Subject: Re: Enforcing Judgements in Other Countries
From: [email-masked] (Mathew Englander)
Date: 5 Oct 1994 07:43:48 GMT
Newsgroups: can.legal

In article <[email-masked]>,
Jeff Connel <[email-masked]> wrote:
>Let me get this straight. You are saying some fruitloop in the UK can
>go to a UK court with a piece of paper copied off USenet and sue
>someone in Canada for libel - someone who probably can't afford to go
>to the UK to challenge this suit - and then get a subsequent order
>for damages enforced by Canadian authorities?
>
>I find this very hard to believe.
>

The following is a posting I made several months ago to a few newsgroups,
though not can.legal:

From [email-masked] Sun Dec 12 06:16:39 1993
~Date: Sun, 12 Dec 93 05:38:56 PST
~From: Mathew Englander <[email-masked]>
~Subject: Re: Laurence Godfrey and Jurisdiction

The contents of this article, and any other originated by me, do
not constitute legal advice.
 
That said, I'd like to point out that I just noticed this thread on
soc.culture.canada and there appears to be a fair bit of animosity among
the participants. I really don't care about that; I have no idea who's
threatened to sue whom and how come. What I am interested in is the
legal point about jurisdiction.

In article <[email-masked]>,  <[email-masked]> wrote:

[Quoting the Convention btwn Canada and the U.K. providing for the
reciprocal recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and
commercial matters]

>Article 5 of the Convention reads:
>(1) For the purposes of Article IV (1) (c) the original court shall be
>regarded as having jurisdiction if
 [...]
>(f) the jurisdiction of the original court is otherwise recognised by the
>registering court.
>(excerpt ends)
>
>This means that Laurence has indeed been misleading us and his victims
>as to the nature of these reciprocal agreements; in fact, jurisdiction
>is for the purposes of Godfrey's claim, only recognised if the
>defendent him or herself recognises the jurisdiction of the court and
>participates in the proceedings.

No. The Convention, and especially Article V(1)(f), must be interpreted in
light of the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in De Savoye v. Morguard
Investments, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1077, 76 D.L.R. (4th) 256. This case
revolutionized the question of jurisdiction in Canadian conflicts of laws.

The facts of the Morguard case dealt with a company trying to enforce a
default judgment from an Alberta court against the defendant who now lived
in B.C. Before 1990, such a judgment would not have been enforceable
outside Alberta, unless the defendant had either been served in Alberta or
attorned (i.e. submitted) to the Alberta court's jurisdiction.

In Morguard, the Supreme Court of Canada changed all this, and said that a
default judgment from one province *can* be enforced in another province,
as long as there was a "real and substantial connection" between
the subject matter and the original province that took jurisdiction.

Of course, on its facts the case was confined to recognition of judgments
between Canadian provinces. However, lower courts have applied the
principle to judgments from other countries. In particular, the Ontario
Court of Justice, General Division, has applied the Morguard principle to
the Canada-U.K. Convention quoted above: see Fabrelle Wallcoverings &
Textiles Ltd. v. North American Decorative Products Inc. (1992), 6 C.P.C.
(3d) 170. In the Fabrelle case, a Canadian company was sued by a British
company, in England, for breach of contract. The English company obtained
a default judgment for some 120,000 pounds. The Canadian company did
not defend the action, and had never submitted or agreed to submit to the
jurisdiction of the English court. However, the Ontario court decided that
because the litigation had a "real and substantial connection" to England,
the English court took jurisdiction appropriately, and the judgment should be
enforced in Ontario.

For an appeal-court-level decision that applied the Morguard principle to a
non-Canadian judgment, see Moses v. Shore Boat Builders, judgment filed
Sept. 28, 1993 (unrep.), Vancouver registry CA015661 (B.C.C.A.).

> If the schools etc he is suing refuse
>to attend the proceedings or otherwise agree to them, they are not
>binding.

That is an incorrect statement of law, as the Fabrelle case shows. The
reason that Article V(1)(f) is so important is that the Morguard principle
provides a way for a Canadian court to "otherwise recognise[]" the
jurisdiction of an English court. (Though ironically, it wouldn't work the
other way around.)

In some sense, the Convention itself is obsolete, because if Morguard does
apply to judgments from outside Canada, as lower courts have consistently
held, then a foreign judgment can be enforced in Canada regardless of any
statutory or treaty framework -- if the original court met the "real and
substantial connection" test when it took jurisdiction.

> Further British libel law 21-15 states that it is an acceptable
>defence to argue that the publication was made abroad and is not
>actionable in that country.

This of course brings up the question that gets asked on Usenet, oh, every
five minutes: is a newsgroup posting a publication? The answer: nobody will
know until the courts decide. But I would hazard to say that if it is a
publication, it is a publication everywhere in the world that Usenet reaches,
not just in the jurisdiction where the article was originally keyed in.
However, I really don't know very much about defamation law.

>Either Laurence has been purposely decietful or his lawyer hasn't read
>the laws and conventions in question.

Good lawyers read much more than laws and conventions: they read the
case-law. And here, the case-law suggests that Canadian defendants should
take it very seriously when they get sued in foreign countries, because
otherwise the judgment may be enforced against them in Canada.

Mathew Englander <[email-masked]>.

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mathew Englander                                          [email-masked]
_____________________________________________________________________________

From [email-masked] Mon Jan 29 00:35:57 1996
Xref: elastic can.legal:5852
Path: elastic!exorcist!lethe!geac!herboid!whome!light-house!innuendo.tlug.org!clio.trends.ca!worldlinx.com!coranto.ucs.mun.ca!hookup!news.nstn.ca!inforamp.net!ts9-14
From: [email-masked] (malcolm c. kronby)
Newsgroups: can.legal
Subject: Children's conduct and support entitlement: OFLB Jan.'96 - jan96.dos [01/01]
Date: 19 Jan 1996 01:44:45 GMT
Organization: kronby
Lines: 195
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ts9-14.tor.inforamp.net
Summary: Efeect of children's conduct on their entitlement to support in action against parents.  Plus digest of recent decisions.
Keywords: children's conduct support enititlement Ontario family  law bulletin
To: All
X-Newsreader: News Xpress Version 1.0 Beta #3

BEGIN -- Cut Here -- cut here
ONTARIO FAMILY LAW BULLETIN

JANUARY, 1996

The Bulletin is on the Web, courtesy of Osgoode Hall Law School:  
                                                       
   http://www.yorku.ca/faculty/osgoode/fambull/oflbhome.htm

on CompuServe, Legal Forum, Library Section, Law & The Family;
and on newsgroups misc.legal.moderated and can.legal.

E-mail addresses are:

Malcolm C. Kronby   [email-masked], or            
                    [email-masked], or [email-masked]

Jeffery Wilson      [email-masked]

Andrew Freedman     [email-masked]

                             ******

CHILDREN, THEIR CONDUCT AND SUPPORT ENTITLEMENT

A recent decision of Judge Andre L. Guay of the Ontario
Provincial Division in Sudbury tackles the continuing problem of
the conduct of the older child as a factor that appears to be
relevant to support entitlement.  It may strike the reader as
somewhat peculiar that, while under the federal Divorce Act or
the provincial Family Law Act, conduct as related to spousal
support entitlement is applicable only in the most exceptional of
circumstances, it is currently unfolding as an area of
jurisprudence unto itself in respect of the older child who 
goes to court and asks a parent to contribute to her support.
Conduct should certainly play no part in the quantum assessment.
It is nowhere mentioned nor suggested in section 33(9) of the
Family Law Act which attempts to codify the circumstances for the
court's review in assigning the amount of support payable. But,
it seems to come before the court as a result of section 31(2) of
the Family Law Act.  In Ontario, every parent has an obligation
under section 31(1) of the same Act, to provide support, in
accordance with need, for his or her unmarried child who is a
minor or is enrolled in a full time program of education, to the
extent that the parent is capable of doing so.  But section 31(2)
provides an out.  It stipulates that the "... obligation does not
extend  to a child who is sixteen years of age or older and has
withdrawn from parental control."  And, applying this section,
Ontario courts have ruled:

     - support for an "adult child" in grades 10 and 11 should
not continue where there is inadequate school performance: see
Figueiredo (1991) 33 R.F.L. (3d) 72 (Ont. Gen.Div.);

     - support for a 22 year old daughter should stop where the
child refuses to entertain any relationship with her payer
father: see Law (1986) 2 R.F.L. (3d) 458 (Ont. H.C.);
     
     - support for a 20-year-old female child should be
terminated where she spends the academic year of almost 9 months
sharing an apartment with her boyfriend in Toronto and lives with
her mother in the summer months for economic reasons in order to
maximize her potential to save money for her education.  She is a
child who was found by the court to have withdrawn from parental
control, to have established a cohabitive relationship that would
before long expose her and her boyfriend to possible legal
obligations for support: see Scott, summarized at [2:043] Ontario
Family Law Reporter, (unreported, September 2, 1988, Ont.Prov.
Div., per Fraser J.).

     There is within the jurisprudence quite clearly the
potential for judges to focus upon post-separation conduct as
between parents and children, arguably a remarkable outgrowth of
family law legislation that has "outlawed" except in the rarest
of cases, any such consideration as between spouses.  The test
appears broad enough to enable a number of judges to assign
fault, or blame, or breach of duty or diligence (or obedience) in
respect of the child's behaviour at home or school, and thereby
find lack of entitlement under section 31(2), the catch-all
phrase "...withdrawn from parental control".  Perhaps this
restricted application of such concepts to the adult child has
something to do with the fact that children are not part of the
Family Law Act economic partnership, and therefore not protected
from the fault-finding exercise.

     Having said all of this, we return to the opening remark,
Judge Guay's decision in Judd v. Wrixon (Sept.7, 1995, Sudbury
Registry No. PD 95 -179).  In this case, an 18-year-old child had
left the respective homes of both parents.  She moved to a small
town and into  what the emotionally supportive home of her best
friend and her mother from where she pursued her education
through correspondence courses.  She had no ongoing relationship
with her father, the payer party.  She had continued a
relationship with her mother, deriving emotional support
therefrom. She had lived apart from her for a number of years.
The court found that at 18 years of age, the applicant "still
does not have an easy or secure road ahead of her."  The court
found that the applicant's departure from both homes was
ultimately caused by the parents' break-up, the resulting
dysfunction within their respective households and the daughter's
consequent inability to function in either household. As the
court put it:

     "It is evident that she has done her best to cope with the 
     situation flowing from her parents' separation and divorce. 
     These events were not of her doing and it would be unfair if
     she were to suffer educationally from them." 

