“Ungovernable™: Escape your oppressed state™

Blog

Ungovernable Law (Raymond) and Lies (Alan Lie) to face different trials as they are severed after being formerly tethered in a nefarious sex luring and taping scandal!

  • Category: Blog
  • Hits: 9

User Rating: 5 / 5

Star ActiveStar ActiveStar ActiveStar ActiveStar Active
 
 Share

 #UNGOVERNABLE    

 Ungovernable Law (Raymond) and Lies (Alan Lai) to face different trials as they are severed after being formerly tethered in a nefarious sex luring and taping scandal! 

A man originally co-accused with a filmmaker in an alleged plot to film sex with drugged women has pleaded not guilty to four criminal charges.

Alan Lai pleaded not guilty to two counts of sexual assault and two counts of administering a "stupefying or overpowering drug" before an application to Justice Terence Schultes in B.C. Supreme Court Monday.

Lai's alleged assaults in Richmond and Vancouver involved two women who are not identified by court order.

Lai, who is in his 30s, was originally co-accused with a 51-year-old independent film producer named Raymond Law.

But the two men's trials have been severed and will be heard separately.

On Monday, Lai's lawyers made an application to the judge to sever the two cases into two separate trials.

Lai's trial was scheduled to go ahead Monday but is now expected to begin by Friday, while Law's trial will not begin until later this year.

Lai produced a film called Ecstasy in which women are lured into a life of partying and abuse.

None of the five females alleging sexual assaults by Law or Lai appear in that film.

But several are alleging they were videotaped by Law.

Law is facing 15 criminal charges including sexual assault, attempting to administer a "stupefying or overpowering drug" and unlawfully observing or recording someone naked or engaged in explicit sexual activity and one charge of sexual assault causing bodily harm.

All of the alleged attacks took place between December 2012 and 2013 and none of the women involved can be named to #protect their identities.

Law in custody

In late December, Law was released on $20,000 bail with 19 conditions, subject to an overnight curfew confining him to his luxury False Creek condo at night.

He was banned from being alone with any woman and from possessing a camera or video recorder of any kind.

He was also prohibited from serving, providing or purchasing any beverage for any female who is not a family member.

But on July 26, 2014 he was rearrested and charged with a number of breaches of his bail conditions.

Since then, he has been returned to custody, awaiting trial, according to B.C.'s Criminal Justice Branch.

None of the charges have been proven in court.

 

 Image result for Raymond Law

Subscribe

 #MRUNGOVERNABLE  

Image result for Raymond Law

 #Ungovernable Lesson of the Day: Lay some real game down. Get laid. Call it a day and make it a long evening and have the #women in your momma's church saying Lord Jesus! Nothing says guilty like not being able to comply with your bail of not buying drinks for women and then getting rearrested! 

 

#UNGOVERNABLE: ESCAPE YOUR OPPRESSED STATE 

Add a comment

Ungovernable Dead Bodies: Stash out for cash out!

  • Category: Blog
  • Hits: 6

User Rating: 5 / 5

Star ActiveStar ActiveStar ActiveStar ActiveStar Active
 
 Share

 #UNGOVERNABLE    

 Ungovernable Dead Bodies: Stash out for cash out! 

A new report has surfaced alleging that the New York City MTA has been using employee break rooms to temporarily place corpses and dismembered body parts aside until they can be picked up by emergency responders.

The Transport Workers Union, better known as TWU, spoke to NY1 to give insight into the weird and disgusting habit that is allegedly being practiced. The TWU Local 100 Vice President, Derek Echevarria said “You have pieces, you have blood splatter. It could be any contamination or disease.” Echevarria spoke on how nasty the practice is and noted that seeing dead bodies and body parts have been leaving workers scarred. He said, “These are bathrooms, facility rooms, break rooms — anybody can just walk in without notice. And that is another part of ending the service because they're usually sent home by what they've seen, what they've touched."

Sources from the MTA said that the bodies are not stored in breaks, but actually placed in “non-public spaces” until the medical examiner arrives on the scene. The TWU Local 100 shot back by saying it often takes hours for the examiner to come through and have the corpses cleared.

ARE THOSE LIVE HUMANS OR JUST BODIES? 

 

Subscribe

 #MRUNGOVERNABLE  

 #Ungovernable Lesson of the DayShould the limbs not be used for surgery as opposed to storing them in the location? Are some of these bodies still collecting pay cheques because they are in the employee break rooms? Maybe they were not dead and they just wanted to take break? 

 

#UNGOVERNABLE: ESCAPE YOUR OPPRESSED STATE 

Add a comment

Ungovernable Access to Information! Get your wallets out!

  • Category: Blog
  • Hits: 8

User Rating: 5 / 5

Star ActiveStar ActiveStar ActiveStar ActiveStar Active
 
 Share

 #UNGOVERNABLE    

 Ungovernable Access to Information! Get your wallets out!

