UpperDeck

Donating Member
  • Content count

    1,292
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    33

UpperDeck last won the day on December 29 2016

UpperDeck had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

277 Excellent

About UpperDeck

  • Rank
    5

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Interests
    Boating; golf; research

Recent Profile Visitors

2,237 profile views
  1. Got to have a little chuckle at that suggestion. Based on what is known ( and what is implied), you might want to tell those " few lawyers" that they're smoking something that should be shared.
  2. I acknowledge that service providers are required to expend reasonable efforts to accommodate persons with disabilities. That is a cost of business. I am not certain that "aging" should be classed as a disability though certainly I agree.....I now more often feel "less able" than I did 10 years ago.
  3. Right to what? If you mean she has a right to hire an attendant and to pay for the attendant to accompany her on her journies, I agree. She definitely has the right to exercise all reasonable care for her own safety. But does she have the right to insist that other revenue passengers assist by sharing the costs incurred by a public carrier to provide " special attention"? There are such costs and presuming the costs aren't simply absorbed ( at the expense of shareholders), they must be paid by all pax or, more fairly I submit, by the pax who requires such special attention.
  4. Somewhat of a thread deviation but if low fares attract low lifes ( I don't think they do), instead of focussing on ULCC's, why don't airlines consider a Fixed Fare Premium Carrier (FFPC)? Seriously...I've brought this up in discussions and had a very positive response. Fewer seats; bigger seats; more room; no business class per se; increased amenities such as well-presented and palatable food and drinks ( in moderation); and a dress code. Fares would be fixed--- no last minute discounts to fill seats and no race to the bottom. Separate lounges and dedicated security. In a sense, a modified business class without the pods.
  5. Justifiably so. Seeker....you have an OPINION!!! No question.....your opinion is of value but it remains an opinion. However, you do not couch your statement in those terms; you state that you've been from coast to cost AND THE BEST IS....... End of sentence and no disssension tolerated.
  6. Say again.....no currency transaction fees with Amex. Hello? Anyone out there or is this mic dead? I have a TD Visa gold and a TD Visa borderless card. Visa has very suspect customer service. Amex is incredibly responsive. Very pleased with their service and benefits. One example.....you pay an annual fee to Amex of $450. HOWEVER, Amex gives you the Uber credit and also a $200/ yr. allowance for airline fees. In addition, you get free Priority Pass access to worldwide airport lounges. Check out the lounge in YYZ on the US side. It is full of flight and cabin crew stopping in for a snack and drink (soft) waiting for their flight. Two weeks ago, I swear there were more uniforms than civies. Two of them told me their access was via Amex. I get no points from Amex for this endorsememt.
  7. Damn! I was going to call it quits but...... Malcolm......if you go back in my statements, you will find reference to my comment in the case where a client tells his lawyer ; "I killed John but I want to take the stand and testify that I was somewhere else at the time of his death." In that situation, the lawyer should withdraw BUT......you don't usually get advance notice and the Court will not allow you to withdraw at the court house steps on the eve of trial. If you put the accused client on the stand and question him so as to elicit the testimony you know to be false, you are yourself committing an offence. And so....if your accused client insists on testifying, you call the client to the stand and invite him to give his evidence. You do NOT question the witness. Now then....if you do that, everyone and his brother will know why; they will know the accused is lying. When I was confronted with this situation ( one time), I explained this process to the client. He changed his mind about testifying. That is an entirely different situation than one where a client describes an event that has resulted in charges and the lawyer embarks on an a legal and factual analysis to determine whether the charges are well-founded; evidence properly obtained; other relevant factors considered...etc etc.It is NOT the function of a lawyer to act as judge and jury! Consider briefly the Ghomishi case. He was charged with sexual assault. Assume he told his lawyer that he had in fact choked the alleged victim. The lawyer did not respond "Well, then. You're guilty and if that is not how you intend to plead, I won't represent you." The lawyer inquired into the facts and learned that the accused believed he had consent to that physical contact. Ultimately, a thorough and vigorous defence established at least a possibility that the alleged victim was in fact using the process to punish the accused for failing to reciprocate her affections. He was acquitted. I am reasonably confident that the Taliban and members of ISIL and other fundamentalists are certain in their "opinion" of right and wrong. They are essentially "absolutists" unwilling to accept as viable the opinions of other sects of the same faith. I'm not sure there is ever only one "right" way ( or "wrong" ). There are guide posts....a general direction.....which is perhaps why we speak of a " moral compass" or lament how one may have " lost his way". We are on a journey; following an ill-defined pathway and you and I will hopefully both arrive at the same destination one or both of us bearing the scars left by the obstacles we encountered as we occasionally took the " road less travelled".
  8. Sorry but you don't get it. A person who stabs another who dies as a result may be charged with a capital offence. By reason of diminished capacity resulting from intoxication, they may be not guilty of the offence charged but guilty of the lesser included offence of manslaughter. How foolish to suggest that a lawyer should counsel the client to plead guilty to a capital offense when the charge is defensible. One...you apparently know very little about the law and have no interest in being informed and....two.....fortunately, your "beliefs" are irrelevant to the administration of justice in our country. Perhaps more importantly....none of that is going to affect my enjoyment of life today one iota!