     In the opinion of the court, and having regard to her the
child's psychiatric history, this was not  case where the
applicant adult child had announced by his or her actions that he
or she prefers to be independent and unfettered by parental
control and not actively pursue schooling.  On this basis, the
court appeared to distinguish the case from that of Figueiredo,
referred to above.  In the court's view, it could be said that
this applicant voluntarily withdrew from parental control, and
"...as an eighteen-year-old who is still pursuing her education,
she should not be left to her own wits to fund her uncompleted
education."

     The court granted the child's application and varied the
support order from that of the monthly amount of $207.26 to that
of $325.00.

     As a side-note, one of our readers to the Ontario Family Law
REPORTER sent in a decision proudly proclaiming it to represent
the highest child support order ever granted by an Ontario Court.
We think not, but it sure adds a perspective to the plight of the
applicant child in the above case.  A mother argued that her 15
year old daughter cost $4,241.06 NET of income tax, a figure that
was inclusive of camp, orthodontia and psychotherapy.  The father
said a reasonable budget was $2,988.00 NET of income tax.  In
Dennis v. Wilson, Justice Walsh of the Ontario General Division
found the child's monthly child care expenses to be $2,988 and
grossed up the amount to cover the mother's taxes, ordering the
father therefore to pay the monthly amount of $3,900 as child
support. (See Dennis v. Wilson, digested at Volume 9, Issue 6 
of the Ontario Family Law REPORTER, unreported, June 15, 1995). 

                                                JW   

MORE CASES IN ONE (OR TWO) SENTENCES

BARRESE v BARRESE, Provincial Division, Brownstone J., 951129

     Access should be denied only in exceptional circumstances,
     such as this case, as a result of father's violence and
     children's fear of him.

BOURCIER V DODGE, Provincial Division, Gauthier J., 951211

     1987 consent order for child support was never paid. 
     Neither a private agreement not to enforce nor laches is a
     defence to a statutory claim for arrears of support.

COBB v WARDROP, Provincial Division, Hardman J., 951221

     Custody awarded to mother on her undertaking to maintain a
     smoke-free home (!) and to abstain from drugs and alcohol.

JINKERSON v JINKERSON, General Division, Marshman J., 951219

     Exclusive possession of matrimonial home granted for about
     ten years in view of husband's physical abuse, and in the
     best interests of the children. 

LOGAN v LEVESQUE, Provincial Division, Guay J., 951130

     Long distance telephone access held to be a financial burden
     and constant irritant.

ROODAL v PERSAD, Provincial Division, Agro J., 950706

     In minutes of settlement, parties agreed that mother could
     leave Ontario with their then three-year-old son for two
     years, to reside and work in the Netherlands, where she
     remarried and had another child.  Mother applied
     successfully to vary the interim order to change her son's
     residency permanently to the Netherlands; MacGyver v.
     Richards applied.

                                                MCK

END -- Cut Here -- cut here

From [email-masked] Sat Jun 29 10:55:07 1996
Xref: elastic misc.legal.computing:1872 news.admin.net-abuse.misc:59624
Path: elastic!jaywon.pci.on.ca!ftn.net!n2tor.istar!tor.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!van.istar!van-bc!uniserve!oronet!news.sprintlink.net!news-stk-11.sprintlink.net!news.fibr.net!nntp.primenet.com!news.mathworks.com!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!jik.israel.net!jik.israel.net!jik
From: [email-masked] (Jonathan Kamens)
Newsgroups: news.admin.net-abuse.misc,misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: "Child Molestor" page on http://www.greatworld.com/public/
Date: 28 Jun 1996 09:06:16 GMT
Organization: jik's Linux box
Lines: 45
Sender: [email-masked] (Jonathan Kamens)
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
References: <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: jik.israel.net

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (Bob Reap) writes:
|> The policies page (http://www.greatworld.com/public/maccept.htm) also
|> states that quoting a "published source" is sufficient protection from
|> libel.

If someone types bogus information into their form, that hardly
constitutes "publishing it"; that's merely submitting it to *them* for
publication.  Therefore, I fail to see how this could protect them from
lawsuits even if it were true.

|> I thought I remembered from law school that re-publication of
|> libel can be libel itself (although I can't remember the standard of fault
|> required).

Correct.  E.g., if a newspaper interviews Joe, who falsely states,
"Fred embezzled money from the company," and the newspaper quotes that,
Fred can sue the newspaper for libel even if Joe actually said it.  The
fact that the newspaper was quoting increases the burden of proof on
Fred, but it doesn't make it impossible for Fred to sue the paper.

Usually, Fred would file a suit against both the newspaper and the
person being quoted.  If the newspaper had reasonable grounds to
believe Joe's statement (e.g., Joe is the CFO of the company and
doesn't have any sort of record of lying in the past), it's entirely
possible that the suit against the newspaper will fail, and all Fred
will be left with is the suit against Joe.  But that's clearly not
relevant to this case, since greatworld.com clearly has *no* legitimate
reason to trust the people submitting information for their database,
and given the number of kooks on the Net, there are all sorts of reason
why such information should be verified rather than trusted.

Another possibility is that when Fred sues Joe and the newspaper, Joe
will claim that he didn't say what the newspaper said he said.  In that
case, the newspaper has to prove that they quoted accurately in
addition to proving it was reasonable for them to believe Joe. 
Something similar could happen here -- someone could submit an
accusation to greatworld.com, and then if they and greatworld got sued,
they could say, "Nope, I didn't send it, someone broke into my
account!"  Then greatworld would be in even bigger trouble.

My overall impression is that this "database" (I think that's a rather
charitable word for it) is a lawsuit waiting to happen.  I can't
*believe* that the people who set it up consulted with competent
counsel before doing so.  If they didn't, they're stupid.  If they did,
and their counsel approved it, then their counsel is stupid.

From elastic!lethe!gts!whome!light-house!innuendo.tlug.org!clio.trends.ca!news3.buffnet.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!cpk-news-h[email-masked] Wed Sep 18 06:38:12 1996
Xref: elastic can.legal:10701 misc.int-property:649 misc.legal:17193 misc.legal.computing:2258 misc.legal.moderated:117
Newsgroups: can.legal,misc.legal,misc.int-property,misc.legal.computing,misc.legal.moderated
Path: elastic!lethe!gts!whome!light-house!innuendo.tlug.org!clio.trends.ca!news3.buffnet.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!cpk-news-h[email-masked]
From: Rick Downs <[email-masked]>
Subject: Onlly in Canada???  Jail for Removing Owns Software
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked] (Larry Kolodney)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Organization: SaskNet News Distribution
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 01:10:58 GMT
Approved: [email-masked] (Co-Moderator misc.legal.moderated)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02E-SYMPA  (Win16; I)
Lines: 157

Only in Canada?? Jail for Removing Own Software

   A Provincial Court Judge has found a house designer and builder who
deleted his personal software,  and other information created with it
from a computer, guilty for "Rendering Data Meaningless".  After handing
down his decision, the Judge sentenced the man to one day in jail, and a
$500 fine.
   Charges stemmed from a complaint claiming the independent contractor
(not an employee) had destroyed important company information including
GST tax records, master house pricing lists, and house designs when he
removed his personal software from the computer upon termination of his
contract.
   However under cross examination the complainant admitted that no GST
tax records or master house pricing had been on the computer.  In
addition the complainant could not substantiate his original testimony
in which he stated he had paid for the development of the copyrighted
house designs which had been removed, nor was there a license for their
continued use.  He did, however, point out that the house designs had
been photocopied on his copier, so that should make them his.
   During the 3 day trial the Crown Prosecutor maintained the Law does
not recognize ownership of data in a computer when it comes to its
removal.  He said the Law only recognized the owner of the computer, who
had the right to control all data in it, including software, regardless
of who owned it.
   The computer in question belonged to the company, but had been
provided for the exclusive use of the contractor.  He had copied to it
his own DOS, software, and information he had created, including
copyrighted house designs, to serve as a backup to his own computer at
his home 50 miles away.   He had been paid nothing for providing the
software, nor anything he created with it.
   The Defense maintained that the contractor had simply been provided
with a tool box - the computer without operating system or software -
into which the contractor had put his tools.  Upon completion of his
contract work, the tools were removed and the tool box left for the next
person to use.
   In finding the contractor guilty the Judge did not cite any of the
initial accusations of destroying important information, nor intent to
defraud.  The written decision said the accused had destroyed software
initially copied from his own computer,  and information created with
that software, so he had broken the Law in Canada by "Rendering Data
Meaningless".

   Sound too absurd to be true?  That's what I thought too, but now I
know that in Canada this is the Law.

The Law: 
Is section 430(1.1) of the Canadian Criminal Code which reads:
   Everyone commits mischief who wilfully
   (a) destroys or alters data;
   (b) renders data meaningless, useless, or ineffective;
And data is defined as anything that can be installed in a computer.

If the person has an interest (license agreement or copyright) in the 
data being destroyed the Law refers to section 429(3) which reads:
   Where it is an offence to destroy or damage anything, the fact that a
   person has a partial interest in what is destroyed or damaged, does
   not prevent him from being guilty of the offense if he caused the
   destruction or damage.
   (b) The fact that a person has a total interest in what is destroyed
   or damaged, does not prevent him from being guilty of the offense, if
   he caused the destruction or damage with intent to defraud.

Further Implications?
Of what may well be the first conviction of this kind in Canada:
  Data (software or inputted information) on leased computers requires
  permission to be granted by the owner of the computers prior to its
  removal by the owner of the data.  Doing so without receiving that
  permission could result in criminal charges.

My Points:

     First, I agree to the with the principle of this Law if it is to 
protect  an individual's or company's data from unauthorized removal or
destruction, such as data in a Point of Sale system which can take   
years to input and compile.
    But the Law was not particularly well thought out, thus is subject  
to abuse.  There will always be unscrupulous people willing to abuse for 
personal gain.  I believe it is the responsibility of our lawmakers / 
politicians to create laws which prevent this, rather than assist it.

    Second is Intellectual Property Rights.  Just because this is not a 
generally well known subject does not disentitle one to the rights of
Copyright Law, or licensing agreements for software, does it?   However
the investigating RCMP officer told me straight that he did not know
about copyright, computers, or licensing agreements, and he did not care 
to, at which point I had to phone a lawyer.  Tens of thousands of 
taxpayer's dollars have been spent because of this attitude.
    Obviously I can not make this go away -  I spent the first year
hoping for that to happen - so now I must bring attention to not only a 
"flawed" law, but also Intellectual Property Rights.

Cast of Characters

   Judge K.A. Andrychuk:  SK Provincial Court Judge who presided over  
the Trial at Yorkton SK Canada March 12, April 29, and June 24 of 1996 
prior to delivering his decision on August 29.
  
 Barry Stricker:  Crown Prosecutor and creative legal mind behind the
Crown's case, who pointed out to a CBC TV reporter that the Law was
relatively new, and he was not aware of any other applications of it.
(Someone trying to make a name for himself??  Naw, couldn't be that.)