 

On March 31, 2017, the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario (IPC) upheld on appeal that Hamilton Health Sciences had justified its $4,800.00 price estimate for a request for information under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act or FIPPA).

 

Hamilton Health Sciences (a hospital) received a request from a journalist under FIPPA “regarding two aboriginal children refusing chemotherapy at McMaster Children’s Hospital and the resulting Ontario court family division case.”[1] In compliance with section 57(1) of the Act, the hospital provided a fee estimate for processing the request in the sum of $4,800.00, which reflected a waiver of 80 percent of the estimated fee. The requester (now the appellant) appealed the hospital’s fee.

 

The appealing journalist argued the fee was so high that it amounted to a barrier to access. She submitted that the costs should be lower because the records should be easily searchable; 20 hours of search time for slightly over one years’ worth of records is much too high.[2] She concluded by stating the hospital was charging for an unreasonable amount of redaction.[3]

 

In its reply, the hospital went into more detail on its processes for searching for documents and redacting them. After receiving the request, the hospital worked with staff, senior management, external and internal legal counsel to define the scope of its response. Upon its search, the hospital found that an estimated 3,500 pages of records would be disclosed, all of which will require some redaction of personal health information (PHI).[4] The preparation of the redactions accounted for $3,500.00, roughly 73 percent of the total estimate. The hospital followed an iterative searching process as described in the Sedona Canada Principles.

 

The Commissioner upheld the hospital’s fee estimate and dismissed the appeal in all circumstances. He found that the appellant’s request was broad and that the range and volume of the possible responsive records was the basis for the “large” search fee of $600.00.[5] Furthermore, he found $3,500 for preparation and $700 for photocopying to be appropriate costs for 3,500 pages of records.

 

The Commissioner concluded by reflecting on the nature of fees in such a request. Considering that information (such as email) pertaining to a broad search will likely be dispersed though an institution, he said, “It is therefore the scope of the request and not the method of calculating the estimated fee that results in the amount to be charged for processing the request.”[6]

 

Commentary

 

This cases present an opportunity to reflect on the gap between presuppositions and current realities of eDiscovery. With ESI, the nature of the discovery game has changed – and so have the rules. Asking for everything is a logical reaction when faced with the limited availability and difficulty of searching paper documents. Given the vastness of ESI, this same approach creates more work and fails to take advantage of the inherent benefits of electronic documents. It is more important than ever to make reasoned decisions about what to ask for in legal proceedings. Otherwise, one ends up with 3,500 documents that all contain PHI.

 

Concerns about reducing the scope of a request, or of having to linearly review every document, are likely holdovers from a paper-based world. The challenge is no longer to put eyes on every piece of material, but “to convert raw data into real knowledge.”[7] It is a major problem when one spends time and money reviewing documents only to find the parties still have not gained any knowledge relevant to their case.

 

Hamilton Health Sciences reflects how the challenges lawyers face to keep pace with technology are much broader than adopting any particular tool. Beyond matters of practice efficiency and artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted legal research, the very nature of how information is organized and stored is changing. As Richard Susskind points out in his book The Future of the Professions, the dominant means by which information is stored and communicated has shifted from print to digital.[8] Seeing as many law firms and courts still handle large amounts of paper documents we are still in a transitional phase.

 

The above case illustrates the growing pains of this transition. Susskind notes how, as we progress into the technology-based internet society, “the quantity and complexity of materials will be hidden from users.”[9] Though it is tempting, the inevitable results of disregarding this increasing complexity of handling ESI are misunderstandings and court fees. Familiarizing oneself with the Sedona Principles is a good starting point for lawyers interested in staying current on discovery best practices.

 

 

Conclusion

 

More than the literal costs, this case deal with the cost of overlooking a changing world. The fact that the journalist involved in the HHS case is exasperated about the costs of retrieval shows it is not only lawyers who are struggling to adapt. Even something apparently simple like identifying responsive emails involves specialized expertise and processes.

 

It is not simply that the practice of law is changing; the world is changing. Lawyers need to keep pace in order continue to add value. It is not simply that computers may soon be reviewing documents better than humans; the documents – and humans – themselves are increasingly reliant on computers. Electronic evidence continues to massively change the practice of law; yet it is a reflection of something much larger. The way all information is organized – all potential evidence – is undergoing the biggest substantive change since the printing press.

 

Subscribe

 #MRUNGOVERNABLE  

 #Ungovernable Lesson of the Day: You want your own information! You better pay for it!

#UNGOVERNABLE: ESCAPE YOUR OPPRESSED STATE 

Add a comment

Ungovernable Attorney General:Tells Synmore Sanders to shut up on National TV! Where were the Black Eyed Peas when you needed them?

  • Category: Blog
  • Hits: 9

User Rating: 5 / 5

Star ActiveStar ActiveStar ActiveStar ActiveStar Active
 
 Share

 #UNGOVERNABLE    

 Ungovernable Attorney General:Tells Synmore Sanders to shut up on National TV! Where were the Black Eyed Peas when you needed them? 

