What's up, my friend? I'd like to run something by you. Being in or of the Commonwealth nations, do you suppose you share common laws, similar to this one? When we combine the real facts and real science with malicious intent, and a whole host of other misdeeds, the potential for a landslide of lawsuits seems imminent. I've roughtly sewn some bits together, here.
Every one who, in committing an assault,
(a) carries, uses or threatens to use a weapon or an imitation thereof, or
(b) causes bodily harm to the complainant,
is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months.
Proof of Offence
seriousness of injuries:
a hurt or injury interfered with the victim's health or comfort and whether it was "more than merely transient or trifling in nature"
From https://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/chemicals/chem_profiles/carbon_dioxide.html Mild Exposure
Carbon dioxide is present in natural air at a quantity of approximately 0.035 percent. When you are exposed to a low level of carbon dioxide, around 1.5 percent, you will begin having physical and mental issues. But it can be difficult for you to figure out what is going on. The initial symptoms include dizziness and a change in breathing.
Over time, performance levels will decrease, and erratic, abnormal behavior will set in.
[It makes a person insane!]
This only refers to external CO2 levels, not even mentioning the harm of acidosis, low O2 levels, etc... In summary, there is a LOT to work with, should a few honest blokes care to do the honourable thing. Stroke and MI's gonna go thru the roof!
hello there!
Yes, pretty much all commonwealth countries - and many more besides - share common law principles (in principle).
Statute laws, although, (in theory), never superseding common law, has in fact, taken precedence in modern judicial systems across the world. (from my understanding, and some pretty obvious observations) .
I'm not a lawyer.
I gave up that particular goal, (pre uni). I had conflicting morale issues with the system (me? conflicting issues with 'the system'?lol) .
Things such has having to swear allegiance to the courts (the crown) prior to ever defending anybody.
I had no desire to be part of that cesspit of a club.
There are many reports coming out about the 'mask wearing' and the potentially very harmful effects of increased CO2 levels because of the act.
Until there is a big reset in the judicial perspective - where common law becomes the 'defualt' setting- I have even less faith in the legal system, than I did when I was 17, (when taking my exams to then go into law. (I actually had a lawyer willing to employ me, when I'd passed - just based on my initial exam results - pre law degree! Obviously he must have been mentally ill.lol)
Brilliant, good sir! Terrific luck that you are a scholar, a gentleman of high moral fibre AND a poet. Thank you for that detailed response. Your talent has not faded.
I genuinely appreciate the wise counsel. Useful info about statute and common law, I need to ponder...
That is a cool background. The lawyer should have also known to account for the variable in those of a certain intellect. However, you both made the correct choice.
Doing better than many. I detect the same is true in your case.
Its funny, the lawyer dude looked at my current exam results (in the top 3%) for a full three seconds, but was far more interested in my old IQ tests.
(I'd won a scholarship to a 'top private school', back in the day and I'd had to take an IQ test).
When he saw those, was when he offered me a job after I'd passed my exams.
I chose not to attend said private school after I passed the entry exam - when I was 11 (as weird as it sounds, it was based on ethical reasons, even back then)
👍
What's up, my friend? I'd like to run something by you. Being in or of the Commonwealth nations, do you suppose you share common laws, similar to this one? When we combine the real facts and real science with malicious intent, and a whole host of other misdeeds, the potential for a landslide of lawsuits seems imminent. I've roughtly sewn some bits together, here.
Canadian Criminal Law/Offences/Assault Causing Bodily Harm
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Canadian_Criminal_Law/Offences/Assault_Causing_Bodily_Harm
Legislation
(a) carries, uses or threatens to use a weapon or an imitation thereof, or
(b) causes bodily harm to the complainant,
is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months.
Proof of Offence
From https://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/chemicals/chem_profiles/carbon_dioxide.html
Mild Exposure
Carbon dioxide is present in natural air at a quantity of approximately 0.035 percent. When you are exposed to a low level of carbon dioxide, around 1.5 percent, you will begin having physical and mental issues. But it can be difficult for you to figure out what is going on. The initial symptoms include dizziness and a change in breathing.
Over time, performance levels will decrease, and erratic, abnormal behavior will set in.
[It makes a person insane!]
This only refers to external CO2 levels, not even mentioning the harm of acidosis, low O2 levels, etc... In summary, there is a LOT to work with, should a few honest blokes care to do the honourable thing. Stroke and MI's gonna go thru the roof!
hello there!
Yes, pretty much all commonwealth countries - and many more besides - share common law principles (in principle).
Statute laws, although, (in theory), never superseding common law, has in fact, taken precedence in modern judicial systems across the world. (from my understanding, and some pretty obvious observations) .
I'm not a lawyer.
I gave up that particular goal, (pre uni). I had conflicting morale issues with the system (me? conflicting issues with 'the system'?lol) .
Things such has having to swear allegiance to the courts (the crown) prior to ever defending anybody.
I had no desire to be part of that cesspit of a club.
There are many reports coming out about the 'mask wearing' and the potentially very harmful effects of increased CO2 levels because of the act.
Until there is a big reset in the judicial perspective - where common law becomes the 'defualt' setting- I have even less faith in the legal system, than I did when I was 17, (when taking my exams to then go into law. (I actually had a lawyer willing to employ me, when I'd passed - just based on my initial exam results - pre law degree! Obviously he must have been mentally ill.lol)
I hope you are well, matey!
Brilliant, good sir! Terrific luck that you are a scholar, a gentleman of high moral fibre AND a poet. Thank you for that detailed response. Your talent has not faded.
I genuinely appreciate the wise counsel. Useful info about statute and common law, I need to ponder...
That is a cool background. The lawyer should have also known to account for the variable in those of a certain intellect. However, you both made the correct choice.
Doing better than many. I detect the same is true in your case.
Its funny, the lawyer dude looked at my current exam results (in the top 3%) for a full three seconds, but was far more interested in my old IQ tests.
(I'd won a scholarship to a 'top private school', back in the day and I'd had to take an IQ test).
When he saw those, was when he offered me a job after I'd passed my exams.
Yes, this was your ticket into the club. You passed a test of an altogether different kind by rejecting that illuminating experience.
...that was nothing! lol.
I chose not to attend said private school after I passed the entry exam - when I was 11 (as weird as it sounds, it was based on ethical reasons, even back then)