Freedom Convoy protests [Split from All things 2019-nCoV]

[childs56]

Your Dunning-Kruger schtick is tiring.

Lol thats hilarious.... thanks for the insult comming from a person of your interest, stature and back ground I can take that as a compliment.
Often one who is idealistic makes a mistake of trusting the words of those they believe in without question nor further thought. Manipulating emotions to gain a movement is more done by those who have been been systematically biased their entire lives. Often with a us verses them mentality.
Far to often they use their position and influence to try and force their opinions and bias on those around them.
Those who ignore the competence of a leader who sways laws based on emotions and opions will end up in tyranny.

The use of words by a politican who changes a law on emotions is nothing but a manipulator. Those who follow those changes without question are taken advantage of and most often loose the very thing they are trying to protect.

 

[brihard]

Lol thats hilarious.... thanks for the insult comming from a person of your interest, stature and back ground I can take that as a compliment.
Often one who is idealistic makes a mistake of trusting the words of those they believe in without question nor further thought. Manipulating emotions to gain a movement is more done by those who have been been systematically biased their entire lives. Often with a us verses them mentality.
Far to often they use their position and influence to try and force their opinions and bias on those around them.
Those who ignore the competence of a leader who sways laws based on emotions and opions will end up in tyranny.

The use of words by a politican who changes a law on emotions is nothing but a manipulator. Those who follow those changes without question are taken advantage of and most often loose the very thing they are trying to protect.

That’s a lot of words to actually say nothing at all.

You could have simply looked up what “proceeds of crime” actually is (hint, it’s in the Criminal Code, read part XII.2). You would have been equipped to continue the discussion while being at least super basically informed. Instead you’re getting your back up because, yet again, you’ve committed yourself to a position that someone else with better subject knowledge has corrected you on.

 

[childs56]

That’s a lot of words to actually say nothing at all.

You could have simply looked up what “proceeds of crime” actually is (hint, it’s in the Criminal Code, read part XII.2). You would have been equipped to continue the discussion while being at least super basically informed. Instead you’re getting your back up because, yet again, you’ve committed yourself to a position that someone else with better subject knowledge has corrected you on.

Lol
All I was stating is what our PM, Deputy PM had said and eluded to..
Your the one that are trying to say they didn't. Which they did. Neither care of the actual definitions or consequences of such, as long as they further their agendas.
Thanks for your expert opinion and advice. I will take that into consideration as I move forward in life.

 

[OldSolduer]

Alluded not eluded.

Elude is when you can’t grasp facts.

Lol
All I was stating is what our PM, Deputy PM had said and eluded to..
Your the one that are trying to say they didn't. Which they did. Neither care of the actual definitions or consequences of such, as long as they further their agendas.
Thanks for your expert opinion and advice. I will take that into consideration as I move forward in life.

 

[brihard]

Lol
All I was stating is what our PM, Deputy PM had said and eluded to..
Your the one that are trying to say they didn't. Which they did. Neither care of the actual definitions or consequences of such, as long as they further their agendas.
Thanks for your expert opinion and advice. I will take that into consideration as I move forward in life.

But they did not say or even allude to that, and you yourself failed to show evidence when called on it. They made reference to amending a piece of legislation and associated regulations that contains the term in the law’s name, but has more to do with financial transaction reporting; that’s all.

Stay as huffy as you want. You made a claim you can’t back.

 

[Good2Golf]

Elude is when you can’t grasp facts.

 

[childs56]

Alluded not eluded.

Elude is when you can’t grasp facts.

Used for a reason.

But they did not say or even allude to that, and you yourself failed to show evidence when called on it. They made reference to amending a piece of legislation and associated regulations that contains the term in the law’s name, but has more to do with financial transaction reporting; that’s all.

Stay as huffy as you want. You made a claim you can’t back.

"assault rifle",
"Assault style rifle"
Still no legal definition in the CC
they like to skirt around actual definitions and use key phrases to justify their over reaching OICs and improper use of our current laws.

Similar to both of them using the Term "Proceeds of crime" for dramatic effect. Then declaring the Protest illegal. The terms terrorists, foreign funding, foreign interfering. Emotional responses.

Proceeds of crime has a very specific definition for a reason. Neither of those two know what it means, but they will change the definition to fit their own ideologies. Might fare well going forward.

