September 9th, 2005, 11:44 AM
Did anyone watch CP24's Legal Briefs when they were discussing the ban and the new laws?? It aired right around the end of August, I think it was late at night.
There was a guy who called in, can't remember his name or where he was from, but he also launced some sort of lawsuit against the government in regards to the ban. There was a name for it, can't remember that either!! :mad:
Did anyone see the show??? I believe the lawsuit had something to do with the new laws are infringing on our rights as Canadian citizens. I am not knowledgable with politics and legal matters so I don't know what the proper term was that he referred to.
September 9th, 2005, 06:49 PM
I did see part of it Coppers Mom, but over all they were irritating me! The law proffessor used to be Bryants teacher and although he was against the ban he wasn't very knowledgeable. I posted earlier about that guy that called in but got no response...did you notice that Lauren H (wont even attempt that last name) asked him to talk to him after the show? Maybe they now have more info ,but its not just a law suit if I understood correctly, its another challenge to the charter, something about juristictions, between federal and provincial :confused: Anyway the caller said it had already been filed, sometime in June I thought he said. Very curious to know more about that one.
September 9th, 2005, 10:31 PM
Keep them coming. Line forms to the right.
I guess it's hard to be proud that you taught Bryant. Probably even less proud if you were taught by Bryant.
September 9th, 2005, 10:45 PM
Yes, It would difficult to be proud of teaching Bryant, especialy since everyone now knows the odds are he cheated in your class LOL This prof didn't seem to on the ball either. He spoke of a law that basically said that if your dog bites someone and its a pit bull, rotti, the usual suspects, that you as the owner of such a dog,had reasonable knowledge that such a dog could bite or kill someone so you are charged criminally, but if the dog were a lab, you could not have predicted this behaviour so could not be criminally prosecuted. Ofcourse Im paraphrasing here, but he said something like that. Which would be a breed specific law, soooo, I kinda think we would have heard about it if such a thing existed :confused: Now in his defence he was using this as an illustration of existing legislation to protect people from criminal behaviour regarding dog bites,so his point was that the bill was redundant in this respect. He did not support the ban at all, Which is obviously good, its just that he didn't seeem to have a grasp on the history of the anti-ban arguments. Anyway he was on our side, but thought that all the other legislation that Bryant worked on was good. Did Bryant work on other legislation :confused:
September 9th, 2005, 11:34 PM
Yes, It would difficult to be proud of teaching Bryant, especialy since everyone now knows the odds are he cheated in your class LOL ...
Number Sixteen. Number Sixteen.
September 9th, 2005, 11:44 PM
(oh darn! :eek: They switched picture # 16!)
So much for writing the test answers down on your shirt cuff, Mikey..