   Paul Smolinski:  Complainant, GM of Yorkton Lumber Supply, a
subsidiary of Newton Enterprise of Winnipeg MB. Canada.  (Large
corporation using the legal system at the taxpayer's expense to obtain
copyrighted work rather than license it?  Surely not so.)

   Cst Foster:  RCMP computer expert who reviewed copyrighted house
designs from evidence (diskettes provided by the accused} on the
complainant's computer prior to the start of the Trial, and forgot to
remove them when he was done.  (Surely it was just an oversight because
the donut joint was going to close, or something like that.)

   Cst Hans Thiessen:  Investigating RCMP officer, an associate of the
complainant through the local flying club.  Also borrowed diskettes from
the complainant to include in pictures of evidence surrendered by the
accused, and related to one of the 3 theft charges which were dismissed.
(He didn't do that because there was no physical evidence for the one
theft charge, did he?  Naw, it was just to make the picture look nicer.)

   Rick Downs:  The accused, house designer and builder from Sturgis SK
Canada, independant contractor convicted for removing personal software,
and copyrighted information, because the computer was not his.   (Seems
to have a problem with a Law which gives the owner of the computer full
control over what an individual can do with Intellectual Property
obtained either by license or copyright.  Aw, not another construction
guy crying in his beer!)

  Please, let me know if you think there is a problem here, or if I am
just crying in my beer?
         Thanx,
         Rick Downs
         Computer Criminal,
         formerly house designer and R2000 builder

 Voice: 306-548-4234
 Fax:   306-548-4351

PS:  To have not broken a Law, I should have left all my software and 
copyrighted information on the company computer.   Next I should have 
gone home and deleted everything from my own computer to comply with my 
licensing agreements (or re-purchased all the software).  Then I should 
have hired a lawyer to initiate a law suit to get my copyrighted  
property (house designs and software) back from the company.  I don't 
know about this?

From elastic!lethe!geac!herboid!whome!infoshare!n2ott.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!n3ott.istar!news-out.internetmci.com!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!mr.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!howland.erols.net!panix!news.panix.com!not-for-mail Fri Oct 25 17:31:36 1996
Xref: elastic can.legal:11443 misc.legal.moderated:123
Path: elastic!lethe!geac!herboid!whome!infoshare!n2ott.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!n3ott.istar!news-out.internetmci.com!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!mr.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!howland.erols.net!panix!news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: [email-masked] (Steven J Orlin)
Newsgroups: misc.legal.moderated,can.legal
Subject: False Arrest in Montreal, Quebec? (you tell me)
Date: 24 Oct 1996 11:44:43 -0400
Organization: The Ohio State University
Lines: 67
Sender: [email-masked]
Approved: [email-masked]
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com

This past June I drove up to visit my fiancee in Montreal.  I am
a U.S. citizen and she is a Canadian citizen.  To make a long
story as short as possible:  she had recently tried to discontinue
a short friendship with a man in one of her classes at University
when she discovered he was a nut case, on drugs, and very deceiving
and manipulative.  Unfortunately this guy had a crush on my fiancee,
and was continuing to give her hang up phone calls at all hours
of the night, for weeks after she stopped talking with him.

The guy is in his early 30's and lives at home with his mother and
other family.  Right before my fiancee stopped talking with him, the
guy tried to make sexual passes at her, etc. and started accusing her
of all sorts of things, and even making violent threats at times.

When the hang up phone calls wouldn't stop, and I was up there with
her, I decided to give this guy a call and scare him away.  I did so,
and was careful to not make any direct threats of physical violence,
but I did use choice phrases like "settle this once and for all",
"fix your problem", etc.   Never a direct threat of any physical violence
whatsoever.

That call was made at about 8:00PM.   He hardly spoke a word, and was
apparently shaking and 'leaking' in his pants.   His mother was listening
on the other line, and went frantic.  She called the police and told
them that I made death threats and was going to try to kill her son.
She went crazy in front of the police apparently and made terrible lies.

At 11:30pm, about 10 police officers came to my fiancee's apartment and
arrested me.  They didn't show me any warrant for my arrest, nor did they
say they had one.  They just said that I was being placed under arrest.
(I didn't ask them if they had a warrant, should I have?  Could I have
 resisted to go if they didn't?)

Having faith in the law and justice, I went without a struggle, knowing
full well that I didn't make any death threats (which was what they said
they were arresting me for).  Well as it turned out, I ended up spending
the night in jail, and most of the next day, and just barely came in
front of a judge before hte end of the working day.   I'll spare you
all the long and complicated mess while I was in jail, but what I want
to know is this:

1) Did they unlawfully place me under arrest?
2) Are there any grounds for me to take legal action against them for
   destroying roughly 19 hours from a week long vacation with my fiancee?
3) How is it that you can call the police, make false claims, and have
   someone arrested and thrown in jail (freedom taken away for nearly
   a full day) without that person ever having done something against
   the law?  Is there some exception when a non-Canadian citizen is
   the one in question?

BTW:  No I was not convicted of anything in the end, I almost had to
      pay a bond, but got around it by just signing a form saying I
      would be on good behavior for a year.

I am very ignorant when it comes to law, so please take it easy on me.
Any help is appreciated.  Please give me your credentials if you have
them (not to discourage any replies though).  Also, I'm going to try to
scan these newsgroups for replies, but a carbon copy sent to me via
email is also very much appreciated.

Thanks,

Steve

From elastic!lethe!gts!whome!infoshare!n2ott.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!van.istar!west.istar!n1van.istar!van-bc!news.mindlink.net!news.bc.net!arclight.uoregon.edu!feed1.news.erols.com!panix!news.panix.com!not-for-mail Wed Oct 30 06:53:49 1996
Xref: elastic can.legal:11503 misc.legal.moderated:127
Path: elastic!lethe!gts!whome!infoshare!n2ott.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!van.istar!west.istar!n1van.istar!van-bc!news.mindlink.net!news.bc.net!arclight.uoregon.edu!feed1.news.erols.com!panix!news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: Rick Downs <[email-masked]>
Newsgroups: misc.legal.moderated,can.legal
Subject: Re: False Arrest in Montreal, Quebec? (you tell me)
Date: 29 Oct 1996 12:20:28 -0500
Organization: SaskNet News Distribution
Lines: 156
Sender: [email-masked]
Approved: [email-masked]
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
References: <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02E-SYMPA  (Win16; I)

Karl Pollak wrote:
> Travlr <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> >I recently was accused of a crime in which I had nothing to do with
> >and I had the hell scared out of me by Law Enforcement.  It's quite
> >apparent that Law Enforcement can do as they wish but us citizens
> >have to sit back and take everything that's dished out.
>
> Perhaps in the US they can.  We were discussing law enforcement in
> Canada.
>
> > I now teach my children to not trust Law Enforcement, and to always
> > keep a dam good lawyer on retainer.

Personally I read that as "us citizens" not "U.S.A. citizens".  ;>)

But while on the topic of just how far law enforcement can go, and what
options are available to the people who are abused by their misguided
efforts, I would like to find some answers out.  What follows is not
hypothetical, is substantiatable, and is purely Canadian.

On December 1, 1994 I had my contract terminated with the company for
whom I had provided management services to for 5 years (was NOT an
employee being terminated).  I was authorized to tie up loose ends for
pending work, and remove my personal property from the office provided
for me (under the terms of a lease).  No hard deadline was set, and I
took about 2 weeks to do all this.  All loose ends were looked after, and
my property was removed by December 15th.

On December 22, 1994, at a meeting to finalize monies owing to me a
couple of things ot be significant later occured.  First, I agreed to
sell some of my Personal Property to the company, but complete terms of
payment were not discussed at the time.  Only an agreement in principle.
In addition I was authorized to retain Company Property in order to
complete the agreement of sale.

Second, I agreed to purchase a $99.95 Item from the company, to be paid
for from the balance of the money owed to me that day when I left the
meeting (about $10,000.00).  This was at the insistance of the GM who did
not want that Item which I had purchased on behalf of the company in the
previous capacity of my contract work.

On January 5, 1995 the company GM contacted me to dictate the terms he
wanted in regard to the purchase of the Personal Property.  These terms
were not acceptable to me.  However there was no reversal of the
agreement in principle to sell, just a disagreement on the terms of sale
offered by the GM.

The GM then gave me two days to comply with the terms he offered, or he
would tell the RCMP that I had stolen this Personal Property.  At that
time there was no mention of the Item sold to me for $99.95.  As the
Personal Property was clearly identified with my name, I considered this
threat to be absurd.

Shortly after this conversation, which is the last one we had, the
company GM told the Store Manager he was going to teach me a lesson.  To
do so he was going to bring in his friend, an RCMP constable.  Not only
would his RCMP friend investigate the matter for him, but he would also
assist in helping to figure out "how to get me, and teach me a lesson".

To justify his RCMP friend's investigation, on January 15, 1995 the GM
provided a statement for the RCMP.  He claimed that I had stolen my
Personal Property from the company, as well as the Company Property still
in my possession.  There were also claims that I had destroyed important
information which was actually in the possession of the Company.  But
there was no mention of the $99.95 Item which had been sold to me.

On March 1, 1995 a Search Warrant was issued to the RCMP.  On it was
named my Personal Property, the important Company information, the
Company Property, and now the $99.95 Item.  All of this was voluntarily
turned over to the RCMP except for the important Company information.  As
I did not have this, I could not provide it.  However I did tell the RCMP
officer were to find it at the Company's offices.

On March 21, 1995 I was charged for the theft of the Company Property,
the $99.95 Item, and my Personal Property.  I was also charge for the
destruction of important company information which was not "GST tax
records" rather than what was listed on the Search Warrant.

During the Trial the GM admitted under cross examination that he had
never purchased my Personal Property from me, but had only agreed in
principle to do so.  For this reason, it was established that I still
retained possession of the Company Property with permission.  He also
testified he had never informed me that there was no longer an agreement
in principle to purchase my Personal Property.

Also under cross examination he testified that he had sold the $99.95
Item to me, however was not yet paid for it but did owe me $10,000.00.
He also testified he had never informed me that he had changed his mind
about selling the Item to me, and the first I might have suspected this
was when the RCMP produced a Search Warrant to seize the Item.

On August 29, 1996 I was found guilty of all of the above.  That is, I
did not steal anything, nor did I destroy important Company information
such as GST tax records.  My ownership of my Personal Property was also
accepted as valid.

Now the Questions;

The original poster in this thread made some threats, the other party
blew it out of context, and consequently he was arrested.  I can see how
his situation got out of control.

The poster quoted above is a case of mistaken identity.  To me this is
more a more serious error, but does not seem to have been a deliberate
attempt to destroy the individual.

In his case, having proven himself innocent, why is there a not means by
which he could recover his legal expenses?  To have pleaded guilty 
probaly would have been more _cost effective_ for him.

