You are on page 1of 31

Why do I need appropriating lawyer for my guaranteed rights?

Docket 13 Crown Governor General Lieutenant Governor Attorney General Judiciary RCMP vs Public Interest Doublethink Conflict of Interest Doublethink means holding two contradictory beliefs simultaneously. Step on every rock killing serpents PAGAN COIF Published Attorney General Authority Nuances Conflict of Interest Fiduciary Attorney General wears no clothes - too many HATS - Honor Among Thieves Systemic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest A conflict of interest (COI) occurs when an individual or organization is involved in multiple interests, one of which could possibly corrupt the motivation for an act in the other. The presence of a conflict of interest is independent from the execution of impropriety. Therefore, a conflict of interest can be discovered and voluntarily defused before any corruption occurs. A widely used definition is: “A conflict of interest is a set of circumstances that creates a risk that professional judgment or actions regarding a primary interest will be unduly influenced by a secondary interest.”[1] Primary interest refers to the principal goals of the profession or activity, such as the protection of clients, the health of patients, the integrity of research, and the duties of public office. Secondary interest includes not only financial gain but also such motives as the desire for professional advancement and the wish to do favors for family and friends, but conflict of interest rules usually focus on financial relationships because they are relatively more objective, fungible, and quantifiable. The secondary interests are not treated as wrong in themselves, but become objectionable when they are believed to have greater weight than the primary interests. The conflict in a conflict of interest exists whether or not a particular individual is actually influenced by the secondary interest. It exists if the circumstances are reasonably believed (on the basis of past experience and objective evidence) to create a risk that decisions may be unduly influenced by secondary interests. William K. Black insists that "Conflicts of interest matter."[2] In the run up to the Savings and loan crisis of the 1980s and early 1990s, control frauds like Charles Keating were able to get legislators like Speaker of the House Jim Wright, the Keating Five Senators and majorities in both the US House and Senate to suppress investigations of massive criminality until their Ponzi schemes finally collapses. Only then did citizen pressure and media involvement force political action. Then regulators filed thousands of criminal referrals that translated into over a thousand felony convictions. The current foreclosure and Subprime mortgage crisis is similar to the run up to the S&L crisis with zero criminal referrals and zero prosecutions of key finance executives. Black calls this the de facto decriminalization of elite financial fraud.[3] As with the S&L crisis, the current situation is facilitated by conflicts of interest in the media and the US system of privately funded political campaigns. Contents [hide] 1 Conflicts of interest related to the practice of law 2 Conflicts of interest generally (unrelated to the practice of law) 3 Organizational conflict of interest 4 Relationship to medical research 1

5 Types of conflicts of interests 6 Examples 6.1 Environmental Hazards and Human Health 6.2 Self-Policing 6.3 Insurance Claims Adjusters 6.4 Purchasing Agents and Sales Personnel 6.5 Governmental Officials 6.6 Finance Industry and Elected Officials 6.7 Finance Industry and economists 6.8 Media 7 Ways to mitigate conflicts of interests 7.1 Removal 7.2 Disclosure 7.3 Recusal 7.4 Third-party evaluations 8 See also 9 External links 10 Further reading 11 References [edit]Conflicts of interest related to the practice of law Professional responsibility Duties to the client Confidentiality Avoiding conflict of interest Diligence and competence Avoid commingling Avoid self-dealing Effective assistance Avoid fee splitting Withdrawal from representation Duties to the court Disclosure of perjury Disclosure of adverse authority Duties to the profession Limitations on legal advertising Report misconduct Sources of law ABA Model Rules Penalties for misconduct Disbarment Judicial misconduct v 2

