegal things since they wrote 'home' and 'any CFO approved range in Ontario' as the two specific places, and those were the places that cyclone sought.


In order:

#1. The judge cannot by law dictate such conditions or negotiations.. In the context of a reference hearing.

#2. Sought is by default and must be included due to the nature of a reference hearing.

#3 Nothing illegal was or could be ordered. Cyclone (and I as well as some others) sought such with "ALL" being the key wording. That is a legal precedent as per the CFO/CFCs constant use of such in documents as well as in court. Therefore the application submitted was factually accurate. Also note that the judge must decide to side on either the applicants side or the CFOs.. it is not a matter of "here do this" unlike many other cases. The FA gives only the two options (by law)..

Hence why the ongoing case over wyatt ignoring and/or trying to "interpret" the court order which is and always has been black and white in nature.

Suffice to say the underhanded BS of the system is showing in spades as usual..

But it's not over by a long shot! :evil:

RangeBob
09-02-2014, 11:27 PM
#3 Nothing illegal was or could be ordered.

Yes, but I assert that the appeal judges basically said that what cyclone sought was illegal (although it isn't), and by saying that they're saying that the CFOs for more than a decade were breaking the law. If the appeals judges feel that what the CFOs were doing for more than a decade was consistent with the law, then what cyclone sought wasn't illegal. The combination left me shaking my head in disbelief, and thanking goodness the Federal Senate is a place of "sober second thought".

If on the other hand their reasons for the appeal decision can be ignored, but the actual appeal order trumps according to them and to the CFO, then the irony is palpable.

Foxer
09-03-2014, 12:13 AM
In order:

#1. The judge cannot by law dictate such conditions or negotiations.. In the context of a reference hearing.

#2. Sought is by default and must be included due to the nature of a reference hearing.

#3 Nothing illegal was or could be ordered. Cyclone (and I as well as some others) sought such with "ALL" being the key wording. That is a legal precedent as per the CFO/CFCs constant use of such in documents as well as in court. Therefore the application submitted was factually accurate. Also note that the judge must decide to side on either the applicants side or the CFOs.. it is not a matter of "here do this" unlike many other cases. The FA gives only the two options (by law)..

Hence why the ongoing case over wyatt ignoring and/or trying to "interpret" the court order which is and always has been black and white in nature.

Suffice to say the underhanded BS of the system is showing in spades as usual..

But it's not over by a long shot! :evil:

in the case of 1 - it would seem that they feel they can and the other judges didn't have an issue with it. BUT - if that's how you feel you should have challenged the decision. And that's not apperently what happened.

BUT -

Even if you WERE correct, then the judge's decision is not enforceable and therefore wyatt couldn't be held accountable for not following it even if he didn't. You can't CHANGE the judge's ruling, you can only say it's valid or unenforceable.

2 - that does not appear to be the case. but as i said - if it is you should have challenged the decision.

3 - clearly the judge does not agree with that. The other judges didn't seem to buy that either. When you get multiple judges telling you that you're wrong, it's probably time to look at your interpretation of the law.


Hence why the ongoing case over wyatt ignoring and/or trying to "interpret" the court order which is and always has been black and white in nature.
It is fairly black and white - the other judges agree with you. It's just not black and white the way you think it is.



Suffice to say the underhanded BS of the system is showing in spades as usual..


So say all who lose in court :)

Foxer
09-03-2014, 12:21 AM
As I understand this mess there are three things going on.

#1) the original Sept 21, 2012 where the judge set down a few thoughts about how the ATT should be worded. As the judge said "I am making an order to the CFO to authorize a long-term authorization to transport to Mr. Balofsky, as I have outlined it. I am asking Mr. MacDonald to sit down with CFO personnel and with Mr. Balofsky to draft said authorization. it would list as well one named gunsmith or verifier."

That does seem to be what he ordered.


#2) The judicial order. It was written based upon Section 76 of the Firearms act. Two things
a) The Firearms Act section 76 has the three possibilities the order had, but the order added the word 'sought'.
b) lots of common law that says that the trial transcript doesn't matter. The order trumps. The CFO ignored the order, and went with the trial transcript in #1.