To further provide him with a "kick in the face", my information is such
that if he is Canadian, not only does have to pay his own legal defense
bills, but he must pay Income Tax on the money he uses to do so.  The
Crown uses his (and our) taxes to prosecute him, which is fine.   But
when he proves himself innocent, he can not deduct his legal expenses so
as to _at least_ not have to pay them with after tax dollars.  If his 
bill were $10,000, that means he must earn about $12,500 to pay it.

Should my information be correct, could someone please tell me why it is
this way?  And perhaps suggest what to do about it.  If it is incorrect,
please set me straight as to procedures to claim legal expenses.

In my case it is quite obvious to me that the company GM conspired with
the RCMP officer in order to make the Charges happen.  However I did
not know this at the start.   Some of this can be deduced from the flow
of the investigation and the Trial evidence.   In addition I have third 
party verification of motive from the Store Manager at the time all
of this began.  It was his revelations which made sense of everything
that happened to me.

1.0  Is the above described story within the bounds of Canadian Law?

2.0  If not, what is the Law that was violated?

3.0  How much evidence is required in order to lay charges?

4.0  Assuming that I can establish everything I said, do I have enough?

5.0  How would I go about it assuming that I will not get the
co-operation of either local RCMP nor the Prosecutor? (As I suspect he
worked "closely" with the GM and RCMP officer to put this together, and
was very upset about the final outcome.  Who cares about justice??)

6.0  Should I be able to successfully bring charges against the GM, would
I be able to then recover my expenses from him?  The legal bill for this
will be in the range of $12,000, and my life went on hold for about 1
year as a result, costing about $30,000 in lost earnings.
    
Any responses to these questions via Post or E-mail will be greatly
appreciated;
Thanx,
Rick Downs

From elastic!lethe!geac!herboid!whome!infoshare!n2ott.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!news.achilles.net!cunews!hookup!nntp-hub2.barrnet.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in3.uu.net!news2.interlog.com!news1.io.org!iggers Wed Oct 30 07:12:38 1996
Xref: elastic can.legal:11472
Path: elastic!lethe!geac!herboid!whome!infoshare!n2ott.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!news.achilles.net!cunews!hookup!nntp-hub2.barrnet.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in3.uu.net!news2.interlog.com!news1.io.org!iggers
From: [email-masked] (Dan Iggers)
Newsgroups: can.legal
Subject: Day of Protest - not enforcing the law
Date: 26 Oct 1996 12:40:47 GMT
Organization: Internex Online (shell.io.org), Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Lines: 127
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: zot.io.org
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2ovr]

I made a half-hearted effort to get to work early Friday morning, The 
"Day of Protest", and gave up. I was surprised that I was not able, 
during the few minutes that I tried to hitch a ride.

But to the point. I respect the right to demonstrate. The large numbers 
of people who are unhappy about the transition to the Harris Government 
and the changes it promises to make, have the right to make a big 
statement. That statement should be made lawfully and peacefully. I do 
not think the right to express their discontent extends to shutting down 
the transit system and blocking access to workplaces.

I understand that informational pickets are not supposed to impede access 
to workplaces. When pickets do impede access, they are, strictly 
speaking, breaking the law. When they prevent large numbers of people 
from going to work, the violation is not a trivial one.

It seems pretty clear that, just like the standard for running stale 
yellow lights, the standard for what amounts to a legal 
picket-that-does-not-impede has been stretched. People expect to get away 
with illegal picketing, and generally do. Pickets tend to be, strictly 
speaking, illegal these days - blatantly blocking access and flouting the 
law.

Its not really a matter of stretching the standard. The words "we're just 
informational pickets" may be said, but all the while the picket captain 
is winking and smiling - everyone knows that no one is going to get into 
this or that workplace today.

During the recent public service strike, the police stood aside and 
ignored a lot of illegality, in part because they shared some of labour's 
concerns. The politicians and managers understood that the police had 
sent a clear message - they would not enforce this law - and there was 
nothing they could do about it.

Another reason the law tends to be ignored, and people tend to be

permitted to block access and intimidate, is that arresting people - 
whether on a picket line or in a public disturbance or riot - does not 
pass a risk-reward test.  If I were to park my car on the streetcar 
tracks at 8 in the morning, or smash some antique glass in the Queen's 
Park lobby, to protest the failure to enforce the law against 
hooliganism, I'd be hauled away under arrest before you could say Rosa 
Luxembourg. But if I lead 100  friends to Queen and Yonge to bare their 
breasts and block the streetcar tracks for 30 minutes, you can bet no 
arrests will be made. This seems to be a new policy in recent years. It 
may be a perfectly sensible policy, even in terms of public policy. 

This "anything goes if a large enough number of people do it" policy also 
is irritating to those of us who still have antique notions about 
enforcing the law. When I see a crowd breaking windows at the 
legislature, or shouting someone down at a public meeting, my response 
tends to be - some one should make

that stop, even lay a few charges. 

But back to my point - I think the police and their managers make a crude 
calculation: Yes, someone is breaking the law, preventing someone from 
exercising their right to go to work, smashing some plate glass, trashing 
public property, vandalising a school gymnasium, openly selling and 
consuming drugs and alcohol at a huge party, whatever. 

Getting involved is moderately dangerous to the cops and to the 
"participants". If we go in and enforce the law, some of us could get 
hurt. We could be sued. We might have to respond to a formal complaint. 
Then, after pulling people out of a melee, we'll have to process charges, 
and document the evidence - who did what, said what, etc. 

I think there also is the sense that these days, anything involving a 
crowd requires careful planning, and sophisticated command and control by 
senior managers. A couple of beat cops in a car do not have the 
authority, let alone the training, to pull up to a small picket site, 
determine that the pickets are obviously blocking access and intimidating 
people, advise the picketers to cease and desist, and then place 
picketers under arrest and haul them away. Any one such incident is 
liable to require large numbers of officers, and command and logistical 
involvement from the highest levels. 

The financial cost to the public will be large if the police intervene to 
enforce the law - Crown attorneys, large expenditures of legal aid, 
accommodation in the gaol for a few hours, JPs, court officers, etc. Then 
there will be more inconvenience. An already crowded system will be 
pushed to its limits. At the end of the day, people who treated the 
process with contempt will have their charges dismissed, or will be given 
discharges that they will accept with a defiant sneer. At the very 
beginning of the process, an officer is liable to ask: What's the point?

Which brings me to a concluding point - assuming one considers that 
people should not "get away with" minor but very objectionable 
hooliganism, do we want to pay the price of enforcing the law? Is it 
better to write off a day of disruption, and let the hooligans have their 
day? Is it really that crucial that the law be enforced, each and every 
day? Is hooliganism its own reward, that ultimately harms the credibility 
and reputation of the hooligan?

What do I think? My gut reaction is that "they shouldn't get away with 
it". My more sober (but reluctant) response is that trying to enforce the 
law may be a no win situation. 

(Afterthought: Why not at least try to (1) videotape picket sites; (2) 
prevent people from wearing masks or disguises; and (3) show videotape of 
possibly unlawful conduct on the cable channel. If you can't afford to 
charge them, at least you can show them for what they are.)

Dan Iggers [email-masked]

From elastic!lethe!abyss!light-house!whome!infoshare!n2ott.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!van.istar!west.istar!uniserve!sunqbc.risq.net!newsflash.concordia.ca!not-for-mail Wed Oct 30 07:13:11 1996
Xref: elastic can.legal:11492
Path: elastic!lethe!abyss!light-house!whome!infoshare!n2ott.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!van.istar!west.istar!uniserve!sunqbc.risq.net!newsflash.concordia.ca!not-for-mail
From: [email-masked] ()
Newsgroups: can.legal
Subject: Update on legal case for tort liability
Date: 28 Oct 1996 16:34:23 GMT
Organization: Concordia University, Montreal, Canada
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: alcor.concordia.ca
NNTP-Posting-User: f_gerac

A few weeks ago, I posted a message regarding the right to take a school
board to court over the injury to a 6 year old (who is now 26).  I did get
a lot of good advice and am thankful for that.  Now I have new information
I discovered about the case. 

First let me explain the accident.  While dressing up the the coat-room,
the six year old child was sprayed with glass froma window wihich was
apparently broken from the outside (the school yard with a rock).  The 
rock was discovered at the scene.  The child sufered trauma to the right
eye which required surgery to close the cut over the cornea.  Now the 
person has severe astigmatism, partial cataract, and the obvious 
cosmetic detail of an oval pupil.  Eyesight is poor and at best correction
is 20/50.

After this happened, the parents attempted legal action.  A law firm was 
contacted and began the procedings.  I have read the letters from the
firm and the police and medical reports.  After some time, the firm came
to a conclusion that they had no case because the school claimed no
responsibilty and the only recourse was to find the person who threw the
stone.  

I'm not an legal professional, but isn't there something flawed in this
theory?  I mean, shouldn't the school have been supervising the child.
When the window broke, all that was left in the coat room was the child
and another kid you ran downstairs to call the principle.  Isn't the school
responsible for this un-supervised incident or even the stone thrower;s
action which happend on school property?

Opinion's appreciated in this twisting tale.

ThankYou

From elastic!lethe!abyss!light-house!innuendo.tlug.org!clio.trends.ca!ki.net!news.flora.ottawa.on.ca!news.achilles.net!cunews!hookup!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.portal.ca!news Sat Nov  2 16:59:37 1996
Xref: elastic can.legal:11523
Path: elastic!lethe!abyss!light-house!innuendo.tlug.org!clio.trends.ca!ki.net!news.flora.ottawa.on.ca!news.achilles.net!cunews!hookup!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.portal.ca!news
From: [email-masked] (Karl Pollak)
Newsgroups: can.legal
Subject: Re: Paying Child Support while having Custody of Children
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 23:49:56 GMT
Organization: Bottomline Productions, Richmond, BC
Lines: 36
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
References: <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d151.portal.ca
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email-masked] (Morton M. Goldmacher) wrote:

>David Thomas <[email-masked]> wrote:

>>I'm looking for information on some Canadian statistics of how many 
>>divorced parents who have custody of the children and still pay child 
>>support to the children's other parent.

>>Is this common in Canada.

>>I'm in a community of 38,000 and have been able to locate 1 case.

>Are you sure that the non-custodial parent is not recieving spousal
>support?  Child support is only payable to the custodial parent.

Morton, incredible as it may seem, I have also heard of several cases
where the child was living with the "non-custodial" parent who was
still obligated to pay child support to the custodial parent,
regardless of the real life facts.

I think that happens when custody changes, temporarily or permanently,
and folks don't go to court to have their orders changed.  Of course,
in many cases it is a question of not wanting to rock the boat. 

Something along the lines of "I don't mind if little Johnny goes to
live with you, but if you try to have it put into an order, I'll
oppose it and shred you to pieces before the judge.  So, in the mean
time, keep on paying the dough or else."