t e Judicial disqualification, also referred to as recusal, refers to the act of abstaining from participation in an official action such as a legal proceeding due to a conflict of interest of the presiding court official or administrative officer. Applicable statutes or canons of ethics may provide standards for recusal in a given proceeding or matter. Providing that the judge or presiding officer must be free from disabling conflicts of interest makes the fairness of the proceedings less likely to be questioned.[4] In the legal profession, the duty of loyalty owed to a client prohibits an attorney (or a law firm) from representing any other party with interests adverse to those of a current client. The few exceptions to this rule require informed written consent from all affected clients. In some circumstances, a conflict of interest can never be waived by a client. In perhaps the most common example encountered by the general public, the same firm should not represent both parties in a divorce or child custody case. A prohibited or undisclosed representation involving a conflict of interest can subject an attorney to disciplinary hearings, the denial or disgorgement of legal fees, or in some cases (such as the failure to make mandatory disclosure), criminal proceedings. In the United States, a law firm usually cannot represent a client if its interests conflict with those of another client, even if they have separate lawyers within the firm, unless (in some jurisdictions) the lawyer is segregated from the rest of the firm for the duration of the conflict. Law firms often employ software in conjunction with their case management and accounting systems in order to meet their duties to monitor their conflict of interest exposure and to assist in obtaining waivers. [edit]Conflicts of interest generally (unrelated to the practice of law) Sociology

Outline Theory · History Positivism · Antipositivism Functionalism · Conflict theory Middle-range · Mathematical Critical theory · Socialization Structure and agency Research methods Quantitative · Qualitative Historical · Computational Ethnographic · Network analytic Topics · Subfields Cities · Class · Crime · Culture Deviance · Demography · Education Economy · Environment · Family Gender · Health · Industry · Internet Knowledge · Law · Literature ·Medicine · Politics · Mobility ·Race and 3

ethnicity · Rationalization ·Religion · Science · Secularization ·Social networks · Social psychology ·Stratification Browse Portal Category tree · Lists Journals · Sociologists Article index v t e More generally, conflicts of interest can be defined as any situation in which an individual or corporation (either private or governmental) is in a position to exploit a professional or official capacity in some way for their personal or corporate benefit. Depending upon the law or rules related to a particular organization, the existence of a conflict of interest may not, in and of itself, be evidence of wrongdoing. In fact, for many professionals, it is virtually impossible to avoid having conflicts of interest from time to time. A conflict of interest can, however, become a legal matter for example when an individual tries (and/or succeeds in) influencing the outcome of a decision, for personal benefit. A director or executive of a corporation will be subject to legal liability if a conflict of interest breaches his/herDuty of Loyalty. There often is confusion over these two situations. Someone accused of a conflict of interest may deny that a conflict exists because he/she did not act improperly. In fact, a conflict of interest can exist even if there are no improper acts as a result of it. (One way to understand this is to use the term "conflict of roles". A person with two roles—an individual who owns stock and is also a government official, for example—may experience situations where those two roles conflict. The conflict can be mitigated— see below—but it still exists. In and of itself, having two roles is not illegal, but the differing roles will certainly provide an incentive for improper acts in some circumstances.) As an example, in the sphere of business and control, according to the Institute of Internal Auditors: conflict of interest is a situation in which an internal auditor, who is in a position of trust, has a competing professional or personal interest. Such competing interests can make it difficult to fulfill his or her duties impartially. A conflict of interest exists even if nounethical or improper act results. A conflict of interest can create an appearance of impropriety that can undermine confidence in the internal auditor, the internal audit activity, and the profession. A conflict of interest could impair an individual's ability to perform his or her duties and responsibilities objectively.[5][6] [edit]Organizational conflict of interest An organizational conflict of interest (OCI) may exist in the same way as described above, in the realm of the private sector providing services to the Government, where a corporation provides two types of services to the Government that have conflicting interest or appear objectionable (i.e.: manufacturing parts and then participating on a selection committee comparing parts manufacturers). Corporations may develop simple or complex systems to mitigate the risk or perceived risk of a conflict of interest. These risks are typically evaluated by a governmental office (for example, in a US Government RFP) to determine whether the risks pose a substantial advantage to the private organization over the competition or will decrease the overall competitiveness in the bidding process. [edit]Relationship to medical research