That does NOT appear to be the case. The judge checked off the section that says the CFO must provide ...athorization... there is no 'sought' associated with that. The judge made it clear that he was refering to the requirement to give authorization and the terms associated with it.

And in fact two judges after that have said that this is valid, that given the lack of clarity in the order the transcripts clarify the nature of the order. And that is legally valid.


3) The appeal. Although the appeal stressed the trial transcript #1 more than the order, the biggie at the appeal was that the judge couldn't order the CFO to do an illegal thing, and that an ATT without 'two specific places' couldn't be issued. To my mind this basically says that from 1995 through 2013 that the CFOs were doing illegal things since they wrote 'home' and 'any CFO approved range in Ontario' as the two specific places, and those were the places that cyclone sought.
Home is one place. The range would be another. That's two. The judge however in the original trial suggested that a gunsmith and a verifyer should also be allowed. But - not ALL ranges, gunsmiths or verifiers.

The judge also said that it would be ok to add additional ranges PROVIDED he was allowed to shoot there. That being a good and reasonable purpose. So there's nothing illegal about what they were doing before, but they're not compelled to do that.

Foxer
09-03-2014, 12:24 AM
Yes, but I assert that the appeal judges basically said that what cyclone sought was illegal (although it isn't), and by saying that they're saying that the CFOs for more than a decade were breaking the law. If the appeals judges feel that what the CFOs were doing for more than a decade was consistent with the law, then what cyclone sought wasn't illegal. The combination left me shaking my head in disbelief, and thanking goodness the Federal Senate is a place of "sober second thought".

If on the other hand their reasons for the appeal decision can be ignored, but the actual appeal order trumps according to them and to the CFO, then the irony is palpable.

The appeals judges didn't say that at all. You have to remember - they weren't appealing the original order - they were appealing having their attempt to have the CFO essentially charged with contempt thrown out. The original decision was not in question and the judge started off by saying that it wasn't for him to re-try that case, but only to look at whether or not the CFO had failed to follow the decision.

In reviewing the case the judge determined that the CFO was indeed willing to comply and to issue an att based on the original judges orders - at least one range, one gunsmith and one verifier. The problem is that Daniel is interpreting the decision differently. What the appeal judges have told him is that in their opinion, he's wrong.

RangeBob
09-03-2014, 12:40 AM
This was the appeal ruling to which I was referring.

#4 in the below quote, is what got me thinking they said "the judge can't order the CFO to do an illegal thing" even though what cyclone was asking for had been the case in Ontario for more than a decade, and is still the case in a couple provinces I think.


COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

CITATION: R. v. Balofsky, 2014 ONCA 532

DATE: 20140708

DOCKET: C57974

Feldman, MacPherson and Cronk JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Her Majesty the Queen

Respondent

and

Daniel E. Balofsky

Appellant

Daniel Balofsky, in person

Roger Shallow, for the respondent

Heard: July 2, 2014

On appeal from the judgment of Justice Michael G. Quigley of the Superior Court of Justice, dated November 8, 2013.

ENDORSEMENT

[1] The appellant sought to institute a private prosecution against Chris Wyatt, the Chief Firearms Officer of Ontario (CFO), for declining to issue an unconditional firearms transport authorization following the hearing before Khawly J. and his order dated September 21, 2012. On March 6, 2013, Justice of the Peace Wassenaar delivered reasons following a pre-enquete hearing, declining to authorize the private prosecution. Quigley J. of the Superior Court of Justice upheld the decision of the Justice of the Peace. The appellant appeals that decision to this court. He also seeks to appeal the decision of Quigley J. not to find Mr. Wyatt and Attorneys General Garretsen and Meilleur in contempt of court, although no submissions were made on this aspect.

[2] There is no merit in the appellant’s appeal. Justice of the Peace Wassenaar made no jurisdictional error. She considered all the evidence presented and concluded that there was no basis for the private prosecution to proceed.