Just another instance where kids are being used as markers in a
spiteful feud between the allegedly adult parents.

Karl Pollak <[email-masked]>
Richmond, British Columbia

From elastic!lethe!abyss!light-house!whome!infoshare!n2ott.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!van.istar!west.istar!n1van.istar!van-bc!data.ramona.vix.com!sonysjc!decwrl!news-ext.crl.dec.com!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!ai-lab!prep.ai.mit.edu!gnu Fri Nov 15 08:44:07 1996
Xref: elastic gnu.announce:124
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 15:42:10 -0500
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
From: Richard Stallman <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: New threat to access to information--sports, trains, stocks, laws, ...
Distribution: world
Approved: [email-masked]
Path: elastic!lethe!abyss!light-house!whome!infoshare!n2ott.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!van.istar!west.istar!n1van.istar!van-bc!data.ramona.vix.com!sonysjc!decwrl!news-ext.crl.dec.com!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!ai-lab!prep.ai.mit.edu!gnu
Newsgroups: gnu.announce
Followup-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Lines: 508

[The Free Software Foundation is re-posting this article to inform you
about a dangerous threat to the public right to access and use many
kinds of information.

This article is long, but quite readable.  It uses sports statistics
as an example, but the problem extends to any sort of facts that can
be kept in a data base.  Please do read it.]

Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 12:36:34 -0500 (EST)
From: James Love <[email-masked]>
Subject: Sports Statistics to Be Regulated Under WIPO Treaty (fwd)

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Info-Policy-Notes - A newsletter available from [email-masked]
-----------------------------------------------------------------
INFORMATION POLICY NOTES
NOVEMBER 10, 1996

                 Government Proposes New Regulation of 
                  Sports Statistics and other "facts"

                            James Love
                   Consumer Project on Technology
                    http://www.essential.org/cpt 
                     [email-masked]; 202/387-8030*

November 10, 1996

This issue of INFO-POLICY-NOTES was formatted in 12 point 
courier, with 1 inch margins.  An HTML version of this note is 
available at http://www.essential.org/cpt/ip/wipo-sports.html

	INTRODUCTION

	Sports fans in the United States will be surprised to learn 
that U.S. Government officials are pressing for the adoption of 
an International treaty that will (if enacted) significantly 
change the ways sports statistics are controlled and 
disseminated.  The treaty isn't specifically directed at sports 
statistics -- it is a much broader attempt to create a new 
property right in facts and other data now in the public domain -
- but it will have an enormous impact on the legal rights 
exercised by the National Football League (NFL), Major League 
Baseball (MLB), the National Basketball Association (NBA), the 
National Hockey League (NHL) and virtually all other professional 
or amateur athletic leagues.  [The same treaty will radically 
affect the way that stock prices, weather data, train schedules, 
data from AIDS research and other facts are controlled, but this 
note will focus on the issue of sports statistics, a topic that 
illustrates the broad impact of the treaty].

	This comes at the same time the NBA and other sports 
franchises are stepping up their efforts to control the real time 
dissemination of sports statistics through the Internet or with 
wireless paging devices.  [See, for example, 
http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,3208,00.html].  The treaty, 
however, addresses different and much more fundamental issues 
regarding ownership of information. 

If the treaty is approved and implemented, sports leagues 
will have far broader powers to dictate the terms and conditions 
under which sport statistics are reported and disseminated.  
Nolan Ryan's Earned Run Average (ERA), the number of tackles or 
quarterback sacks by Lawrence Taylor, Cal Ripken's career batting 
average, Bobby Hull's career assists, the number of steals by 
your favorite NBA point guard, and similar information will be 
"owned" by sports leagues.  According to the proposed treaty (and 
legislation introduced in the 104th Congress to implement the 
treaty), the NFL, NBA, NHL and MLB will have the right to prevent 
anyone from publishing these and other statistics without express 
permission from the sports league.  This will include the right 
to control access to the historical archives of sports 
statistics, and even to dictate who can publish the box scores 
from a game or print a pitcher's ERA on the back of a baseball 
card.

	The proposals for a new legal environment for publishing 
facts are outlined in a draft treaty on "databases" that will be 
considered at a December 1996 meeting of the World Intellectual 
Property Organization (WIPO), in Geneva, Switzerland.  [See 
www.public-domain.org/database/database.html]  The proposal would 
require the United States and other countries to create a new 
property right for public domain materials. "Texts, sounds, 
images, numbers, facts, or data representing any other matter or 
substance," will be protected.  [See the appendix for a more 
complete definition]. 

The treaty seeks, for the first time, to permit firms to 
"own" facts they gather, and to restrict and control the 
redissemination of those facts.  The new property right would lie 
outside (and on top) of the copyright laws, and create an 
entirely new and untested form of regulation that would radically 
change the public's current rights to use and disseminate facts 
and statistics.  American University Law Professor Peter Jaszi 
recently said the treaty represents "the end of the public 
domain."  

Copies of the proposed treaty, a federal register notice 
asking for public comment, and independent commentary can be 
found at:

http://www.public-domain.org/database/database.html

WHO IS PUSHING FOR THE DATABASE TREATY?

	In 1991, the US Supreme Court ruled (in the Feist decision) 
that the facts from a telephone "White Pages" directory of names, 
addresses and phone numbers were not protected under the 
copyright laws, and that in general, "facts" could not be 
copyrighted by anyone.  The Feist decision alarmed several large 
database vendors, who crafted this new "sui generis" property 
right that would protect facts, and just about everything else.  
[The vendors have already succeeded in obtaining a directive on 
database proposal from the European Union, although no European 
country has yet passed legislation to implement the treaty]. The 
most active supporter of this new property right is West 
Publishing, the Canadian legal publisher. A West Publishing 
employee chairs a key ABA subcommittee which wrote a favorable 
report on the treaty.  A number of very large British and Dutch 
database vendors are also lobbying hard for the treaty.

West wants the new property right to protect the "page 
numbers" and "corrections" it adds to the judicial opinions it 
publishes in paper bound books.  Telephone companies want to 
protect the names, addresses and telephone numbers they publish, 
and other database vendors what to protect scientific data or 
other non-copyrighted government information they publish.  In 
seeking to protect these items, the treaty was written to stamp 
"owned by" labels on a vast sea of information now in the public 
domain.  Copyright experts J.H. Reichman and Pamela Samuelson  
say  it is the "least balanced and most potentially anti-
competitive intellectual property rights ever created." 
[http://ksgwww.harvard.edu/iip/reisamda.html]

There is an active debate within the Clinton Administration 
over the proposed treaty.   Bruce Lehman, the controversial head 
of the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) is pushing for adoption 
of the treaty this December.  Most administration official don't 
have a clue what the database treaty does.  Some people think it 
is a minor tinkering with the current copyright law.  No one in 
the government has sought to understand the significance of the 
proposal in terms of the new rights to "own" facts, and until 
recently no one was aware that the treaty was so broad that it 
would change the way sports or financial statistics were 
controlled.

	HOW WILL THE TREATY WORK?

	In Feist, the Supreme Court noted:

     (a) Article I, Sec. 8, cl. 8, of the Constitution mandates 
     originality as a prerequisite or copyright protection. The 
     constitutional requirement necessitates independent creation 
     plus a modicum of creativity. Since facts do not owe their 
     origin to an act of authorship, they are not original and, 
     thus, are not copyrightable.  
     [From the Syllabus of the opinion, at 
     http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/classics/499_340v.htm]

Since facts cannot be copyrighted, the supporters of the 
treaty have framed this as a new "sui generis" property right, 
which will have a separate statutory framework.  "Originality" or 
"authorship" will not be required. "Texts, sounds, images, 
numbers, facts, or data representing any other matter or 
substance," will be protected. The information can be stored in 
"all forms or media now known or later developed." Both published 
and confidential information will be covered.  The only thing 
required is a  "substantial investment in the collection, 
assembly, verification, organization or presentation of the 
contents" of the protected work.  The "rightholder" will have 
extremely broad powers to "authorize or prohibit the extraction 
or utilization" of the information from the protected database.

It takes a while for the implications of this new system to 
sink in.  Some facts can be independently gathered, like the 
number of baseball games played in a year, the winners or losers 
of a tennis match, or the scores of a football game.  For these 
data, there may exist several sources for the data.  However, 
other facts are, by their very nature, only available from a 
single source, and will be controlled by monopolies.  For 
example, baseball leagues employ scorekeepers who determine if a 
batter is credited with a hit or if a fielder committed an error, 
if a hit is reported as a single or double, or if an errant pitch 
is scored as a wild pitch or a passed ball.  The league makes a 
"substantial investment" in the collection and maintenance of 
this data, which it disseminates to the press, and also stores 
and maintains in a database, through an arrangement with the 
Elias Sports Bureau.  These data cannot be independently 
collected - and under the proposed database treaty, the league 
would own the facts themselves, and could dictate the terms under 
which these facts are published or redisseminated.

The NFL employs four persons who keep track of the play-by-
play action for each game.  They write up four separate reports, 
which are used to create a single official "box score." The final 
product is supervised by the Elias Sports Bureau, as a "work for 
hire" product, which is owned by the NFL. The NFL box score is 
very detailed, and includes analysis of each play.   It records 
the league's statistics for the number of yards gained (or lost) 
on each play, who is credited with a tackle or a quarterback 
sack, or the number return yards on a kickoff or pass 
interception, and many other items.  While someone who attended a 
football game could make an independent estimate of these items, 
it would likely be different from the official statistics, due to 
the inherent difficulty in measuring or assigning credit for 
performance on the field.  The NFL's box score is given to the 
press, which uses the data to create its own news media reports.

An attorney who represents the National Football League 
(NFL) told us that the NFL has an interest in insuring that there 
is an "official" source of the statistics, which are gathered 
with an appropriate standard of care and that the NFL "protects 
the official designation" of its statistics.  These data are used 
for making decisions on the Hall of Fame, and to create special 
reports and information products, which the NFL provides to third 
parties, often for a fee. 

Virtually all of the major league sports leagues have some 
system for creating statistics, disseminating the information to 
the press, storing the historical data, and marketing the 
statistics commercially.   Major League Baseball and the NBA work 
with Elias, while the NBA and the NHL have their own in-house 
system.  There is little doubt the process by which these 
statistics are generated will qualify for protection, under the 
treaty's minimal requirement that the league demonstrate it has 
made a "substantial investment in the collection, assembly, 
verification, organization or presentation of the contents" of 
database.  The work-for-hire "media sheets," "box scores," and 
other press handouts which report the statistics would be 
considered database elements, and reporting of statistics from 
these products would be subject to an entirely new type of 
licensing and control by the leagues which is far stronger than 
that which exists under copyright law.  [See appendix].