You can read through the pages of Parliamentary releases to see how they are trying to connect the two
Multiple times JT and CF have stated that they are and will try to include into the CC these types of fundraising for similar protests into the law. They have used the terms "terrorists, foreign funding to try and link the domestic fund raising,. The CBC had to retract a huge article about this. It is in the Parliamentary notes over the convoy investigation report.


“This will help mitigate the risk that these platforms receive illicit funds, increase the quality and quantity of intelligence received by FINTRAC and make more information available to support investigations by law enforcement into these illegal blockades,” said Freeland

The government is directing financial institutions to “review their relationships” with anyone involved with the blockades and report them to the RCMP or CSIS.
“This is about following the money. This is about stopping the financing of these illegal blockades. We are today serving notice: if your truck is being used in these illegal blockades, your corporate accounts will be frozen.

 

[OldSolduer]

Used for a reason.

"assault rifle",
"Assault style rifle"

And what is that reason?

 

[brihard]

Used for a reason.

"assault rifle",
"Assault style rifle"
Still no legal definition in the CC
they like to skirt around actual definitions and use key phrases to justify their over reaching OICs and improper use of our current laws.

Similar to both of them using the Term "Proceeds of crime" for dramatic effect. Then declaring the Protest illegal. The terms terrorists, foreign funding, foreign interfering. Emotional responses.

Proceeds of crime has a very specific definition for a reason. Neither of those two know what it means, but they will change the definition to fit their own ideologies. Might fare well going forward.

You can read through the pages of Parliamentary releases to see how they are trying to connect the two
Multiple times JT and CF have stated that they are and will try to include into the CC these types of fundraising for similar protests into the law. They have used the terms "terrorists, foreign funding to try and link the domestic fund raising,. The CBC had to retract a huge article about this. It is in the Parliamentary notes over the convoy investigation report.


“This will help mitigate the risk that these platforms receive illicit funds, increase the quality and quantity of intelligence received by FINTRAC and make more information available to support investigations by law enforcement into these illegal blockades,” said Freeland

The government is directing financial institutions to “review their relationships” with anyone involved with the blockades and report them to the RCMP or CSIS.
“This is about following the money. This is about stopping the financing of these illegal blockades. We are today serving notice: if your truck is being used in these illegal blockades, your corporate accounts will be frozen.

Jesus. You have no idea what you’re talking about. They aren’t speaking of measures at all close to what you’re trying to describe.

I’m done here. Every time any of us try to spoon feed you knowledge from a position of our own understanding, you grab and throw the spoon.

 

[Winds]

My understanding of the civil suit is that it names a bunch of people who did send money but only if they did so after Feb 4th when the protest was declared illegal. I am guessing the funds that are locked up right now are anything that was donated after that timeframe.

The protests weren't "declared illegal" on February 4th, that didn't happen until the EA was enacted and that decision itself has been found to be unlawful and unreasonable (appeal decisions pending). February 4th is when GoFundMe decided to shut down the fund they had set up for the protests, due to public pressure. If you follow the Lich/Barber trial, it's yet to really be demonstrated by the prosecution that the protests themselves were ever "illegal". The class action is for private and public nuisance damages (yet to be proven or calculated) not illegal conduct.

If the firm was seriously looking to win the $300 million they're claiming, they'd name the City of Ottawa as a defendant, along with the convoy participants. It would be a very straightforward case of arguing the city's failure to enforce the law, and is a relatively common practice in such suits. Further, there is already testimony on record from the Lich/Barber criminal trial that the Ottawa Police directed the convoy on what roads to use to get downtown and which streets to park on. The federal government would probably reimburse the city if it ended up footing the bill.

Ottawa Convoy Class Action

ottawaconvoyclassaction.ca

The City of Ottawa is sued quite frequently for negligence, this would just be much larger than most claims.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/city-of-ottawa-paid-14-5m-to-settle-legal-claims-last-year-1.3428744

 

[brihard]

The protests weren't "declared illegal" on February 4th, that didn't happen until the EA was enacted and that decision itself has been found to be unlawful and unreasonable (appeal decisions pending). February 4th is when GoFundMe decided to shut down the fund they had set up for the protests, due to public pressure. If you follow the Lich/Barber trial, it's yet to really be demonstrated by the prosecution that the protests themselves were ever "illegal". The class action is for private and public nuisance damages (yet to be proven or calculated) not illegal conduct.