[3] It is clear from the record that Khawly J.’s decision was to order the CFO to issue the authorization but on the condition that two or more “specified places” would be named, as required by s. 19(1) of the Firearms Act S.C. 1995, c. 39, and that the CFO at all times was prepared to issue the authorization subject to that condition. Although the reasons for decision were apparently not attached to the form of order, all parties were present at the hearing and fully aware of the content of those reasons and understood that the decision of Khawly J. was that the authorization was only to issue subject to the condition.

[4] Although the preprinted form of order does not specifically refer to s. 19(1) of the Firearms Act, any authorization to transport a restricted or particular prohibited firearm must comply with s. 19(1) of the Act[1] and must name two or more “specified places” between which the authorized transportation can take place. The direction in the order to the CFO to issue an authorization necessarily means one that complies with the Act. There is no authority to order otherwise.

[5] The appeal is dismissed.

“K. Feldman J.A.”

“J.C. MacPherson J.A.”

“E.A. Cronk J.A.”



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Section 2(1) of the Act defines “authorization to transport” as “an authorization described in section 19”.

RangeBob
09-03-2014, 12:45 AM
The judge checked off the section that says the CFO must provide ...athorization... there is no 'sought' associated with that.

When I say 'sought', what I'm reading is the last word in the English line after the X.

namely
"Chief firearms office, Registrar, or provincial Minister directed to issue or grant a licence, certificate, authorization, or approval sought"

http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd220/wallstuff4/CourtOrder-1_zps98a2d7b0.jpg

RangeBob
09-03-2014, 12:49 AM
In reviewing the case the judge determined that the CFO was indeed willing to comply and to issue an att based on the original judges orders - at least one range, one gunsmith and one verifier.

Although Daniel is interpreting the decision to mean 'what he asked for' and that's what the appeals case was about;
he also provided to the CFO a single range which had given him an any day invitation (an invitation which the CFO verified), as well as naming a gunsmith and a verifier, and an ATT specifying that hasn't been written by the CFO either.

IJ22
09-03-2014, 07:52 AM
Well now I see where I got the "two or more specified places" from, anyway. :)

IJ22
09-03-2014, 08:12 AM
It's also fairly obvious that the judge only 'demanded' that it be one verifier, one gunsmith and one range.

This perfectly summarizes the mess of this case. Obvious is like pregnant, it is or it isn't. If you have to use a qualifier with obvious, it's clearly NOT obvious.

Foxer
09-03-2014, 08:22 AM
When I say 'sought', what I'm reading is the last word in the English line after the X. But he wasn't asking for approval sought. He was asking for authorization. That's my point. Each of those things is an individual thing, a license, a certificate, authorization, or approval sought. What was being asked for was an authorization. So the word sought doesn't come into this issue.

Foxer
09-03-2014, 08:34 AM
This perfectly summarizes the mess of this case. Obvious is like pregnant, it is or it isn't. If you have to use a qualifier with obvious, it's clearly NOT obvious. well I get your point, but no actually obvious is an absolute. It just means "easily seen" or the like. Something can be relatively easy to see you even if it isn't perfectly clear. In this case there's obviously (ha ha) the smallest room for different interpretation, but I think that the vast majority of people would arrive at the conclusion that the judge was ordering an ATT that had to have at least one location and that the other locations had to be spelled out if they were agreed upon. He was not authorizing a open ended ATT.

Shalimar claims that the judge did not have the authority to do this. I suspect that if he really digs into it with a non-biased eye he's going to find that the judge in fact can do this. However, if the judge cannot do this then Wyatt still wouldn't be in contempt of court because he would be failing to follow in order that has no authority, so it was a mistake to try and pursue the private prosecution. Instead they should've challenged the order or gone back to the original judge.

RangeBob
09-03-2014, 10:25 AM
But he wasn't asking for approval sought. He was asking for authorization. That's my point. Each of those things is an individual thing, a license, a certificate, authorization, or approval sought. What was being asked for was an authorization. So the word sought doesn't come into this issue.