The leagues have various methods of selling their "official" 
branded statistics.  There are also many competitors who build 
databases from a variety of sources, including the published box 
scores that appear in daily newspapers, and probably the books 
and reports published by the leagues.  The leagues do not 
currently assert "ownership" in the statistics directly, even as 
they try to prevent others from referring to the data as 
"official" statistics, but they are trying to prevent real time 
reporting of game statistics and situations over Internet or 
paging technologies.  

The NBA told us that it permits accredited journalists to 
report scores from NBA games three times each quarter, and that 
it considers the minute to minute reports a "misappropriation" of 
its ability to sell performance rights for the event.  The NFL 
takes a similar position with respect to its games.  STATS, Inc. 
is a firm that provides real time scores and play-by-play 
descriptors to a variety of online and wireless information 
services.  According to the NFL and the NBA, STATS, Inc. hires 
people to watch television broadcasts of the games, and type the 
play-by-play information into personal computers, which are 
linked to the STATS, Inc. computer network services.  An example 
of this type of service that uses STATS, Inc. as a supplier of 
statistics is Instant Baseball, available at 
http://www.InstantSports.com/.  Disputes over the real time 
Internet broadcasts of game situations and scores could well end 
up before the U.S. Supreme Court, as a test of the first 
amendment.  In the NBA case involving Motorola, STATS, Inc. and 
America Online, the NFL and other leagues have filed amicus 
briefs in support of the NBA position, while the New York Times 
has filed a brief in support of Motorola, STATS, Inc. and America 
Online. 

About two weeks ago the NBA discovered HR 3531, a version of 
the database protection proposal that was introduced in the U.S. 
Congress last spring.  The NBA is looking at HR 3531 to see if it 
would provide a legislative remedy for their dispute with 
Motorola, et. al.  (Like the other leagues, the NBA wasn't aware 
of the database treaty until last week.)

At present, none of the leagues currently prevent anyone 
from publishing statistics after a game is over, because it is 
assumed that the statistics (facts) are in the public domain, 
once the broadcasts are over.  But this would likely change if 
the database treaty is enacted.  One league official told me, "no 
matter how appalled I am at this proposal personally, as a civil 
libertarian, my client may have interests as a rightholder that 
it will want to exercise."  A lawyer for the NFL said that the 
NFL might not want to do anything - he thought the free 
dissemination of statistics brought its own benefits, in terms of 
increased fan interest.  But he also said, the treaty would allow 
the NFL to "do quite a bit of stuff," in terms of new licensing 
arrangements or other ventures, if it wanted to.

As a "sui generis" property right, the database proposal 
does not incorporate the fair use principles from copyright that 
reporters and value added publishers often take for granted.  The 
leagues would be able to require license to publish box scores or 
other statistics in any media.  One can imagine a world where the 
leagues wouldn't require licensing of box scores to print based 
periodicals like daily newspapers, but that a much more 
controlled regimen would evolve on the Internet.  The leagues 
could require licensing of box scores and other statistics for 
Internet publications, or linking to the leagues own web sites, 
such as www.nba.com, www.nba.com, or www.nhl.com.  The Internet 
is, after all, a very easy place to locate and police violations 
of intellectual property rights --  through a simple AltaVista 
search.  This would also likely lead to major changes in the 
market for baseball (and other sports) cards, which typically 
feature key statistics on the flip side of the card.  The new 
database extract rights would prohibit any unauthorized 
extraction or reuse of data that had economic value to the 
leagues (See discussion in Appendix).

WHAT CAN YOU DO?

The government is taking comments on the database treaty 
through November 22, 1996.  If you don't think the government 
should rush into a new regulatory scheme for sports statistics, 
let them know.  You can email your comments to: 
[email-masked].

If you want to know more about his proposal, check out 
http://www.public-domain.org/database/database.html.

PS

Of course, this treaty deals with a lot more than sports 
statistics.  It will do the same thing for information on stock 
prices that is generated by a stock exchange.  It will radically 
change the market for weather information.   There is concern in 
Europe over the control over train schedules.  Private Schools 
could use the new data extraction right to prevent unauthorized 
publication of data about its student's test scores or post 
graduate placement statistics (both generated from a database).  
The treaty would radically change the rights to use information 
from gene sequencing, or hospital cost benefit studies.  It will 
obviously do much much more.  

Since I have tried to keep this note simple, a lot has been 
left out.  But consider this.  The treaty, which was designed to 
protect West Publishing's legal reporters, has been written so 
broadly that it will define even the daily newspaper as a 
"database" element.  Since the new property right is additive to 
to all rights claimed under copyright, every publisher will claim 
the additional protection, by saying each issue of the newpaper 
is a database element.  (virtually all newspapers today are 
archived in databases). The consequences of this are astounding, 
since every fact and article in every newspaper will have the new 
stronger form of protection, which will not include any public 
fair use rights.

You might ask your member of Congress what the heck is going 
on with the treaty, and see if they understand it.

	James Love, Director
	Consumer Project on Technology
	202/387-8030; [email-masked]

* I will be out of the U.S. from November 11 to November 20, 
attending a conference on the impact of international trade 
agreements on intellectual property rights in New Delhi, India, 
and will be hard to reach before the 21st.  

Two law professors who have studied the treaty extensively are: 

Professor Pamela Samuelson, University of California at Berkeley, 
Voice (510)642-6775, [email-masked]

Professor Peter Jaszi, American University, School of Law, Voice 
(202) 885-2600, [email-masked]

                             APPENDIX
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Extracts from James Love, "A Primer On The Proposed WIPO Treaty 
On Database Extraction Rights That Will Be Considered In December 
1996, October 29, 1996, http://www.essential.org/cpt/ip/cpt-
dbcom.html]

WHAT IS A DATABASE? WHAT ISN'T A DATABASE?

The treaty would protect "any database that represents a 
substantial investment in the collection, assembly, verification, 
organization or presentation of the contents of the database." 
This term should be understood "to include collections of 
literary, musical or audiovisual works or any other kind of 
works, or collections of other materials such as texts, sounds, 
images, numbers, facts, or data representing any other matter or 
substance" and "may contain collections of expressions of 
folklore." The "protection shall be granted to databases 
irrespective of the form or medium in which they are embodied. 
Protection extends to databases in both electronic and non-
electronic form" and "embraces all forms or media now known or 
later developed. . . Protection shall be granted to databases 
regardless of whether they are made available to the public. This 
means that databases that are made generally available to the
public, commercially or otherwise, as well as databases that 
remain within the exclusive possession and control of their 
developers enjoy protection on the same footing."

WHAT ARE EXTRACTION AND UTILIZATION RIGHTS?

"The maker of a database eligible for protection under this 
Treaty shall have the right to authorize or prohibit the 
extraction or utilization of its contents." What is "extraction"? 
Extraction is defined as, "the permanent or temporary transfer of 
all or a substantial part of the contents of a database to 
another medium by any means or in any form." "Extraction . . . is 
a synonym for `copying' or `reproduction' . . . by `any means' or 
`any form' that is now known or later developed."

"Utilization" is defined as "making available to the public all 
or a substantial part of the contents of a database by any means, 
including by the distribution of copies, by renting, or by on-
line or other forms of transmission," including the right to 
control the use of the data "at a time individually chosen by 
each member of the public."

WHAT IS A "SUBSTANTIAL PART" OF THE DATABASE?

The treaty sets out tests for determining if an extraction is 
"substantial," and these tests are both highly anticompetitive, 
and extremely broad in scope.

The "substantiality" of a portion of the database is assessed 
against the "value of the database," and considers "qualitative 
and quantitative aspects," noting that "neither aspect is more 
important than the other . . . This assessment may also take into 
account the diminution in market value that may result from the 
use of the portion, including the added risk that the investment 
in the database will not be recoverable. It may even include an 
assessment of whether a new product using the portion could serve 
as a commercial substitute for the original, diminishing the 
market for the original."

Then the treaty adds that a "substantial part" means any portion 
of the database, "including an accumulation of small portions . . 
. In practice, repeated or systematic use of small portions of 
the contents of a database may have the same effect as extraction 
or utilization of a large, or substantial, part of the contents 
of the database."

In the US implementing legislation, the only types of data use 
that would not be regulated would be "insubstantial" parts, 
"whose extraction, use or reuse does not diminish the value of 
the database, conflict with a normal exploitation of the database 
or adversely affect the actual or potential market for the 
database." Under this language, a database owner could say that 
it might in the future want to charge for each transmission of a 
fact or an element of a database as part of its "normal 
exploitation" of the database. With the Internet and digital cash 
this claim is likely to be made. The public would not have "fair 
use" rights, since fair use is only defined in matters involving 
copyright.

FOR HOW LONG? 15 YEARS, 25 YEARS, OR FOREVER?

The Treaty would require a minimum term of protection (15 years 
in the EU proposal, and 25 in the United States proposal) for the 
database. But this is extended each time the database is revised 
or enhanced. According to the draft treaty, "any substantial 
change to the database, evaluated qualitatively or 
quantitatively, including any substantial change resulting from 
the accumulation of successive additions, deletions, 
verifications, modifications in organization or presentation, or 
other alterations, which constitute a new substantial investment, 
shall qualify the database resulting from such investment for its 
own term of protection."

The provision on revisions raises the specter that protection for 
many databases will be perpetual. This could indeed be the case 
if the original versions of the database  are only "licensed" by 
the vendor for a limited period of time, so that the only 
available versions would be the new ones, which would have a new 
term of protection. [Database vendors write these restricted use 
licenses now].

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
INFORMATION POLICY NOTES is a free Internet newsletter sponsored
by the Taxpayer Assets Project (TAP) and the Consumer Project on
Technology (CPT).  Both groups are projects of the Center for
Study of Responsive Law, which is run by Ralph Nader.  The
LISTPROC services are provide by Essential Information.  Archives
of Info-Policy-Notes are available from

http://www.essential.org/listproc/info-policy-notes/

TAP and CPT both have Internet Web pages.

http://www.tap.org
http://www.essential.org/cpt

Subscription requests to info-policy-notes to [email-masked] with
the message:  subscribe info-policy-notes Jane Doe

TAP and CPT can both be reached off the net at P.O. Box 19367,
Washington, DC  20036, Voice:  202/387-8030; Fax: 202/234-5176
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From elastic!lethe!gts!nypl!demon.uunet.ca!news.uunet.ca!hookup!cunews!freenet-news.carleton.ca!news.flora.ottawa.on.ca!piano.synapse.net!n4ott.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!van.istar!west.istar!n1van.istar!van-bc!news.mindlink.net!news.bc.net!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!tribune.usask.ca!teapot.usask.ca!skeeter Thu Nov 28 20:08:41 1996
Xref: elastic can.general:65708 can.gov.general:2947 can.legal:11833 can.politics:105873 can.talk.guns:11109
Path: elastic!lethe!gts!nypl!demon.uunet.ca!news.uunet.ca!hookup!cunews!freenet-news.carleton.ca!news.flora.ottawa.on.ca!piano.synapse.net!n4ott.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!van.istar!west.istar!n1van.istar!van-bc!news.mindlink.net!news.bc.net!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!tribune.usask.ca!teapot.usask.ca!skeeter
From: [email-masked] (Skeeter Abell-Smith)
Newsgroups: can.talk.guns,can.politics,can.general,can.legal,can.gov.general
Subject: Re: more detail on Bill C-55 (monitoring without being charged)
Followup-To: can.talk.guns,can.politics,can.general,can.legal,can.gov.general
Date: 22 Nov 1996 19:18:38 GMT
Organization: University of Saskatchewan
Lines: 135
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
References: <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: teapot.usask.ca
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]

Bill C-55 was introduced in Parliament and given first reading on
September 17th. It was debated on October 3rd and 4th and passed second
reading on October 7th. It has now been referred to the Commons Justice
Committee.