4

The influence of the pharmaceutical industry on medical research has been a major cause for concern. In 2009 a study found that "a number of academic institutions" do not have clear guidelines for relationships between Institutional Review Boards and industry.[7] [edit]Types of conflicts of interests The following are the most common forms of conflicts of interests: Self-dealing, in which an official who controls an organization causes it to enter into a transaction with the official, or with another organization that benefits the official. The official is on both sides of the "deal." Outside employment, in which the interests of one job contradict another. Family interests, in which a spouse, child, or other close relative is employed (or applies for employment) or where goods or services are purchased from such a relative or a firm controlled by a relative. For this reason, many employment applications ask if one is related to a current employee. If this is the case, the relative could then recuse from any hiring decisions. Abuse of this type of conflict of interest is called nepotism. Gifts from friends who also do business with the person receiving the gifts. (Such gifts may include non-tangible things of value such as transportation and lodging.) Pump and dump, in which a stock broker who owns a security artificially inflates the price by "upgrading" it or spreading rumors, sells the security and adds short position, then "downgrades" the security or spreads negative rumors to push the price down. Other improper acts that are sometimes classified as conflicts of interests are probably better classified elsewhere. Accepting bribes can be classified as corruption; almost everyone in a position of authority, particularly public authority, has the potential for such wrongdoing. Similarly, use of government or corporate property or assets for personal use is fraud, and classifying this as a conflict of interest does not improve the analysis of this problem. Nor should unauthorized distribution of confidential information, in itself, be considered a conflict of interest. For these improper acts, there is no inherent conflict of roles (see above), unless being a (fallible) human being rather than (say) a robot in a position of power or authority is considered to be a conflict. COI is sometimes termed competition of interest rather than "conflict", emphasizing a connotation of natural competition between valid interests rather than violent conflict with its connotation of victimhood and unfair aggression. Nevertheless, denotatively, there is too much overlap between the terms to make any objective differentiation. [edit]Examples [edit]Environmental Hazards and Human Health Baker[8] summarized 176 studies of the potential impact of Bisphenol A on human health as follows: [9] Funding Harm No Harm Industry 0 13 (100%) Independent (e.g., 152 (86%) 11 (14%) government) Lessig [10] noted that this does not mean that the funding source influenced the results. However, it does raise questions about the validity of the industry-funded studies specifically, because the researchers conducting those studies have a conflict of interest; they are subject at minimum to a natural human inclination to please the people who paid for their work. Lessig provided a similar summary of 326 studies of the potential harm from cell phone usage with results that were similar but not as stark.[11]

5

http://www.scribd.com/doc/105694093/RCMP-Sarge-States-Apparently-I-Thought-Were-ActuallyGoing-to-Investigate-Government-Corruption-as-Per-Complaint

[edit] Self-policing of any group is also a conflict of interest. If any organization, such as a corporation or government bureaucracy, is asked to eliminate unethical behavior within their own group, it may be in their interest in the short run to eliminate the appearance of unethical behavior, rather than the behavior itself, by keeping any ethical breaches hidden, instead of exposing and correcting them. An exception occurs when the ethical breach is already known by the public. In that case, it could be in the group's interest to end the ethical problem to which the public has knowledge, but keep remaining breaches hidden. [edit]Insurance Claims Adjusters Insurance companies retain claims adjusters to represent their interest in adjusting claims. It is in the best interest of the insurance companies that the very smallest settlement is reached with its claimants. Based on the adjuster's experience and knowledge of the insurance policy it is very easy for the adjuster to convince an unknowing claimant to settle for less than what they may otherwise be entitled which could be a larger settlement. There is always a very good chance of a conflict of interest to exist when one adjuster tries to represent both sides of a financial transaction such as an insurance claim. This problem is exacerbated when the claimant is told, or believes, the insurance company's claims adjuster is fair and impartial enough to satisfy both theirs and the insurance company's interests. These types of conflicts could be easily be avoided by the use of disclosures. [edit]Purchasing Agents and Sales Personnel A person working as the equipment purchaser for a company may get a bonus proportionate to the amount he's under budget by year end. However, this becomes an incentive for him to purchase inexpensive, substandard equipment. Therefore, this is counter to the interests of those in his company who must actually use the equipment. W. Edwards Deming listed "purchasing on price alone" as number 4 of his famous 14 points, and he often said things to the effect that "He who purchases on price alone deserves to get rooked." [edit]Governmental Officials Regulating conflict of interest in government is one of the aims of political ethics. Public officials are expected to put service to the public and their constituents ahead of their personal interests. Conflict of interest rules are intended to prevent officials from making decisions in circumstances that could reasonably be perceived as violating this duty of office. Rules in the executive branch tend to be stricter and easier to enforce than in the legislative branch.[12] Two problems make legislative ethics of conflicts difficult and distinctive.[13] First, as James Madison wrote, legislators should share a "communion of interests" with their constituents. Legislators cannot adequately represent the interests of constituents without also representing some of their own. As Senator Robert S. Kerr once said, "I represent the farmers of Oklahoma, although I have large farm interests. I represent the oil business in Oklahoma . . . and I am in the oil business. . . . They don't want to send a man here who has no community of interest with them, because he wouldn't be worth a nickel to them."[14] The problem is to distinguish special interests from the general interests of all constituents. Second, the “political interests” of legislatures include campaign contributions which they need to get elected, and which are generally not illegal and not the same as a bribe. But under many circumstances they can have the same effect. The problem here is how to keep the secondary interest in raising campaign funds from overwhelming what should be their primary interest: fulfilling the duties of office. 6