  9. Malcolm......with respect, I could not disagree more strongly. Please do not so easily presume that money is a motivating factor . Criminal defence work is definitely not a path to early comfortable retirement. The most simple and fundamental principle is that EVERY accused is entitled to be presumed innocent in the eyes of the law until guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The plea is " not guilty"; the plea is NOT "innocent". I was prepared to expand on that at length but given your belief that a lawyer who refuses to represent a client because of moral beliefs is a "good" lawyer, I think my efforts would be wasted. Please "Allah", save us all from those few who think they know best and believe that the path they have chosen is the "right" path! One add-on.......do you understand the difference between actus reus and mens rea? Both must usually be present to found a conviction. Do those lawyers you admire presume to know whether their client had " diminished capacity"; believe they were required to act in self-defence; acting under the influence of sleep-deprivation, alcohol or drug? Perhaps those factors were irrelevant to them.....in which event, they should stick to residential real estate and wills!!
  10. What I might think and what I know are two different things. But assume I "know". The burden rests upon the State to prove the guilt of the accused "beyond a reasonable doubt". As the representative of the accused, I nevertheless owe a duty to the administration of justice as an officer of the court and can not ( should not) actively seek to deceive. Therefore, if ( for example) your client admits the facts alleged to counsel, that counsel should not assist him by calling him as a witness and walking him through a story counsel knows to be false. If he insists on telling his story, you simply call him and say; "Tell this Court what you say happened". Done. Better....he stays silent and you let the Crown meet its burden. Any deviation and defence counsel becomes an arm of the state and our justice system falls.
  11. AMEX Platinum (US).....no charges for currency exchange; market exchange rate; worldwide lounge access; $200/ yr reimbursement for airline charges ( includes gift cards); $15/mo free Uber; concierge service; SPG membership; Hilton Gold; reimbursement for Nexus fee; and more! For certain, one of the best and the US AMEX platinum is better than the Cdn platinum....and cheaper too! This is NOT a paid endoresement.
  12. I love words. I am reasonably adept in the art of manipulating language to convey my thoughts and yet.....sometimes I do not achieve my purpose. Most people do not have my skills. Many are better but most have lesser abilities. I am well-spoken. I am not at all afraid to stand before a crowd and mouth homilies for an hour or so. Most people do not have that skill. I have often said that I have no particular affection for Trump. I do, however become irate at the continuing biased choice of words by the MSM ( main stream media) used to "inform" the public. Trump is not "artful" in his use of language but he reasonably conveys his ideas to his audience. Parsing those words generates ridicule because they have not been carefully chosen. Those who ridicule are not unreasonably labelled as intellectual snobs. For a second, consider the reference to the use of "microwaves" as a surveillance tool. It is beyond question that the manipulation of microwaves is in fact a surveillance tool. Why has no one mentioned that fact? Microwaves are of course used in p2p communications and in wireless networks. Microwave ovens may not yet be part of the household network but they are definitely included in the plan for a " connected household" and the recent revelations of CIA hacking suggest efforts to utilize device communication hardware to access data. When Trump referenced the "tapping of Trump Towers" by Obama, was he speaking of Barack scaling the walls to plant bugs? No one suggested that, did they? He was obviously referencing the administration. Everyone acknowledges that. Can anyone...will anyone...now acknowledge that the US through the NSA and CIA had the ability to surreptitiously collect information from devices situate in the Trump Towers? Vsplat.....I'll join the "madding crown" decrying police shootings when 1) police cease to be targeted; 2) when any particularly sensitized group stops killing the members of their own community in gross numbers; 3) when the mothers in that community stop wailing " my baby was a good boy" and start imposing a curfew on that "good boy" that requires him to be in bed at 10 rather than on the streets at 1; 4) when the fathers in that community widely speak of " my son" rather than a " baby momma"; 5) when BOTH parents scour the household for firearms and then lock those guns away rather than leave them lying around so that one of their children can shoot and kill a sibling or neighbour or..... Well.....THAT was fun!
  13. Fido......Agreed! I was recently in New Zealand and Australia, renting a car in the latter. I commented at the time how amazed I was at the speed of traffic on the M-3....BELOW the posted limit!! No cars whizzing past as though I was stopped. Later in conversation with a native, I was told there was zero tolerance for speeding and it was common knowledge that drivers would be stopped for even 2 or 3 km over the limit. The same was said about impaired driving.....get caught and you go to jail. In my opinion, forfeit the vehicle of persons determined to be impaired and the risk will become unacceptable to the offender and/or persons allowing others to drive their vehicles.
  14. First....I agree that "Y" pax should be "discouraged" from using bin space in "J". I also understand that bin space is not assigned. BUT.......think of the announcement made frequently upon boarding; "Please place lighter bags in THE overhead bin above". (Some airlines stipulate heavier bags overhead). "THE" is the definite article. The announcement does not refer to "an overhead bin" which uses the indefinite article. Pax are encouraged to use a specific bin and it is entirely reasonable to assume that the specific bin is the one most proximate to your seat. Now then.....about that "non-friend" in J "hurling" a bag down the aisle to Y.........