The illegality of the protest - or more specifically, discrete actions by protesters - isn't dependent on the EA declaration. The multitude of criminal offences that were being committed weren't dependent on a proclamation by an executive branch of government; the offences of mischief and of obstruction of police (along with various and sundry others) began nearly immediately when they first parked and blocked downtown streets.

The illegal character of the convoy has been recognized in a multitude of criminal trials, and so far in at least one appeal to the Ontario Court of Justice. A succinct articulation was made by Justice Wadden in the Romlewski trial, and affirmed on appeal to Superior Court, with this specific paragraph quoted approvingly by the justice who ruled on the appeal:

[21] Whether the Accused subjectively accepts the legitimacy of this policing action is irrelevant. I find on the evidence that there was a legitimate police operation underway to end the illegal occupation of the downtown streets. I find that Cst. Bastien and his fellow officers were acting in the execution of their lawful duties that afternoon. It is irrelevant whether the Emergency Act had been declared or not; the police were entitled to clear the streets of disruptive people, just as they would be entitled to do so on any day that a crowd had gathered that was so disruptive that it was breaching the peace. At that moment, the Accused was not part of the crowd they were approaching, but he interfered with the police as they moved toward it. My finding of the legitimacy of the police action is reinforced by the fact that this was not a round-up of protesters, or a “kettling” as has sometimes been seen in crowd control. There is no evidence that mass arrest was the objective. At each stage the police gave the Accused every opportunity to leave the area without arrest. On the evidence before me it is clear that the police were acting to secure the area to restore order.

https://canlii.ca/t/jssgf

There are a multitude of legal proceedings going on around the Ottawa convoy; the civil lawsuit, and lots of criminal trials still (most of which you never hear about). Likely there are some criminal matters pending appeal. The criminal actions that were committed and for which people were charged were not criminal because of some declaration of illegality or the pronouncement of a public order emergency; that's not how criminal law works. A protest in and of itself is not inherently illegal (though can quickly become an unlawful assembly), but when a multitude of criminal actions begin taking place within it, police are well justified in acting to clear it out and to restore public order. Nor is the lawsuit dependent on any specific declaration of illegality; rather, whether they can prove wrongful acts, and resultant damages.

 

[Winds]

The illegality of the protest - or more specifically, discrete actions by protesters - isn't dependent on the EA declaration. The multitude of criminal offences that were being committed weren't dependent on a proclamation by an executive branch of government; the offences of mischief and of obstruction of police (along with various and sundry others) began nearly immediately when they first parked and blocked downtown streets.

The illegal character of the convoy has been recognized in a multitude of criminal trials, and so far in at least one appeal to the Ontario Court of Justice. A succinct articulation was made by Justice Wadden in the Romlewski trial, and affirmed on appeal to Superior Court, with this specific paragraph quoted approvingly by the justice who ruled on the appeal:



There are a multitude of legal proceedings going on around the Ottawa convoy; the civil lawsuit, and lots of criminal trials still (most of which you never hear about). Likely there are some criminal matters pending appeal. The criminal actions that were committed and for which people were charged were not criminal because of some declaration of illegality or the pronouncement of a public order emergency; that's not how criminal law works. A protest in and of itself is not inherently illegal (though can quickly become an unlawful assembly), but when a multitude of criminal actions begin taking place within it, police are well justified in acting to clear it out and to restore public order. Nor is the lawsuit dependent on any specific declaration of illegality; rather, whether they can prove wrongful acts, and resultant damages.

My post was in reply to Remius' claim that on Feb 4th the protest was "declared illegal", which it was not. Such a declaration was made as part of the EA declaration, however. Obviously there can be individual criminal offences that don't inherently make the protest itself illegal... that's kinda my point, which you seemed to miss. If the protest as a whole is not illegal, then how would donors of the protest be held liable for the actions of individual actors within it?

And again, you stated that illegal action began when "they first parked and blocked downtown streets". The blocking of streets was directed by the Ottawa police though, having directed the truckers to park on Wellington and several other downtown streets... that's one of the reasons I suggested the City of Ottawa should be added to the list of defendants in the class action lawsuit for public and private nuisance.