Self-Policing

Politics in the US is dominated in many ways by political campaign contributions.[4] Candidates are often not considered "credible" unless they have a campaign budget far beyond what could reasonably be raised from citizens of ordinary means. The pernicious impact of this money can be found in many places, most notably in studies of how campaign contributions affect legislative behavior. For example, the price of sugar in the US has been roughly double the international price for over half a century. In the 1980s, this added $3 billion to the annual budget of US consumers, according to Stern,[15] who provided the following summary of one part of how this happens: Contributions from the sugar lobby, 1983– Percent voting in 1985 against gradually reducing sugar 1986 subsidies > $5,000 $2,500 - $5,000 $1,000 - $2,500 $1 – $1,000 100% 97% 68% 45%

$0 20% This $3 billion translates into $41 per household per year. This is in essence a tax collected by a nongovernmental agency: It is a cost imposed on consumers by governmental decisions, but never considered in any of the standard data on tax collections. Stern notes that sugar interests contributed $2.6 million to political campaigns, representing well over $1,000 return for each $1 contributed to political campaigns. This, however, does not include the cost of lobbying. Lessig [16] cites six different studies that consider the cost of lobbying with campaign contributions on a variety of issues considered in Washington, DC. These studies produced estimates of the anticipated return on each $1 invested in lobbying and political campaigns that ranged from $6 to $220. Lessig notes that clients who pay tens of millions of dollars to lobbyists typically receive billions. Lessig,[10] insists that this does not mean that any legislator has sold his or her vote. One of several possible explanations Lessig gives for this phenomenon is that the money helped elect candidates more supportive of the issues pushed by the big money spent on lobbying and political campaigns. He notes that if any money perverts democracy, it is the large contributions beyond the budgets of citizens of ordinary means; small contributions from common citizens have long been considered supporting of democracy.[17] When such large sums become virtually essential to a politician's future, it generates a substantive conflict of interest contributing to a fairly well documented distortion on the nation's priorities and policies. Beyond this, governmental officials, whether elected or not, often leave public service to work for companies affected by legislation they helped enact or companies they used to regulate or companies affected by legislation they helped enact. This practice is called the Revolving door. Former legislators and regulators are accused of (a) using inside information for their new employers or (b) compromising laws and regulations in hopes of securing lucrative employment in the private sector. This possibility creates a conflict of interest for all public officials whose future may depend on the Revolving door. [edit]Finance Industry and Elected Officials Conflicts of interest among elected officials is part of the story behind the increase in the percent of US corporate domestic profits captured by the finance industry depicted in that accompanying figure.