I assert that in
"Chief firearms office, Registrar, or provincial Minister directed to issue or grant a licence, certificate, authorization, or approval sought"
the word "sought" modifies licence, certificate, authorization and approval.

You assert that the word "sought" modifies approval; but not licence, certificate, nor authorization.

[reducto ad absurdum]
Ah, so when a citizen goes to court to get a licence the CFO rejected, its not because they sought to get the licence.
And when a citizen goes to court to get a certificate the CFO rejected, its not because they sought to get the certificate.
And when a citizen goes to court to get a authorization the CFO rejected, its not because they sought to get the authorization.
Its only when the citizen goes to court to get a shooting club approval for something that isn't a licence, a certificate, or an authorization, that the citizen sought to get something.


I assert that whatever the reasons for the appeals court decision, it had nothing to do with your interpretation of the modifierness of the word sought there.

IJ22
09-03-2014, 11:03 AM
Instead they should've challenged the order or gone back to the original judge.

I'm not sure why they would have challenged an order that was in their favour. Going back to the judge seemed to be an option based on what he said at the end of his reasons, but then there's the letter to cyclone where he stated he's functus. Not sure where that fit in. Did they perhaps indeed try to go back to Khawly, but too late?

RangeBob
09-03-2014, 11:34 AM
there's the letter to cyclone where he stated he's functus. Not sure where that fit in. Did they perhaps indeed try to go back to Khawly, but too late?
Yes. Cyclone went back to the original judge to get the judge to enforce his own court order, but the judge said he was functus and thus other means had to be pursued.

I believe the Crown never once offered to appear back before Justice Khawly.

http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd220/wallstuff4/FunctusOfficioletter_zps95d2395d.jpg

The original Judge is done! Functus is the legal jargon. He cannot review his own decision! If this is a contempt matter then that is different. But the Judge has made his decision and there in no need for any clarification. That time has RUN!
-- sweetheart;8390140

Foxer
09-03-2014, 01:38 PM
I assert that in
"Chief firearms office, Registrar, or provincial Minister directed to issue or grant a licence, certificate, authorization, or approval sought"
the word "sought" modifies licence, certificate, authorization and approval.

There is no way the language reads like that in a legal sense. This is a list. If it were intended to mean that it would have to say "as sought". Instead this is a list of things the person may be asking for. It could not be read the way you want it to read, no judge would buy that. "approval sought" is one of the things the judge can grant, it's not a modifier of the other things the judge can grant. If the petitioner has asked for something that is not a license, cert, authorization then that's the heading it falls under.


You assert that the word "sought" modifies approval; but not licence, certificate, nor authorization.

it doesn't modify it - it identifies it. You can't just say 'approval'. it doesn't mean anything legally in this context. If a person is seeking a specific approval for something which is beyond the items already listed, than this is what the approval is for. Remember this is a pre-printed form that's trying to make allowances for a wide range of possible petitions.


[reducto ad absurdum]
Ah, so when a citizen goes to court to get a licence the CFO rejected, its not because they sought to get the licence.
And when a citizen goes to court to get a certificate the CFO rejected, its not because they sought to get the certificate.
And when a citizen goes to court to get a authorization the CFO rejected, its not because they sought to get the authorization.
Its only when the citizen goes to court to get a shooting club approval for something that isn't a licence, a certificate, or an authorization, that the citizen sought to get something.


The citizen APPLIES for those things. However - if they are seeking approval for something you can't just say 'approval' - WHAT approval? Approval of their hair cut? Approval of thier choice in taylors? No, it's approval of what they were looking for, whicih is obviously something other than the previously mentioned specifics.


I assert that whatever the reasons for the appeals court decision, it had nothing to do with your interpretation of the modifierness of the word sought there.


You can assert that the sun rises in the west, but it won't make it true :)

i realize that this is a little harder to get for those who don't spend a lot of time with lawyers, because 'legal speak' is truly a bizarre language unto it's own.

But - the fact is that the appeal was for the private prosecution attempted and that prosecution was based on the idea that the CFO did not follow the court order. The court order says the judge ordered the CFO to issue a license, certificate, authorization OR the approval sought, by any normal legal reading of the language. The CFO was willing to issue an authorization as per the judges instructions. So it had no where to go.

