Posts

The SDGCK Community Law Centre open evenings. Tell us you will be visiting. Email us your question.

Let's read your document together; discuss your problem. You are not alone after your donation of at least $1450.00. How much can you pay today? We will send you a bill for the difference. You get a free drink; included. Bring your questions and problems Every day from 5 pm-9 pm at Station Kitchen near door C5 at Sheridan College Hazel McCallion campus on the upper level sitting area. This space is open to the public for coffee and snacks.You make a donation. Reserve your spot by email. Put "free help" in the subject field. Let us know what you are trying to find out. Email info.angelronan@mail.com orw.a.lyon.angelronan@mail.com. Put: "free help" in the subject field. You can send an Interac Email money transfer direct with auto deposit (no password required). You can pay by credit card. Include your question in the body of the email. Say what time you are thinking of attending. It's free. You are invited to make your donation in any amount. We received several emails and will conduct some of the the consultations by messenger video call and also in person. This is not soliciting but the offer is a "not for profit" service. Would you prefer meeting with us at the Hullmark Centre? Request your appointment and confirm your time preference. Iayfycpm

I am not hurting over you Jacqwueline. You are a White nigger and a criminal. The Wilson Sword Coup d'etat: A Federal employee under a Federal contract was asked to consider a former Federal employee's rights to sue under Federal law during a Federal Court appearance. Jurisdiction was not an issue as far as his venue for his Law suit and nor was it an issue as far as the jurisdiction for his cause of action. He was not a provincial transit employee. Clearly, he was not a provincial employee and nor was he a member of a provincial union; nor did he have a provincial employee contract. The Federal lawyer was confused with jurisdiction in a Federal Court in Vancouver. Wilson. The evidence of his Federal transit service employment with VIA rail was clear in the file and the statement of claim. It was also clear on the documents entered and served on motion. He was a legitimate retired employee that was entitled to make his claim and was not statute barred as he was a former employee in good standing who was never subject to any kind of discipline, firing or any other kind of termination. Warren wins. He was serving the government as a "sworn in" Officer of the Court. You lose. Were you hoping to say you should win only because you are white to the point of misleading the Court and how could that be winning? You uttered a false statement, misleading the Court and said the client and former Federal employee was only an Ontario Government employee under OPSEU. This is the uttering of a false statement on the record; a criminal offence so you are now under criminal charges. It's also Contempt of Court. The goal is to serve the Court with what is the evidence. we can make up our own facts, hoping to be chosen above others and above the purposes of the Court itself.

R v Pogmore (2017). We turn then to the major point in issue: the proper interpretation of the relevant parts of the CJA 1993. The Act was intended to address the issue of the justiciability of international dishonesty by introducing rules in respect of designated offences. By s.1(1) these were divided into substantive 'Group A offences' and inchoate 'Group B offences'. Among the former was the offence of blackmail (see s.1(2)(a)). The statutory key to establishing jurisdiction is the occurrence of a 'relevant event' within the jurisdiction. Where such an event occurs, it is immaterial whether the defendant was at any material time in England and Wales. A 'relevant event' is defined for most purposes as any event which is an essential (or definitional) element of the offence. ClIck here.