I would be in for a donation just too piss off the rc's. visual appearance, based on that I refuse all further tickets based on how much I hate pink paper
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
I would be in for a donation just too piss off the rc's. visual appearance, based on that I refuse all further tickets based on how much I hate pink paper
Whenever I've seen this over the years, I had to chuckle. I worked for Murray Rankin and Joe Arvay one summer (about a decade ago) before I was called to the Bar. While Murray is a very talented lawyer, with a specialty in Administrative law (which this GSG question is, the review of a decision made by a statutorily created decision maker) he is a dyed-in-the-wool lifelong NDP'r. His whole office was full of pictures of him with Glen Clark, Ujjal Dosanjh and all the various luminaries of the socialist left, federally and provincially. The law firm (Arvay Findley) was well known as a "labour"/left-wing firm. I was just there to get some experience over the summer- the rest of them were true believers (although all great people and fun to be around). Murray is now a federal MP for the NDP in Victoria (as of the recent byelection).Originally Posted by mackidid
After Joe Arvay decided to "streamline" his operation and Arvay Findley more-or-less disintegrated, Murray went over to the Victoria office of Heenan Blaikie (basically a Montreal/national firm with a tiny little presence in BC). While I am not saying Murray can't seperate his personaly beliefs from his work (this is something all lawyers, and all professionals have to do at times)... it is really REALLY hard for me to accept that this was the right lawyer for the job. His whole life has been devoted to NDP politics, which includes taking your firearms away from you and/or limiting the presence of firearms in Canada down to the minimum level possible. Would his "heart" have been in the case? You tell me.
Blueline? Do you feel like you recieved anything for your retainer for legal services? (This is a rhetorical question. I'm not expecting any answer). I would say it is long since time you guys took that postdown off your website.... as, currently, you have retained an NDP MP to go to bat for you on a firearms case!
Next time there is a firearm of this type, please, please contact NFA or CSSA to discuss strategy before a negative decision is made, and it would probably be worthwhile to discuss lawyers with them for any possible challenge after the fact as well.
Sadly, no....he's being quite serious. He just finished telling us in another thread how the guns we gun-freaks crave are what are killing our school children.I hate to be dull (but I'm having a sugar low), but that was sarcasm, right?
And no, I'm not even remotely kidding.
My posts are the intellectual property of the person commenting under the pseudonym "Wrong Way". Any use, in whole or in part, for reference outside this forum requires the express written consent of its author.
I certainly hope so. But based on his last thread I got my doubts...I hate to be dull (but I'm having a sugar low
Edit WW beat me to it.
Wow.... I'm sure it's far more dangerious then a 10/22 or other common semi auto .22s....
Shhhh.... Next they will try to prohib .22 for its incredible range, power, accuracy, armour piercing, incendiary, and explosive properties....
Yes well, since 22lr is .223 in diameter. it is therefore the same round as .223/5.56 NATO. Dangerous deadly assault bullets from assault casing loaded into assault magazines feeding assault weapons.
Assault assault assault asssssssssss I think I killed a few babies with this post.
Posting Permissions