You seem to think that I support the protest actions of the convoy, which I have stated multiple times that I do not. I agree that the police have the right to take action to restore order, they did the opposite for several weeks though. Never should they have been allowed to park vehicles on streets as a form of protest. Some climate protestors sat down on Wellington St in protest just last week... I don't support that either.

 

[brihard]

My post was in reply to Remius' claim that on Feb 4th the protest was "declared illegal", which it was not. Such a declaration was made as part of the EA declaration, however. Obviously there can be individual criminal offences that don't inherently make the protest itself illegal... that's kinda my point, which you seemed to miss. If the protest as a whole is not illegal, then how would donors of the protest be held liable for the actions of individual actors within it?

And again, you stated that illegal action began when "they first parked and blocked downtown streets". The blocking of streets was directed by the Ottawa police though, having directed the truckers to park on Wellington and several other downtown streets... that's one of the reasons I suggested the City of Ottawa should be added to the list of defendants in the class action lawsuit for public and private nuisance.

You seem to think that I support the protest actions of the convoy, which I have stated multiple times that I do not. I agree that the police have the right to take action to restore order, they did the opposite for several weeks though. Never should they have been allowed to park vehicles on streets as a form of protest. Some climate protestors sat down on Wellington St in protest just last week... I don't support that either.

You’re reading a number of things into my post that weren’t there. Yes, I was partly replying to you. I was also largely replying more generally for the broader audience. I’m not at all suggesting you’re a convoy supporter.

 

[childs56]

This is hilarious, reading all the transcripts from the "investigation" is even funnier, if you want even more of a laugh watch the video of the fact finding process.

 

[brihard]

The fed have filed their anticipated appeal of the Federal Court judicial review of the Emergencies Act proclamation. There’s a copy of the notice of appeal at the link; it’s short, just over six pages inclusive of the cover and intro. It shows a simple roadmap for what the feds intend to argue. However it goes it will be an interesting decision and resultant case law. I think the feds may see a few parts overturned; not sure they’ll get much or all of it.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ottawa-appeals-emergencies-act-court-decision-1.7124513

 

[Winds]

The fed have filed their anticipated appeal of the Federal Court judicial review of the Emergencies Act proclamation. There’s a copy of the notice of appeal at the link; it’s short, just over six pages inclusive of the cover and intro. It shows a simple roadmap for what the feds intend to argue. However it goes it will be an interesting decision and resultant case law. I think the feds may see a few parts overturned; not sure they’ll get much or all of it.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ottawa-appeals-emergencies-act-court-decision-1.7124513

It's interesting they make plenty of claims that the judge erred in law but don't request the appeal court to render a new decision, rather they want them to order a retrial, which only has the benefit of bringing new facts to the case (and drastically increasing the plaintiffs legal costs) compared to asking the appeal court to overturn the judgement. Well, technically their first request is to have the judgement put aside and have the whole judicial review dismissed, essentially declaring there is no grounds for a judicial ruling (nothing to see here).

It'll be interesting to see how they try to substantiate any of these arguments. They probably want a new trial because there was no evidence submitted to support these claims. For example, they claim an err of law when the judge declared cabinet as the de facto decision-maker and the Governor General as the de jure decision-maker, insisting that parliament always held the Governor General (GIC) as the "sole decision-maker" under the act... is that what the PM said when he publicly declared his government was invoking the act, and later provided his testimony to the Rouleau Commission? If the court determines the GIC as the sole decision maker, then why were they not even questioned during the commission? As well, the argument that there should be multiple ways to determine reasonableness under the act is bizarre... courts don't normally establish multiple interpretation methods of judicial tests. The whole appeal seems to be just declaring every statement of the judgement was wrong and seeing if anything sticks.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6350734

 

[Kirkhill]

It's interesting they make plenty of claims that the judge erred in law but don't request the appeal court to render a new decision, rather they want them to order a retrial, which only has the benefit of bringing new facts to the case (and drastically increasing the plaintiffs legal costs) compared to asking the appeal court to overturn the judgement. Well, technically their first request is to have the judgement put aside and have the whole judicial review dismissed, essentially declaring there is no grounds for a judicial ruling (nothing to see here).