7

Finance as a Percent of US Domestic Corporate Profit (Finance includes banks, securities and insurance. In 1932-1933, the total US domestic corporate profit was negative. However, the financial sector made a profit in those years, which made its percentage negative, below 0 and off the scale in this plot.) From 1934 through 1985, the finance industry averaged 13.8% of US domestic corporate profit. Between 1986 and 1999, it averaged 23.5%. From 2000 through 2010, it averaged 32.6%. Some of this increase is doubtless due to increased efficiency from banking consolidation and innovations in new financial products that benefit consumers. However, if most consumers had refused to accept financial products they did not understand, e.g., negative amortization loans, the finance industry would not have been as profitable as it has been, and the Late-2000s recession might have been avoided or postponed. Stiglitz[18] noted that the Late-2000s recession was created in part because, "Bankers acted greedily because they had incentives and opportunities to do so". They did this in part by innovating to make consumer financial products like retail banking services and home mortgages as complicated as possible to make it easy for them to charge higher fees. Consumers who shop carefully for financial services typically find better options than the primary offerings of the major banks. However, few consumers think to do that. This explains part of this increase in financial industry profits. However, a major portion of this increase and a driving force behind Late-2000s recession has been the corrosive effect of money in politics, giving legislators and the President of the US a conflict of interest, because if they protect the public, they will offend the finance industry, which contributed $1.7 billion to political campaigns and spent $3.4 billion ($5.1 billion total) on lobbying from 1998 to 2008.[19][20] [21] To be conservative, suppose we attribute only the increase from 23.5% of 1986 through 1999 to the recent 32.6% average to governmental actions subject to conflicts of interest created by the $1.7 billion in campaign contributions. That's 9% of the $3 trillion in profits claimed by the finance industry during that period or $270 billion. This represents a return of over $50 for each $1 invested in political campaigns and lobbying for that industry. (This $270 billion represents almost $1,000 for every many, woman and child in the US.) There is hardly any place outside of politics with such a high return on investment in such a short time. [edit]Finance Industry and economists Economists (unlike other professions such as sociologists) do not formally subscribe to a professional ethical code. Close to 300 economists have signed a letter urging theAmerican Economic Association (the discipline’s foremost professional body), to adopt such a code. The signatories include George Akerlof, a Nobel laureate, and Christina Romer, who headed Barack Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers.[22] This call for a code of ethics was supported by the public attention the documentary Inside Job (winner of an Academy Award) drew to the consulting relationships of several influential economists.[23] This documentary focused on conflicts that may arise when economists publish results or provide public recommendation on topics that affect industries or companies with which they have financial links. Critics of the profession argue, for example, that it is no coincidence that financial economists, many 8

of whom were engaged as consultants by Wall Street firms, were opposed to regulating the financial sector.[24] In response to criticism that the profession not only failed to predict the 2007-2008 financial crisis but may actually have helped create it, the American Economic Association has adopted new rules in 2012 : economists will have to disclose financial ties and other potential conflicts of interest in papers published in academic journals. Backers argue such disclosures will help restore faith in the profession by increasing transparency which will help in assessing economists' advice.[25] [edit]Media Any media organization has a conflict of interest in discussing anything that may impact its ability to communicate as it wants with its audience. For example, the Wikimedia Foundation has a conflict of interest in discussing the Stop Online Piracy Act or any other legislation or governmental action that could impact its ability to deliver content to its intended audience. The business model of commercial media organizations (i.e., any that accept advertising) is selling behavior change in their audience to advertisers.[26][27][28] However, few in their audience are aware of the conflict of interest between the profit motive and the altruistic desire to serve the public and "give the audience what it wants." Many major advertisers test their ads in various ways to measure the return on investment in advertising. Advertising rates are set as a function of the size and spending habits of the audience as measured by the Nielsen Ratings. Media action expressing this conflict of interest is evident in the reaction of Rupert Murdoch, Chairman of News Corp., owner ofFox, to changes in data collection methodology adopted in 2004 by the Nielsen Company to more accurately measure viewing habits. The results corrected a previous overestimate of the market share of Fox. Murdoch reacted by getting leading politicians to denounce the Nielsen Ratings as racists. Susan Whiting, president and CEO of Nielsen Media Research, responded by quietly sharing Neilsen's data with her leading critics. The criticism disappeared, and Fox paid Nielsen's fees.[29] Murdoch had a conflict of interest between the reality of his market and his finances. Commercial media organization lose money if they provide content that offends either their audience or their advertisers. The substantial media consolidation that occurred since the 1980s has reduced the alternatives available to the audience, thereby making it easier for the ever larger companies in this increasingly oligopolistic industry to hide news and entertainment potentially offensive to advertisers without losing audience. If the media provide too much information on how congress spends its time, a major advertiser could be offended and could reduce their advertising expenditures with the offending media company; indeed, this is one of the ways the market system has determined which companies won and which either went out of business or were purchased by others in this media consolidation. (Advertisers don't like to feed the mouth that bites them, and often don't. Similarly, commercial media organizations are not eager to bite the hand that feeds them.) Advertisers have been known to fund media organizations with editorial policies they find offensive if that media outlet provides access to a sufficiently attractive audience segment they cannot efficiently reach otherwise. Election years are a major boon to commercial broadcasters, because virtually all political advertising is purchased with minimal advance planning, paying therefore the highest rates. The commercial media have a conflict of interest in anything that could make it easier for candidates to get elected with less money.[27] Accompanying this trend in media consolidation has been a substantial reduction in investigative journalism,[27] reflecting this conflict of interest between the business objectives of the commercial media and the public's need to know what government is doing in their name. This change has been tied to substantial changes in law and culture in the US. To cite only one example, researchers have tied this decline in investigative journalism to an increased coverage of the "police blotter".[30] This has further been tied to the fact that the United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world. 9

