Advocate Jan 2014

Recommendations

Info

134 VOL. 72 PART 1 JANUARY 2014 THE ADVOCATE 9:00 a.m. – Arrive at 222 Main Street and unload into holding cells. 9:45 a.m. – Meeting with lawyer in meeting room. Speak for 10 minutes and sign two documents, then return to a holding cell (a 5 x 8–foot room with two other prisoners in it. No court appearance occurs. 12:45 p.m. – Provided with lunch, being 2 sandwiches, a juice and an orange; consumed while sitting in the holding tank; bathroom facilities are in the corner of the room with almost no privacy. 3:30 p.m. – Enter transport, handcuffed and shackled to return to NFPTC; this departure time can vary between 3:30 p.m. and 6 p.m., depending upon when court concludes. 4:30 p.m. – Arrive at NFPTC, then sit in holding tank. 8:00 p.m. – Board transport, again handcuffed and shackled to go to FRCC. 8:30 p.m. – Arrive at FRCC; strip searched and returned to living unit; a frozen meal is provided; the meal is so bad that most inmates don’t eat it. As can be seen, the travel time is extensive. In all, this trip to court to chat with counsel for 10 minutes and sign two documents entailed 13 hours in various holding cells and three hours on prisoner transport vehicles (handcuffed, shackled and locked in a small cage). This is a miserable 16-hour day for the inmate. Had counsel instead mailed the forms, or made use of the video appearance system, the inmate might have walked to records, made the appearance, and been back to the living unit in an hour or two at most. Please take a moment and think about this 16-hour day before making scheduling decisions. Your client will thank you, or at least think less ill of you. Dear Sir, Respectfully, William J. Mastop c/o Fraser Regional Correctional Centre I had occasion to read the March edition of the Advocate and in particular the Letters to the Editor. I perused them immediately after reading the obituaries (simply to verify that my name is not there). As one who has read (and enjoyed) every one of Mr. Lecovin’s letters to the editor, I am nevertheless disappointed. Surely (I know, don’t call me “Shirley”) someone else must be writing to the Advocate. Has the practice of law come to the point where no one has time or inclination to comment upon the various vicissitudes and peculiari-
THE ADVOCATE VOL. 72 PART 1 JANUARY 2014 135 ties of the practice of law? 1 We used to comment upon everything; and no letter went without a reply from another practitioner who disagreed completely with whatever point had been taken. We vied with each other to see how adversarial we could be and how much invective we could inject into our answers without completely offending propriety and Gerald Lecovin. For many years, there was a lively poisoned pen correspondence going on between Grant Burnyeat in which they took shots at each other’s size, intelligence and veracity. This ended only because Burnyeat was appointed to the bench and it was considered unseemly (not by them) for a member of the bar and a member of the judiciary to attach each other so venomously. Now, everything is vetted for political correctness. One of the videos produced by members of the bar in the ’50s [sic], had to be withdrawn from circulation as it offended someone’s sensibilities. Thank God (whoever he/she may be), for the CBA Senior Lawyers Section dinner meetings where we can get together and recount, without recrimination, 1 Had “Anonymous” not spent the previous eight months so enamoured with the three (!) published letters from Gerald J. Lecovin, Q.C. in the 2013 March issue of the Advocate, he might also have noticed the published letters from T.S. Woods and Oliver Butterfield in that same issue. – Ed. many of the peccadillos and bonmots of our brethren both on and off the bench. “Anonymous” Received on the letterhead of Lecovin & Company P.S. — As to the issue about the wearing of gowns in court, it is noteworthy that on the eve of his retirement Finch, C.J. acknowledged that he had changed his opinion. ENHANCE your DIVORCEmate experience with TOOLS CLOUD preview. ENJOY the freedom and flexibility of running child and spousal support calculations from anywhere, anytime, on your smartphone, tablet, Mac or PC. DIVORCEmate’s full-featured TOOLS CLOUD available Spring 2014. To get started, visit: www.divorcemate.com. 604.222.3582 skrieger@divorcemate.com
Page 1 and 2:
THE ADVOCATE JANUARY 2014 VOL. 72 P
Page 3 and 4:
THE ADVOCATE VOL. 72 PART 1 JANUARY
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
THE ADVOCATE “Of interest to the
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86: THE ADVOCATE VOL. 72 PART 1 JANUARY
Page 135: THE ADVOCATE VOL. 72 PART 1 JANUARY
Page 163 and 164: Because not everyone is this lucky.
show all

Advocate Jan 2014

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?