It'll be interesting to see how they try to substantiate any of these arguments. They probably want a new trial because there was no evidence submitted to support these claims. For example, they claim an err of law when the judge declared cabinet as the de facto decision-maker and the Governor General as the de jure decision-maker, insisting that parliament always held the Governor General (GIC) as the "sole decision-maker" under the act... is that what the PM said when he publicly declared his government was invoking the act, and later provided his testimony to the Rouleau Commission? If the court determines the GIC as the sole decision maker, then why were they not even questioned during the commission? As well, the argument that there should be multiple ways to determine reasonableness under the act is bizarre... courts don't normally establish multiple interpretation methods of judicial tests. The whole appeal seems to be just declaring every statement of the judgement was wrong and seeing if anything sticks.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6350734

Would it be wrong to read your comments and infer that the PM is at risk of acknowledging the primacy of the Governor-General?

 

[brihard]

It's interesting they make plenty of claims that the judge erred in law but don't request the appeal court to render a new decision, rather they want them to order a retrial, which only has the benefit of bringing new facts to the case (and drastically increasing the plaintiffs legal costs) compared to asking the appeal court to overturn the judgement. Well, technically their first request is to have the judgement put aside and have the whole judicial review dismissed, essentially declaring there is no grounds for a judicial ruling (nothing to see here).

You just contradicted yourself. Reversing the lower court decision and dismissing the underlying judicial review is exactly a new decision on appeal. That’s literally the first thing they ask for.

You refer to it as a ‘trial’ several times, but it’s not. It’s a judicial review of an administrative decision, under administrative law. Many of the legal considerations are therefore very different. A judicial review or an appeal thereof isn’t a forum to introduce new facts (save in rare cases) as you suggest; they render their decision based upon the body of information available at the time to the decision maker, and with considerable deference to the decision maker. Most administrative JRs will focus on the ‘reasonableness’ of the decision- not whether the court agrees, but whether a decision maker similarly informed could reasonably have arrived at that decision. A JR and appeal thereof can also tackle manifest errors of law, but that’s more rare.

 

[Winds]

You just contradicted yourself. Reversing the lower court decision and dismissing the underlying judicial review is exactly a new decision on appeal. That’s literally the first thing they ask for.

You refer to it as a ‘trial’ several times, but it’s not. It’s a judicial review of an administrative decision, under administrative law. Many of the legal considerations are therefore very different. A judicial review or an appeal thereof isn’t a forum to introduce new facts (save in rare cases) as you suggest; they render their decision based upon the body of information available at the time to the decision maker, and with considerable deference to the decision maker. Most administrative JRs will focus on the ‘reasonableness’ of the decision- not whether the court agrees, but whether a decision maker similarly informed could reasonably have arrived at that decision. A JR and appeal thereof can also tackle manifest errors of law, but that’s more rare.

You seem to like to mischaracterize my statements. What I said was that rather than have the court change the judge's decision (a new decision), as the appeal court often does, they're asking for them to dismiss "the underlying application for judicial review" (a determination that the matter did not need to be reviewed). So, rather than stating that the judge's reasoning was incorrect, they want the appeal court to determine there was never a requirement for judicial review. In the alternative, they want it sent back to the federal court for a new determination... also, rather than having the Federal Court of Appeal make that determination themselves, which they can do.

A trial is the process of resolving a dispute in court, and there are many different types of trials. A judicial review is when an administrative decision is put on trial. This one included facts and arguments brought forth by both the plaintiff and the defence, in court. If they send it back to the Federal Court for a new determination, it may allow the defence to bring new arguments and facts, such as disclosing the 'novel' legal opinion that the federal government relied its invocation of the EA on (a new fact that was the basis for the administrative decision in question), since they want to argue there should be multiple ways to determine 'reasonableness' when reading the EA and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act.

Why is the Attorney General's office (the defence in this case) so reluctant to disclose the legal opinion that the EA invocation was based off of? If it provided a legally sound basis for the decision, one'd think it'd be the basis of their defence.

 

[Winds]

Would it be wrong to read your comments and infer that the PM is at risk of acknowledging the primacy of the Governor-General?

It seems that way. The appeal insists that the Governor General was the "sole decision-maker", and that it's her decision that was under review.