Stephen Jenuth ([email-masked]) wrote:
} It seems to be a fairly moderate extention of the peace bond
} provisions in the Criminal Code. These provisions are in addition
} to the common law jurisdiction of justices to bind persons over
} to keep the peace.

Monitoring my movements because someone *fears* I will offend against
persons _who_need_not_be_named_, without charges or a trial, is
something I find highly offensive.

} It seems that these provisions are much preferable to the current
} practice of getting restraining orders which are often obtained
} ex parte and without a hearing. In this procedure the accused
} has notice, the right to present evidence and to attempt to
} contradict the allegations made by the attorney general.

Replacing a broken system with something offensive and, in the opinion
of many lawyers, unconstitutional is no great achievement.

} The idea seems to be the prevention of crime, rather than the
} punishment of crime after it occurs. Looked at it this way,
} the idea seems laudable. 

You're right.  Let's restrain everyone because, hey, you never know.
Police states have extremely low crime rates, right?  "Looked at it this
way, the idea seems laudable."

} And yes, if it seems to the provincial court judge hearing the case
} find that there are reasonable grounds that the person will commit
} a serious personal injury offence, the judge can prohibit that person
} from possessing a gun.

"...believes that there are reasonable grounds to fear..."  And no
probable grounds either.  Just "reasonable".

No trial, no charges, no verdict.  If you can't prove your innocence
and show you are not a risk, you get "the clamp" for up to a year.

} But then, should people are shown to be dangerous, have guns??

Where does it say "shown to be dangerous" anywhere in the text below?
It reads "Where the Attorney General believes that there are reasonable
grounds to fear that another person will commit a serious personal
injury offence...."

Bill C-55 would amend the Criminal Code by adding the following: 

Where fear of serious personal injury offence 
     810.2 (1) Where the Attorney General believes that there are
     reasonable grounds to fear that another person will commit a
     serious personal injury offence, as that expression is defined in
     section 752, in respect of one or more persons, the Attorney
     General may lay an information before a provincial court judge,
     whether or not the person or persons in respect of whom it is
     feared that the offence will be committed are named.

Duty of provincial court judge 
     (2) A provincial court judge who receives an information under
     subsection (1) shall cause the parties to appear before the
     provincial court judge.

Adjudication 
     (3) The provincial court judge before whom the parties appear may,
     if satisfied by the evidence adduced that the Attorney General has
     reasonable grounds for the fear, order that the defendant enter
     into a recognizance to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for
     any period that does not exceed twelve months and to comply with
     any other reasonable conditions prescribed in the recognizance,
     including conditions set out in subsections (4) and (5), that the
     provincial court judge considers desirable for securing the good
     conduct of the defendant.

Conditions -- firearms 
     (5) Before making an order under subsection (3), the provincial
     court judge shall consider whether it is desirable, in the
     interests of the safety of the defendant or of any other person,
     to include as a condition of the recognizance that the defendant
     be prohibited from possessing any firearm or any ammunition or
     explosive substance for any period of time specified in the
     recognizance and that the defendant surrender any firearms
     acquisition certificate that the defendant possesses, and where
     the provincial court judge decides that it is not desirable, in
     the interests of the safety of the defendant or any other person,
     for the defendant to possess any of those things, the provincial
     court judge may add the appropriate condition to the
     recognizance.

Conditions -- reporting and monitoring 
     (6) Before making an order under subsection (3), the provincial
     court judge shall consider whether it is desirable to include as a
     condition of the recognizance that the defendant report to the
     correctional authority of a province or to an appropriate police
     authority or to comply with a program of electronic monitoring, if
     such a program is available in the place in which the defendant
     resides, and where the provincial court judge decides that it is
     desirable for the defendant to so report or be monitored, the
     provincial court judge may add the appropriate condition to the
     recognizance.

Variance of conditions 
     (7) The provincial court judge may, on application of the Attorney
     General or of the defendant, vary the conditions fixed in the
     recognizance.

Other provisions to apply 
     (8) Subsections 810(4) and (5) apply, with such modifications as
     the circumstances require, to recognizances made under this
     section.

--
[email-masked]  <--------------------->  Saskatoon Free-Net
My opinions may be unlike others.  No one else's opinions are implied.
                  The Cdn-Firearms Home Page is now at:
            http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/homepage.html
--
 * * The Cdn-Firearms digest:  Canada's only firearms e-mail list * *
Subscribe today.  It's free!  Leave the Subject: line blank and e-mail
the following 3 lines to [email-masked]:
subscribe cdn-firearms-digest
subscribe cdn-firearms-alert
end

From elastic!lethe!geac!gts!nypl!demon.uunet.ca!news.uunet.ca!hookup!newsfeed.dacom.co.kr!usenet.kornet.nm.kr!howland.erols.net!news.bbnplanet.com!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!uunet!in3.uu.net!news2.interlog.com!news.interlog.com!news Thu Nov 28 20:09:48 1996
Xref: elastic can.general:65748 can.gov.general:2949 can.legal:11837 can.politics:105966 can.talk.guns:11128
Path: elastic!lethe!geac!gts!nypl!demon.uunet.ca!news.uunet.ca!hookup!newsfeed.dacom.co.kr!usenet.kornet.nm.kr!howland.erols.net!news.bbnplanet.com!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!uunet!in3.uu.net!news2.interlog.com!news.interlog.com!news
From: [email-masked] (Morton M. Goldmacher)
Newsgroups: can.talk.guns,can.politics,can.general,can.legal,can.gov.general
Subject: Re: more detail on Bill C-55 (monitoring without being charged)
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 04:00:38 GMT
Organization: Barrister and Solicitor
Lines: 47
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
References: <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]>
Reply-To: [email-masked]
NNTP-Posting-Host: ip94-62.tor.interlog.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email-masked] (Stephen Jenuth) wrote:

>In <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Skeeter Abell-Smith) writes:

>It seems to be a fairly moderate extention of the peace bond
>provisions in the Criminal Code. These provisions are in addition
>to the common law jurisdiction of justices to bind persons over
>to keep the peace.

>It seems that these provisions are much preferable to the current
>practice of getting restraining orders which are often obtained
>ex parte and without a hearing. In this procedure the accused
>has notice, the right to present evidence and to attempt to
>contradict the allegations made by the attorney general.

>The idea seems to be the prevention of crime, rather than the
>punishment of crime after it occurs. Looked at it this way,
>the idea seems laudable. 

Bill C-55 is not a moderate extension of the peace bond provisions of
the criminal code, it is a deeply invasive sanction that has no basis
in common law.  It smacks of presumption of guilt and imposes severe
restrictions on the respondents liberty where there has been no crime
or criminal proceeding.

The principle that one ought to be at liberty until found guilty of an
offence is so well entrenched in our jurisprudence that it constitutes
an element of fundamental justice.  Unlike peace bonds and restraining
orders which prevent the individual bound by it from enjoying
specified legal activities and engaging in further unlawful
activities, the measures set out in Bill C-55 subjects the individual
to direct supervision by the state.  The measures are more closely
related to parole conditions than to anything else.

It is obvious to anyone who has a working familiarity with Charter
jurisprudence that Bill C-55 will die an instant death once it is
enacted and implemented.  The only explanation for the government's
tableing of the bill is that they are hoping  to steal fire from
Preston Manning and his law and order zealots.

Looked at this way, the idea seems laughable.

Morton M. Goldmacher
Barrister and Solicitor

From elastic!lethe!gts!nypl!demon.uunet.ca!news.uunet.ca!hookup!newsfeed.dacom.co.kr!usenet.kornet.nm.kr!howland.erols.net!news.bbnplanet.com!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.idt.net!enews.sgi.com!ix.netcom.com!phase2.worldnet.att.net!uunet!in1.uu.net!news.interlog.com!news Thu Nov 28 20:13:18 1996
Xref: elastic can.general:66104 can.gov.general:2964 can.legal:11889 can.politics:106665 can.talk.guns:11213
Path: elastic!lethe!gts!nypl!demon.uunet.ca!news.uunet.ca!hookup!newsfeed.dacom.co.kr!usenet.kornet.nm.kr!howland.erols.net!news.bbnplanet.com!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.idt.net!enews.sgi.com!ix.netcom.com!phase2.worldnet.att.net!uunet!in1.uu.net!news.interlog.com!news
From: [email-masked] (Morton M. Goldmacher)
Newsgroups: can.talk.guns,can.politics,can.general,can.legal,can.gov.general
Subject: Re: more detail on Bill C-55 (monitoring without being charged)
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 20:55:20 GMT
Organization: Barrister and Solicitor
Lines: 41
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
References: <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]>
Reply-To: [email-masked]
NNTP-Posting-Host: ip93-2.tor.interlog.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email-masked] (Barry Glasgow) wrote:

>But the lawyers wouldn't want that, eh ?
>Be bad for business.  After all, who cares if career criminals
>cost society on average over 17 times the cost of their imprisonment ?
>Just so long as the officers of the court are kept busy, right ?
>And while we're at it, let's dream up a whole pile of other convoluted
>and useless regulations meant to harass legitimate gun-owning citizens
>just so that the lawyers can have a whole new line of business.

>It's a good thing SOMEBODY in government is being zealous about this.
>Somebody who's taken the side of the average Canadian who has had it
>up to HERE with lawyers and lawyers-promoted-to-ministers screwing
>around with the Justice system until it's been reduced to nothing
>more than a treadmill for money-sucking lawyers and a revolving door
>for their scum clients.

Most Canadians would agree that society is kept free and safe by the
application of laws.  Most Canadian would also agree that individuals
ought to have and enjoy basic human, civil and legal rights.  Barry
Glasgow is in a tiny minority who believe that law, government, and
lawyers are a social blight and that we would be better off without
them.  Model societies like Somalia are glowing examples of nations
that have no legal system and are better off without it.  Without
individual rights to get in the way, we could dispatch criminals to
their death as they are apprehended and save thousands of dollars in
every case. 

