Posts
- Get link
- Other Apps
The Justice of the Peace in Cumbria made an application to be a JP but always told people she offered her dog. Evidently, she never offered her chikdren. He says he is not sure he made a mistake in failing to strike the pleas of guilt to a red-light camera ticket when the accused said they are willing to plea although their wife was driving the vehicle. He did not make a mistake. The plea is voluntary and they conducted a plea comprehension before the plea was entered. He signed the form confirming he understood a right to a trial was waived. It is on the form they filled out so he could be sent to Plea Court to communicate his early plea of guilt. The issue is that the legislation presumes the owner is the driver and the offender. However, in spite of the presumption the law says only the driver is really guilty so, if you say you are not the driver, you say you have a defence. But, plead guilty if you are the King and who is he to think he could help me? Who is he to say he could help me? Now, there was a lawyer who pointed this out when assisting someone before the Court where about 499 break horse people pled guilty except for the 500th person who was assisted by the lawyer and the charges were withdrawn. The JP marvelled but realised the preceding 499 break horse people should not have been allowed to plea where they all said they were not the actual driver but they were willing to plea. Maybe you can plea when you are not the actual driver if you want. It is not a sin but it costs you a month of gasoline. The reason why they should not have been allowed to plea is that they raised a credible defence and the JP can prayerfully strike the plea if a defence is raised unless the accused is considered as fully comprehending under a plea comprehension that they have a defence and are actually waiving a right to a trial. If you are confidant they comprehend, then you can accept the plea even when they provided the Court evidence to the contrary. The JP was afraid they did something wrong and then decided to try to kill the lawyer but the well known conspiracy to kill the lawyer is, in itself, something wrong; a wrong doing. The JP realised this and decided to take a cruise to Haiti and just clear her glove box a bit in that Used 2010 Silver Lexus LH hybrid pushing 400 HP with the hybrid system so she only spends $90.00 a month on gasoline. She bought it last week for $9000.00. You have to be sure it says hybrid on the back or you see the battery recharge light on the dashboard. Your contract to buy must say what you are purchasing; either the LH, Hybrid or the V6 non hybrid. You could buy a $6000.00 v6 non- hybrid and avoid spending the extra $3000.00 but you spend $300.00 a month in gasoline so in 10 months you spend $3000.00 in gasoline. In the long run, you spend more owning the V6 vehicle. There was a non hybrid vehicle. Everybody in her community who is aware of her conspiracy to murder followed her and got that Japbrid vehicle. You did something right; something good!
The Justice of the Peace in Cumbria made an application to be a JP but always told people she offered her dog. Evidently, she never offered her chikdren. He says he is not sure he made a mistake in failing to strike the pleas of guilt to a red-light camera ticket when the accused said they are willing to plea although their wife was driving the vehicle. He did not make a mistake. The plea is voluntary and they conducted a plea comprehension before the plea was entered. He signed the form confirming he understood a right to a trial was waived. It is on the form they filled out so he could be sent to Plea Court to communicate his early plea of guilt. The issue is that the legislation presumes the owner is the driver and the offender. However, in spite of the presumption the law says only the driver is really guilty so, if you say you are not the driver, you say you have a defence. But, plead guilty if you are the King and who is he to think he could help me? Who is he to say he could help me? Now, there was a lawyer who pointed this out when assisting someone before the Court where about 499 break horse people pled guilty except for the 500th person who was assisted by the lawyer and the charges were withdrawn. The JP marvelled but realised the preceding 499 break horse people should not have been allowed to plea where they all said they were not the actual driver but they were willing to plea. Maybe you can plea when you are not the actual driver if you want. It is not a sin but it costs you a month of gasoline. The reason why they should not have been allowed to plea is that they raised a credible defence and the JP can prayerfully strike the plea if a defence is raised unless the accused is considered as fully comprehending under a plea comprehension that they have a defence and are actually waiving a right to a trial. If you are confidant they comprehend, then you can accept the plea even when they provided the Court evidence to the contrary. The JP was afraid they did something wrong and then decided to try to kill the lawyer but the well known conspiracy to kill the lawyer is, in itself, something wrong; a wrong doing. The JP realised this and decided to take a cruise to Haiti and just clear her glove box a bit in that Used 2010 Silver Lexus LH hybrid pushing 400 HP with the hybrid system so she only spends $90.00 a month on gasoline. She bought it last week for $9000.00. You have to be sure it says hybrid on the back or you see the battery recharge light on the dashboard. Your contract to buy must say what you are purchasing; either the LH, Hybrid or the V6 non hybrid. You could buy a $6000.00 v6 non- hybrid and avoid spending the extra $3000.00 but you spend $300.00 a month in gasoline so in 10 months you spend $3000.00 in gasoline. In the long run, you spend more owning the V6 vehicle. There was a non hybrid vehicle. Everybody in her community who is aware of her conspiracy to murder followed her and got that Japbrid vehicle. You did something right; something good!