Racism is a tough topic to tackle in America, and former Virginia attorney general Ken Cuccinelli proved he couldn’t handle the conversation when he told former Bernie Sanders spokeswoman Symone Sanders to “shut up” while talking about white supremacy. While on CNN’s New Day, the two were discussing the effects of the Charlottesville marches and how it relates to white supremacy. The conversation got pretty heated when Sanders said the rally was not an isolated event, and that it is an “egregious symptom of what is wrong all over America.”

From there, she became quiet to let the man speak, but when she chimed in to correct him he said, “Can I finish, Symone? Can you just shut up for a moment?” From there, Sanders shot back by letting the man have it, along with the host of the show Chris Cuomo telling him, “You know better.” Cuccinelli would then later apologize, but not without saying that Sanders owed him an apologize as well “For interrupting me.” 

BALLIN OUT OF CONTROL 

Subscribe

 #MRUNGOVERNABLE  

 #Ungovernable Lesson of the Day: He should have #sung it like Black Eyed Peas so it had more of a hip hop flavour to it! 

 

#UNGOVERNABLE: ESCAPE YOUR OPPRESSED STATE 

Add a comment

Ungovernable Terminations: When you get canned, how long until it is too late to get off the can?

  • Category: Blog
  • Hits: 6

User Rating: 0 / 5

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive
 
 Share

 #UNGOVERNABLE    

 Ungovernable Terminations: When you get canned, how long until it is too late to get off the can? 

 

Does a limitation period commence at the time notice of termination is given? Or on an employee’s last day of work?

Limitation periods on the commencement of civil actions are governed by statue. In the province of Ontario, the general source is the Limitations Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 24.

With specific reference to wrongful dismissal claims, the applicable limitation period for bringing a lawsuit is two years. This blog post will venture the question of “when does the two-year time period begin to run?”

Bailey v. Milo-Food & Agricultural Infrastructure & Services Inc., 2017 ONSC 1789

The Facts

In this case, the employee was provided with two years’ working notice of his termination and worked for the entire notice period. In and around six months after his last day of work, the employee commenced an action for wrongful dismissal and later also included a claim for entitlement to severance pay amongst other claims.

The employer moved a motion to strike out the Plaintiff’s statement of claim pursuant to r. 21.01(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, on the grounds that the action was beyond the two-year limitation period, and was thus statute barred. The employer’s position was that the applicable two-year limitation period commenced when the Plaintiff received notice of his termination on March 18, 2013.

The Plaintiff argued that the limitation period began to run from his last day of work on March 22, 2015, not on the date he received notice. Accordingly, his claim was brought well within the two-year time period.

So, when does the limitation period begin to run?

Decision

The Motion Judge relied on the leading case in Ontario for the commencement of the limitation period in a wrongful dismissal action is Jones v. Freidman, 2006 CanLII 580 (ON CA). The Ontario Court of Appeal held at para. 4:

A limitation period commences when the cause of actions arises. In a breach of contract, the cause of action arises when the contract was breached. For the purposes of a wrongful dismissal action, the employment contract is breached when the employer dismisses the employee without reasonable notice.

The Motion Judge also considered cases decided after Jones that approached the same issue, and found that none concluded that the limitation period begins to run from the last day of work: Kirkland v. Lohmann Tierzucht Canada Ltd., 2007 CanLII 19422 (ON SC), Dixon v. Hanning House Ltd., 2007 CanLII 54954 (ON SC), Webster v. Alimore Trading & Manufacturing Co., 2010 ONSC 3854 and Zawislak v. Siemens Canada Ltd., 2012 ONSC 1043.

Counsel for the Plaintiff argued that the employer could have changed its mind (rescinded the termination), or sold the company during the Plaintiff’s working notice period, making the end of employment the correct starting date of the limitation period. The Judge stated that while that may be possible, he agreed with Horkins, J. from the Jones trial decision, at para. 14, that any change after the notice of termination is given does not change the fact that termination still occurred on that date.

With regards to severance pay, the Judge disagreed with the Plaintiff’s position that s. 65(1) of the Employment Standards Act (“ESA”) indicated the severance date should be at the end of work.

The Judge concluded that the Jones decision was binding, and therefore the cause of action for wrongful dismissal and severance pay claims arose on March 18, 2013, when the Plaintiff received notice of his termination. Since the statement of claim was filed after the expiry of the limitation period, the claims for wrongful dismissal and severance was found to be statute-barred.

Image result for Employee Termination memes

 

Subscribe

 #MRUNGOVERNABLE  

 #Ungovernable Lesson of the Day: Get your ass off the couch, sue the pricks #ASAP, start a website and get a new job!

#UNGOVERNABLE: ESCAPE YOUR OPPRESSED STATE 

Add a comment

Defined

We define Ungovernable like the dictionaries (we are amenable to follow when its appropriate to do so): "escape the control".