Foxer
09-03-2014, 01:55 PM
Yes. Cyclone went back to the original judge to get the judge to enforce his own court order, but the judge said he was functus and thus other means had to be pursued.

I believe the Crown never once offered to appear back before Justice Khawly.


The original Judge is done! Functus is the legal jargon. He cannot review his own decision! If this is a contempt matter then that is different. But the Judge has made his decision and there in no need for any clarification. That time has RUN!
-- sweetheart;8390140

Yes, it looks like he may have waited too long to go back. However - the language also suggests to me that at that time he was not asking for clarification on the matter but rather looking for the judge to issue an order of performance of some type or find the guy in contempt (hence the reference of the crown bringing it back to him).

In a case like that I'd have argued that his best choice if he really believed that the CFO was ignoring a court order would be to have a new judge issue an order of performance to comply. However - I suspect daniel knew that the original judge did not intend for the ATT to be open ended and knew that the cfo was not failing to comply.

And in essence that's what the subsequent judges said. Regardless of whether or not the decision was good, it had been complied with.

The original attempt was a worthy attempt if something of a long shot, but the stuff after is just kind of spinning the wheels - he's not in contempt of the order, and that's why they tossed out the private prosecution. He remains an ass, but not a criminal ass.

Shalimar
09-03-2014, 11:16 PM
Although Daniel is interpreting the decision to mean 'what he asked for' and that's what the appeals case was about;
he also provided to the CFO a single range which had given him an any day invitation (an invitation which the CFO verified), as well as naming a gunsmith and a verifier, and an ATT specifying that hasn't been written by the CFO either.

Sorry but that is not Daniel's interpretation.. it is the way the law is written. Therefore once again the CFO (wyatt) is in violation of the court order.

Shalimar
09-03-2014, 11:17 PM
Well now I see where I got the "two or more specified places" from, anyway. :)

Hence why "ALL" is a perfectly acceptable legal term as well

Shalimar
09-03-2014, 11:18 PM
But he wasn't asking for approval sought. He was asking for authorization. That's my point. Each of those things is an individual thing, a license, a certificate, authorization, or approval sought. What was being asked for was an authorization. So the word sought doesn't come into this issue.

Completely and totally wrong Foxer

by the nature of applying for X.. that is seeking X..

shocking that you did not grasp that to be honest.

Shalimar
09-03-2014, 11:25 PM
well I get your point, but no actually obvious is an absolute. It just means "easily seen" or the like. Something can be relatively easy to see you even if it isn't perfectly clear. In this case there's obviously (ha ha) the smallest room for different interpretation, but I think that the vast majority of people would arrive at the conclusion that the judge was ordering an ATT that had to have at least one location and that the other locations had to be spelled out if they were agreed upon. He was not authorizing a open ended ATT.

Shalimar claims that the judge did not have the authority to do this. I suspect that if he really digs into it with a non-biased eye he's going to find that the judge in fact can do this. However, if the judge cannot do this then Wyatt still wouldn't be in contempt of court because he would be failing to follow in order that has no authority, so it was a mistake to try and pursue the private prosecution. Instead they should've challenged the order or gone back to the original judge.

It is not a matter of "claim".. it is a matter of fact based on how the FA was written. The entire process of a RH removes the CFO from the decision in essence.. and the judge can only do onle of two things (as defined by the FA).. that being find in favor of the CFO ro find in favor of the applicant. Therefore all that matters is the yes/no decision of the judge.. and since wyatt has not complied with that order and has done everything he can to try to twist things.. he is not in compliance and therefore is guilty of violations of the CCC.

There is nothing within the FA at all to allow the judge to do anything otherwise. (yes/no for one side or the other).

And yes.. I've spent literally years on this as well as with legal experts like Berlew and Soloman etc etc etc... the FA was insanely poorly written.. intentionally in many ways.. but this is one way that they (rock/cukier) f'd themselves over.