Beyond this, virtually all commercial media companies own substantial quantities of copyrighted material. This gives them an inherent conflict of interest in any public policy issue affecting copyrights. McChesney noted that the commercial media have lobbied successfully for changes in copyright law that have led "to higher prices and a shrinking of the marketplace of ideas", increasing the power and profits of the large media corporations at public expense. One result of this is that "the people cease to have a means of clarifying social priorities and organizing social reform".[31] A free market has a mechanism for controlling abuses of power by media corporations: If their censorship becomes too egregious, they lose audience, which in turn reduces their advertising rates. However, the effectiveness of this mechanism has been substantially reduced over the past quarter century by "the changes in the concentration and integration of the media."[32] Would the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement have advanced to the point of generating substantial protests without the secrecy behind which that agreement was negotiated—and would the government attempts to sustain that secrecy have been as successful if the commercial media had not been a primary beneficiary and had not had a conflict of interest in suppressing discussion thereof? [edit]Ways to mitigate conflicts of interests [edit]Removal The best way to handle conflicts of interests is to avoid them entirely. For example, someone elected to political office might sell all corporate stocks that they own before taking office, and resign from all corporate boards. Or that person could move their corporate stocks to a special trust, which would be authorized to buy and sell without disclosure to the owner. (This is referred to as a "blind trust".) With such a trust, since the politician does not know in which companies they have investments, there should be no temptation to act to their advantage. [edit]Disclosure Commonly, politicians and high-ranking government officials are required to disclose financial information - assets such as stock, debts such as loans, and/or corporate positions held, typically annually. To protect privacy (to some extent), financial figures are often disclosed in ranges such as "$100,000 to $500,000" and "over $2,000,000". Certain professionals are required either by rules related to their professional organization, or by statute, to disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest. In some instances, the failure to provide full disclosure is a crime. [edit]Recusal Those with a conflict of interest are expected to recuse themselves from (i.e., abstain from) decisions where such a conflict exists. The imperative for recusal varies depending upon the circumstance and profession, either as common sense ethics, codified ethics, or by statute. For example, if the governing board of a government agency is considering hiring a consulting firm for some task, and one firm being considered has, as a partner, a close relative of one of the board's members, then that board member should not vote on which firm is to be selected. In fact, to minimize any conflict, the board member should not participate in any way in the decision, including discussions. Judges are supposed to recuse themselves from cases when personal conflicts of interest may arise. For example, if a judge has participated in a case previously in some other judicial role he/she is not allowed to try that case. Recusal is also expected when one of the lawyers in a case might be a close personal friend, or when the outcome of the case might affect the judge directly, such as whether a car maker is obliged to recall a model that a judge drives. This is required by law under Continental civil law systems and by theRome Statute, organic law of the International Criminal Court. [edit]Third-party evaluations Consider a situation where the owner of a majority of a publicly held corporation decides to buy out the minority shareholders and take the corporation private. What is a fair price? Obviously it is improper (and, typically, illegal) for the majority owner to simply state a price and then have the (majority-controlled) board of directors approve that price. What is typically done is to hire an 10