- Get link
- Other Apps
- Get link
- Other Apps
He allegedly argued that if the victim is Jamaican and family, then it is not an offence. James Solar (the “accused”) is charged with five offences, as follows: 1) On or about August 20, 2003 at Saskatoon in the Province of Saskatchewan, did steal, money the property consisting of photos, photography, underwear and watches of the Estate of Nick Regush of a value exceeding five thousand dollars contrary to section 334(a) of the Criminal Code [(the “Theft Over $5,000 Charge”)]; and further 2) On or between October 5, 2002 and April 2004 inclusive, at Warman and Saskatoon in the Province of Saskatchewan did being a trustee, convert with intent to defraud and in contravention of his trust, money belonging to the Estate of Nick Regush to a use that is not authorized by the trust contrary to section 336 of the Criminal Code [(the “Breach of Trust Charge”)], and further 3) On or between February 24, 2004 and April 13, 2004 inclusive, at Warman and Saskatoon in the Province of Saskatchewan did without lawful excuse disobey the lawful order made by Chief [sic] Justice Klebec [sic], the Court of Queen’s Bench on February 26, 2004 to deliver all cash from the Estate of Nick Regush, forthwith contrary to section 127 of the Criminal Code [(the “Disobeying a Court Order Charge”)]; and further 4) On or about June 28, 2003 at Martensville in the Province of Saskatchewan did steal money the property of the Estate of Nick Regush, of a value not exceeding five thousand dollars and did hereby commit theft contrary to section 334(b) of the Criminal Code [(the “Theft Under $5,000 Charge”)]; and further 5) On or between October 5, 2002 and April 13, 2004 inclusive, at Warman and Saskatoon in the Province of Saskatchewan did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means defraud the Estate of Nick Regush of money, of a value exceeding five thousand dollars, by other fraudulent means contrary to section 380(1) of the Criminal Code [(the “Fraud Charge”)]. R v Solar, 2012 SKQB 113 (CanLII). Click here for more.
He allegedly argued that if the victim is Jamaican and family, then it is not an offence. James Solar (the “accused”) is charged with five offences, as follows: 1) On or about August 20, 2003 at Saskatoon in the Province of Saskatchewan, did steal, money the property consisting of photos, photography, underwear and watches of the Estate of Nick Regush of a value exceeding five thousand dollars contrary to section 334(a) of the Criminal Code [(the “Theft Over $5,000 Charge”)]; and further 2) On or between October 5, 2002 and April 2004 inclusive, at Warman and Saskatoon in the Province of Saskatchewan did being a trustee, convert with intent to defraud and in contravention of his trust, money belonging to the Estate of Nick Regush to a use that is not authorized by the trust contrary to section 336 of the Criminal Code [(the “Breach of Trust Charge”)], and further 3) On or between February 24, 2004 and April 13, 2004 inclusive, at Warman and Saskatoon in the Province of Saskatchewan did without lawful excuse disobey the lawful order made by Chief [sic] Justice Klebec [sic], the Court of Queen’s Bench on February 26, 2004 to deliver all cash from the Estate of Nick Regush, forthwith contrary to section 127 of the Criminal Code [(the “Disobeying a Court Order Charge”)]; and further 4) On or about June 28, 2003 at Martensville in the Province of Saskatchewan did steal money the property of the Estate of Nick Regush, of a value not exceeding five thousand dollars and did hereby commit theft contrary to section 334(b) of the Criminal Code [(the “Theft Under $5,000 Charge”)]; and further 5) On or between October 5, 2002 and April 13, 2004 inclusive, at Warman and Saskatoon in the Province of Saskatchewan did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means defraud the Estate of Nick Regush of money, of a value exceeding five thousand dollars, by other fraudulent means contrary to section 380(1) of the Criminal Code [(the “Fraud Charge”)]. R v Solar, 2012 SKQB 113 (CanLII). Click here for more.
- Get link
- Other Apps