Also the CFO in case you did not notice did not appeal their loss... thereby accepting that yes/no decision and they are desperately trying to drag it all out to kiss their own ass per se.

But they will be held accountable in the end >:)

Shalimar
09-03-2014, 11:27 PM
I'm not sure why they would have challenged an order that was in their favour. Going back to the judge seemed to be an option based on what he said at the end of his reasons, but then there's the letter to cyclone where he stated he's functus. Not sure where that fit in. Did they perhaps indeed try to go back to Khawly, but too late?

No we did not nor did the CFO/crown.

Shalimar
09-03-2014, 11:29 PM
Yes. Cyclone went back to the original judge to get the judge to enforce his own court order, but the judge said he was functus and thus other means had to be pursued.

I believe the Crown never once offered to appear back before Justice Khawly.

http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd220/wallstuff4/FunctusOfficioletter_zps95d2395d.jpg

The original Judge is done! Functus is the legal jargon. He cannot review his own decision! If this is a contempt matter then that is different. But the Judge has made his decision and there in no need for any clarification. That time has RUN!
-- sweetheart;8390140

True.. but as pointed out above.. there was never any attempt from either side to have any changes made to the order (contrary to what has been suggested by others that are not involved with this case at all)

Shalimar
09-03-2014, 11:30 PM
There is no way the language reads like that in a legal sense. This is a list. If it were intended to mean that it would have to say "as sought". Instead this is a list of things the person may be asking for. It could not be read the way you want it to read, no judge would buy that. "approval sought" is one of the things the judge can grant, it's not a modifier of the other things the judge can grant. If the petitioner has asked for something that is not a license, cert, authorization then that's the heading it falls under.



it doesn't modify it - it identifies it. You can't just say 'approval'. it doesn't mean anything legally in this context. If a person is seeking a specific approval for something which is beyond the items already listed, than this is what the approval is for. Remember this is a pre-printed form that's trying to make allowances for a wide range of possible petitions.



The citizen APPLIES for those things. However - if they are seeking approval for something you can't just say 'approval' - WHAT approval? Approval of their hair cut? Approval of thier choice in taylors? No, it's approval of what they were looking for, whicih is obviously something other than the previously mentioned specifics.



You can assert that the sun rises in the west, but it won't make it true :)

i realize that this is a little harder to get for those who don't spend a lot of time with lawyers, because 'legal speak' is truly a bizarre language unto it's own.

But - the fact is that the appeal was for the private prosecution attempted and that prosecution was based on the idea that the CFO did not follow the court order. The court order says the judge ordered the CFO to issue a license, certificate, authorization OR the approval sought, by any normal legal reading of the language. The CFO was willing to issue an authorization as per the judges instructions. So it had no where to go.



All I can say to you on that one foxer is /facepalm

you don't get it.


The CFO did NOT comply with the order and tried to attach conditions that he no longer has the authority to do so at all as per the reference hearing within the FA>

Shalimar
09-03-2014, 11:33 PM
Yes, it looks like he may have waited too long to go back. However - the language also suggests to me that at that time he was not asking for clarification on the matter but rather looking for the judge to issue an order of performance of some type or find the guy in contempt (hence the reference of the crown bringing it back to him).

In a case like that I'd have argued that his best choice if he really believed that the CFO was ignoring a court order would be to have a new judge issue an order of performance to comply. However - I suspect daniel knew that the original judge did not intend for the ATT to be open ended and knew that the cfo was not failing to comply.

And in essence that's what the subsequent judges said. Regardless of whether or not the decision was good, it had been complied with.

The original attempt was a worthy attempt if something of a long shot, but the stuff after is just kind of spinning the wheels - he's not in contempt of the order, and that's why they tossed out the private prosecution. He remains an ass, but not a criminal ass.

oi.. i don't even want to respond to that mess foxer

it's sad you still do not understand IMO at least..

Foxer
09-03-2014, 11:59 PM
oi.. i don't even want to respond to that mess foxer

it's sad you still do not understand IMO at least..