>"... the more I think about it, ol' Billie was right.
> We should kill all the lawyers - kill 'em tonight."
                        
Anyone who publishes messages which encourages murder ought to be
prohibited from owning dangerous weapons.

Morton M. Goldmacher
Barrister and Solicitor

From elastic!lethe!gts!nypl!demon.uunet.ca!news.uunet.ca!hookup!newsfeed.dacom.co.kr!arclight.uoregon.edu!feed1.news.erols.com!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!198.53.145.10!news2.interlog.com!news.interlog.com!news Fri Nov 29 22:08:00 1996
Xref: elastic can.legal:11969 can.taxes:4234
Path: elastic!lethe!gts!nypl!demon.uunet.ca!news.uunet.ca!hookup!newsfeed.dacom.co.kr!arclight.uoregon.edu!feed1.news.erols.com!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!198.53.145.10!news2.interlog.com!news.interlog.com!news
From: [email-masked] (Morton M. Goldmacher)
Newsgroups: ncf.sigs.business.real-estate,can.legal,can.taxes
Subject: Re: Citizen's right to self-representation in Tax Court
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1996 23:51:04 GMT
Organization: Barrister and Solicitor
Lines: 60
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
References: <[email-masked]>
Reply-To: [email-masked]
NNTP-Posting-Host: ip94-27.tor.interlog.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email-masked] (Elat Lerner) wrote:

>Despite voluminous lip service by government pamphlets about the 
>right of every Canadian taxpayer to appeal the decisions of 
>Revenue Canada, judging from my experience, if you donÕt have 
>access to high-priced lawyers, you can forget about all those 
>taxpayer rights you may, or may not have.

>Without getting bogged down in a lot of detail this is what is 
>supposed to happen in Tax Court:

>      - Taxpayer gives evidence
>      - Taxpayer gets cross-examined on their evidence
>      - Taxpayer makes his legal case
>      - Government (represented by lawyer, of course) makes its
>		 case
>      - Taxpayer gets a chance to rebut governmentÕs legal case

>In real life this is not how it works. In my case the first 3 
>steps took place, but the government lawyer did not present his 
>case, and of course I never got a chance to rebut an argument that 
>was never made.

>What in fact happened, was that the judge (on the spot without 
>any warning) passed his judgment, without addressing any of the 
>points I had raised, and before the government lawyer got a chance 
>to make (or not) the case against me. As a result, I never had a 
>chance to point out the holes (if I may be so presumptuous) in the  
>governmentÕs argument.

>Now, this is pure speculation on my part, but I am willing to bet 
>this would not have happened if I had legal representation. I 
>cannot imagine a judge making a decision against the appellant 
>without even listening to the respondent.

In any legal proceeding the plaintiff/applicant/appellant/petitioner
has the burden of making a prima facie case.  If, at the conclusion of
the applicant's case, the court/tribunal/board is of the opinion that
the applicant did not make a prima facie case, the proceeding is
terminated in favour of the defendant/respondent.  For example, at the
end of the Crown's case in a criminal matter the court may dismiss the
charge prior to the defense's case.

If you were represented by able counsel your case would have been
complete before the Crown presented their case.  It seems as if you
did not touch on an important issue because you anticipated that the
Crown would raise it in their case.  You do not have a "right" to
require that your adversary make submissions.  As long as you have had
the opportunity to make you case as fully as you might in your
submissions you were not denied natural justice.  Perhaps better
counsel would have made a prima facie case, requiring the Crown to put
their case forward.

Morton M. Goldmacher
Barrister and Solicitor

From elastic!lethe!geac!onramp.ca!news2.insinc.net!news.iosphere.net!news.supernet.net!news.magicnet.net!feed1.news.erols.com!howland.erols.net!news.bbnplanet.com!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!uunet!in1.uu.net!world!srctran Tue Dec  3 07:41:34 1996
Xref: elastic misc.int-property:902 sci.electronics:24610
Newsgroups: misc.int-property,alt.inventors,sci.electronics
Path: elastic!lethe!geac!onramp.ca!news2.insinc.net!news.iosphere.net!news.supernet.net!news.magicnet.net!feed1.news.erols.com!howland.erols.net!news.bbnplanet.com!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!uunet!in1.uu.net!world!srctran
From: [email-masked] (Gregory Aharonian)
Subject: PATNEWS: Thomson CD patents invalid - $ 40 million/year at stake
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
Organization: The World Public Access Internet, Brookline, MA
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 14:40:58 GMT
Lines: 60

    There is a patent suing strategy some companies use to put more pressure
on potential licensees to sign a deal.  That is, a company manages to sign a
licence with a "name" (for example, E-data constantly touts that it got IBM
to license E-data's patents, Elkins got Microsoft to license his patent), and
then uses the credibility of that license to get others to pay more attention,
which if the patents involved are of questionable validity, can be a useful
tactic against smaller companies with less legal resources.  Except when the
smaller company decides to fight back.

    In 1994, Thomson S.A. (Paris, France) filed a lawsuit against five
corporations, claiming that the companies infringed four Thomson patents
dealing with optical memory / compact disk manufacturing technologies.
Four of the companies, Bertelsmann, Thorn-EMI, Time Warner, and Nippon
Columbia, settled out of court, agreeing to pay Thomson royalties (along
with fourteen other companies not sued) of 3 cents on each compact disk,
which for the 1.6 billion CDs produced last year gives Thomson a royalty
stream in the range of $40,000,000 a year.

    Unfortunately for Thomson, one of the companies sued (and the smallest),
DMI (Disc Manufacturing Inc, subsidiary of Quixote Corporation), decided to
fight the patent.  A few months ago, a jury ruled that based on PRIOR ART,
that the Thomson patents are invalid.  If upheld or not appealed, the jury
decision could invalidate all of the licensing and royalty agreements that
Thomson has signed, leading to a signficant loss of income for Thomson,
especially as their patents might have been asserted against companies that
will be manufacturing the next generation Digital Versatile Discs (DVDs).

    For DMI, the decision to fight the patents was simple, since being very
SKILLED IN THE ART, they knew that the history of CD technology didn't 
support that Thomson's patents were NOVEL and UNOBVIOUS.  According to Les
Jezuit, president of Quixote, "....We had a strong sense of how the industry
developed because of our technical involvement with compact discs that goes
back to some of the earliest commercial ventures, and so we were able to
assert a vigorous defense".  The jury concurred, based on being informed about
an earlier invention by MCA that was shown to exist before Thomson filed its
patent application.

    I am guessing that similarly E-data's patent, Elkin's patent, Billing's
patent and many others (whose cases are not public), will also be invalidated
based on prior art.   Given that other electronics/computing patents such as
the Compton's and the Bunny Rabbit patents were invalidated by the PTO, it is
not much of a stretch to say that given an ample patent-busting search budget
whose results are handled by a good litigator, that at least 50% of the
electronics/computing patents would be found invalid, especially given the
pathetic amount of non-patent prior art being submitted.

    Tomorrow I will report on a Wall Street Journal article that discusses
how insurance monies are providing a growing stream of funding for companies
to sue others for patent infringement.  Along with investment pools being
formed on Wall Street to invest in patents, these money sources should lead
to an increase in the rate of patent infringement lawsuits being filed in
the electronics industries, especially anything relating to electronic
commerce and interactive entertainment.  Unfortunately, because of the
PTO/patent bar's ongoing refusal to seriously treat the prior art handling
problems, the flood of invalid patents will continue to issue, costing
industry tons of money to invalidate patents that never should have issued.

Greg Aharonian
Internet Patent News Service

From elastic!lethe!geac!onramp.ca!news2.insinc.net!news1.econnect.ca!clio.trends.ca!news1.bellglobal.com!sunqbc.risq.net!newsflash.concordia.ca!newsfeed.pitt.edu!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!casaba.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!fas-news.harvard.edu!hls-silversm.student.harvard.edu!user Mon Dec  9 21:59:15 1996
Xref: elastic misc.legal:20470 talk.politics:14798 talk.politics.libertarian:108491 talk.politics.misc:223298
Path: elastic!lethe!geac!onramp.ca!news2.insinc.net!news1.econnect.ca!clio.trends.ca!news1.bellglobal.com!sunqbc.risq.net!newsflash.concordia.ca!newsfeed.pitt.edu!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!casaba.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!fas-news.harvard.edu!hls-silversm.student.harvard.edu!user
From: [email-masked] (Jol Silversmith)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.usa.republican,talk.politics,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.activism,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.correct,alt.society.sovereign
Subject: Re: State Citizenship  "how do you define right-wing?"
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 1996 17:05:00 -0500
Organization: Harvard Law School
Lines: 49
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
References: <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hls-silversm.student.harvard.edu

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
(Robert Miller) wrote:

> How do you define right-wing?  Anybody or anything 6 inches to the
> right of yourself?

Reviewing my posts over the past couple of years, here are the
circumstances in which I have used the term "right-wing."

1) Posts that misread or miscite the Constitution, case law, or other
legal materials in order to claim that the federal government is currently
operating beyond its permissible powers or is otherwise incorrectly
structured (i.e. claims that the Titles of Nobility Amendment was
ratified; that the states are sovereign principles to a constitutional
contract; that the Iron Mountain Plan is a real government document; that
the Fourteenth Amendment was not ratified; that the Third Amendment has
never been tested in court; that treaties can circumvent the Constitution;
that courts have ruled that the Second Amendment is not part of the Bill
of Rights; that the Declarrtion of Independence is an enforceable
document; etc., etc., etc.).

One of the best examples of this sort of right-wing lunacy in fact was
your post <[email-masked]> on 08/15/96 that claimed
that, based on Adkins v. Children's Hospital, 261 U.S. 525, 545 (1923),
your labor is your personal property. Of course, this case was explicitly
overruled by West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379 (1937)

2) Less often, posts that misread or miscite the U.N. Charter, case law,
or other legal materials in order to claim that the U.N. is a threat to
the U.S. (i.e. that the U.N. ordered the dismissal of Douglas MacArthur
during the Korean Conflict; that the U.N. controlled military operations
during the Korean Conflict; that the U.N. Charter has replaced the
Constitution; etc., etc., etc.).

3) Once, a post claiming that the 1993 suicide of a DC councilmember was
tied to President Clinton because it was otherwise inexplicible (the
councilmember had a history of mental illness, marital strife, and job
stress, had previously attempted sucide, was under medical treatment for
depression, etc., etc., etc.).

Which is not to say that these are the only circumstances under which I
would use the term "right wing." But it should be clear that I have
reserved it for absurd arguments directed against "big government" or
institutions described (by others) as "left wing" which lack any credible
foundation.

-- 
Jol Andrew Silversmith __________________________ [email-masked]
http://www.nyx.net/~jsilvers/home.html __________________ [email-masked]