UpperDeck

Donating Member
  • Content count

    1,287
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    33

UpperDeck last won the day on December 29 2016

UpperDeck had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

275 Excellent

About UpperDeck

  • Rank
    5

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Interests
    Boating; golf; research

Recent Profile Visitors

2,049 profile views
  1. 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.
  2. 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".
  3. 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!
  4. 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!!
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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!
  8. 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.
  9. 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.........
  10. I haven't posted on this thread because I think I would be simply repeating what others have quite ably posted; preaching to the choir, so to speak. My issues include the improper use ( in my opinion) of the English language. I understood that Islam is the religion and Muslims are its followers. A "phobia" is a fear. I don't like recluse spiders but I don't have a problem with "daddy long legs". I don't have arachnophobia because I don't fear ALL spiders. I have no issue with Islam any more than I have issues with Christianity and Judaism. However, I do have a fear of SOME Muslims.....the ones who think all non-believers should be beheaded. I suggest that is not only a reasonable fear; its a healthy fear and may prolong my life. I'm not a "muslimophobic". Maybe Bil M-103 was drafted with the word "Islamophobic" because ""Muslimophobic" looked silly and was too hard to say. But how do you convey to these idiot politicians that 1) they're wasting their time and our money and, 2) there are more pressing issues of actual national importance such as safeguarding our borders from illegal immigrants. Look where the US is now because of its failure to react to a violation of its sovereign rights--- the right ( and obligation) to protect its borders. If an army of people attempted to cross our borders without permission, would we not act immediately to repel them? Does the definition of army require the possession of firearms by the invader?
  11. Blues.....I don't "rant" as you so casually state. I did post. I am reasonably astute and can read. You stated; "So has he gone out on the campaign trail again because he really doesn't know enough about running a country and being a president?" Now if one is unable to devine your opinion of Trump from that statement, I would suggest they are obtuse. And if you honestly think that your opinion is not obvious, you apparently think little of the intellectual capacities of the readers on this forum. The exchange is unnecessary? I'm sorry....do you suggest that you should in fact be able to say whatever you like on a public forum and be immune from response? Or do you suggest that your statement of opinion derives from such an exalted position that any response is presumptive and a "waste of words"? I regret that you chose to respond by personal insult to what I believed to be a reasonable response to your criticism of Trump.
  12. Lighten up? Lord, man. I'm barely on my toes! Surely you never expected to "trash" someone on this forum without generating some sort of response. You acknowledge you are not a Trump fan. No one has a problem with a well-considered and reasonably well-expressed opinion acknowledged simply as opinion and not stated as a fact. The difficulty arises when you simply pick up the nearest stone and hurl it at your target without apparent reason or purpose save and except to express allegiance to " your herd". Too "heavy"? Apologies.
  13. It is of interest that you have described Trump's speech in Melbourne, Fl as an event on a "campaign trail". That in fact is the media portrayal; that to deal with the withdrawal of Flynn as NSA and the negative press, Trump reverted to "campaign mode". So.....you are adopting and relying upon the media characterization. And that is the point, isn't it? There appears to be mounting evidence that media labelling of the Trump administration is purposefully negative. One can choose to describe an event as a " public appearance" or " connecting with the public" or as a "campaign event"....and the latter phrase is perceived by the reader as having negative connotations while the first is positive. You yourself have used the terminology for its negative connotation. Barack Obama made over 400 speeches during his two terms and he used "press conferences" as his primary means of communications. He did NOT go out and mingle with the electorate. He had excellent relations with the press and was a gifted speaker and VERY adept at controlling the process. He obviously chose a means of communicating with the public in which he felt most effective. Is it unreasonable for Trump to do the same? The following was spoken by Obama in a presentation in April, 2009, within his first 100 days; So I think we're off to a good start. But it's just a start. I'm proud of what we've achieved, but I'm not content. I'm pleased with our progress, but I'm not satisfied. Millions of Americans are still without jobs and homes, and more will be lost before this recession is over. Credit is still not flowing nearly as freely as it should. Countless families and communities touched by our auto industry still face tough times ahead. Our projected long-term deficits are still too high. And government is still not as efficient as it needs to be. We still confront threats ranging from terrorism to nuclear proliferation as well as pandemic flu. And all this means you can expect an unrelenting, unyielding effort from this administration to strengthen our prosperity and our security -- in the second hundred days, and the third hundred days, and all the days after that." Obama intentionally lowered the expectation bar. One can regard that speech as a description of a lightening sky; the overcast skies perhaps parting. Compare that approach with that of Trump who has repeatedly assured Americans in their own language that there WILL be continued improvement and prosperity. I have no idea whether or not he is right. I defer to the world of business leaders and investors who have expressed their opinions not with words but with money as the world stock markets reflect. As an aside, any opinion why the press was silent...no opeds in the G&M.....when it was indicated Trump was effectively endorsing continued illegal settlements in Israel and promising a move of the embassy and yet....reducing the level of conflict with Russia has been construed as an act of treason?
  14. I venture to say that mechanics similarly never stop enhancing their skills adapting as necessary to technological and mechanical innovation.