LOL - of course you don't. There really is no 'answer'. I am correct. Here's a hint - they wouldn't even proceed with the private prosecution and the subsequent appeal made it quite clear that they didn't feel that it was valid. To lose such a case would be one thing, but to not even be allowed to proceed... there has to be no grounds at all. And anyone with serious legal experience would be able to tell you it was a severe longshot in the first place.

ONE judge doesn't mean TOO Much - judges make bad calls all the time. But when they start lining up to tell you you're wrong, you can't just dismiss it as the system at work.

A valiant effort, but i'm afraid the original case was really a longshot and the subsequent appeals were hopeless.

The good news is, with a little luck it won't be necessary any more. What you guys were fighting for may well become law anyway here shortly when blaney puts his cards on the table. Sometimes we lose one fight, but still manage to win the war.

Shalimar
09-05-2014, 07:10 AM
LOL - of course you don't. There really is no 'answer'. I am correct. Here's a hint - they wouldn't even proceed with the private prosecution and the subsequent appeal made it quite clear that they didn't feel that it was valid. To lose such a case would be one thing, but to not even be allowed to proceed... there has to be no grounds at all. And anyone with serious legal experience would be able to tell you it was a severe longshot in the first place.

ONE judge doesn't mean TOO Much - judges make bad calls all the time. But when they start lining up to tell you you're wrong, you can't just dismiss it as the system at work.

A valiant effort, but i'm afraid the original case was really a longshot and the subsequent appeals were hopeless.

The good news is, with a little luck it won't be necessary any more. What you guys were fighting for may well become law anyway here shortly when blaney puts his cards on the table. Sometimes we lose one fight, but still manage to win the war.

There is much more to this than you are aware of obviously. Posting all of that info however is not my call in this case.


As for the good news true.. and I have no doubts that the attn we have garnered and the pressure placed on the relevant people has had a big impact on this. However until Blaney gives us a copy I won't hold my breath.

The bad news is the CFO continues to run rampant at this time and plots how to skirt around any changes.. the same as he has done to many other things. The CFOs all need to be eliminated IMO on this issue not to mention many other things.

Foxer
09-05-2014, 08:10 AM
As for the good news true.. and I have no doubts that the attn we have garnered and the pressure placed on the relevant people has had a big impact on this. However until Blaney gives us a copy I won't hold my breath.
The devil's always in the details. Don't hold your breath, but don't spare the ink either, lets make sure he includes all the places we can get away with in the 'included with your license' thing.


The bad news is the CFO continues to run rampant at this time and plots how to skirt around any changes.. the same as he has done to many other things. The CFOs all need to be eliminated IMO on this issue not to mention many other things. Well blaney seems a little on side for that too, or at least cutting their powers down considerably. We need to pound him on that as well and make sure he neuters them as much as possible.

JRW (QOR)
09-05-2014, 11:57 AM
There is much more to this than you are aware of obviously. Posting all of that info however is not my call in this case.


As for the good news true.. and I have no doubts that the attn we have garnered and the pressure placed on the relevant people has had a big impact on this. However until Blaney gives us a copy I won't hold my breath.

The bad news is the CFO continues to run rampant at this time and plots how to skirt around any changes.. the same as he has done to many other things. The CFOs all need to be eliminated IMO on this issue not to mention many other things.

They do that it will be the last straw for them. After the election I can see the government eliminating them for a single, civilian, CFO.

Shalimar
09-06-2014, 04:36 AM
The devil's always in the details. Don't hold your breath, but don't spare the ink either, lets make sure he includes all the places we can get away with in the 'included with your license' thing.

Well blaney seems a little on side for that too, or at least cutting their powers down considerably. We need to pound him on that as well and make sure he neuters them as much as possible.

Both very true,. but Blaney needs to be pounded on to do more than curtailing them before the election.. they are working on this legislation.. might as well do it right the 1st time around instead of half assing it.

Shalimar
09-06-2014, 04:37 AM
They do that it will be the last straw for them. After the election I can see the government eliminating them for a single, civilian, CFO.

They are already doing that now.. so what's the difference? They should have never existed obviously.. and should be flat out eliminated with prejudice.