independent firm (a third party), well-qualified to evaluate such matters, to calculate a "fair price", which is then voted on by the minority shareholders. Third-party evaluations may also be used as proof that transactions were, in fact, fair ("arm's-length"). For example, a corporation that leases an office building that is owned by theCEO might get an independent evaluation showing what the market rate is for such leases in the locale, to address the conflict of interest that exists between the fiduciary duty of the CEO (to the stockholders, by getting the lowest rent possible) and the personal interest of that CEO (to maximize the income that the CEO gets from owning that office building by getting the highest rent possible). conclusion Generally, forbid conflicts of interests. Often, however, the specifics can be controversial. Should therapists, such as psychiatrists, be allowed to have extra-professional relations with patients, or ex-patients? Should a faculty member be allowed to have an extra-professional relationship with a student, and should that depend on whether the student is in a class of, or being advised by, the faculty member? Codes of ethics help to minimize problems with conflicts of interests because they can spell out the extent to which such conflicts should be avoided, and what the parties should do where such conflicts are permitted by a code of ethics (disclosure, recusal, etc.). Thus, professionals cannot claim that they were unaware that their improper behavior was unethical. As importantly, the threat of disciplinary action (for example, a lawyer being disbarred) helps to minimize unacceptable conflicts or improper acts when a conflict is unavoidable. As codes of ethics cannot cover all situations, some governments have established an office of the ethics commissioner. Ethics commissioner should be appointed by thelegislature and should report to the legislature. [edit]See also Community of interest Crony capitalism Electoral fraud Fiduciary Insider trading Intra-household bargaining Judicial disqualification Jury nullification Lobbying Medical ethics Money loop Moral hazard Perverse incentive Politics Recusal Revolving door (politics) Tax resistance United States Office of Government Ethics Controversies surrounding Silvio Berlusconi [edit]External links Thacker, Paul D. (November 2006). "Environmental journals feel pressure to adopt disclosure rules". Environmental Science & Technology 40 (22): 6873–6875.doi:10.1021/es062808a. McDonald, Michael. "Ethics and Conflict of Interest". W. Maurice Young Centre for Applied Ethics. Archived from the original on 2007-11-03. [edit]Further reading 11

Black, William K. (2005). The Best Way to Rob a Bank Is to Own One. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. ISBN 0-292-72139-0. Davis, Michael; Andrew Stark (2001). Conflict of interest in the professions. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-512863-X. Lessig, Lawrence (2011). Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress -- and a Plan to Stop It. Twelve. ISBN 978-0-446-57643-7. Lo, Bernard; Marilyn J. Field (2009). Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice. Washington DC: National Academies Press. ISBN 978-0-309-13188-9. Porter, Roger J.; Thomas E. Malone (1992). Biomedical research: collaboration and conflict of interest. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 0-8018-4400-2. Thompson, Dennis (1995). Ethics in Congress: From Individual to Institutional Corruption. Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press. ISBN 0-8157-8423-6. Thompson, Dennis (1993). "Understanding financial conflicts of interest." New England Journal of Medicine 329 (8): 573-76. [edit]References ^ Lo and Field (2009). The definition originally appeared in Thompson (1993). ^ Black (2005, pp. 253-254) ^ Black, William K. (Dec. 28, 2010). "2011 Will Bring More De facto Decriminalization of Elite Financial Fraud". Next New Deal: Blog of the Roosevelt Institute. Black, William K. (20 August 2012). "Black Report: No Criminal Prosecution of Wall St. and Who is the European, Romney or Obama?". The Real News.com. Retrieved Sept. 9, 2012. ^ a b Lessig 2011, pp. 29-32 ^ "1120-Individual Objectivity". Institute of Internal Auditors. Retrieved July 7, 2011. ^ "Policies & Procedures of the Internal Audit Activity". City College of San Francisco. Retrieved July 7, 2011. ^ Policies regarding IRB members' industry relationships often lacking. ^ Baker, Nena (2008). The Body Toxic. North Point Press. p. 142. [cited from Lessig 2011, p. 25 Lay summary]. ^ Fisher's exact test computed using the fisher.test function in R (programming language) returned a significance probability of 2e-13, i.e., there are 200 chances in a million billion of getting a table as extreme as this with the given marginals by chance alone. In other words, it is not credible to claim that the funding source has no impact on the outcome of this many independent studies. ^ a b Lessig 2011 ^ Lessig 2011, pp. 26-28 ^ Painter, Richard (2009), Getting the Government America Deserves: How Ethics Reform Can Make a Difference Oxford University Press 978-0-19-537871-9 ^ Thompson (1995) ^ Kerr, Robert S. "Senator Kerr Talks about Conflict of Interest," US News and World Report, September 3, 1962, p. 86. ^ Stern, Philip M. (1992). Still the Best Congress Money Can Buy. Regnery Gatgeway. pp. 168–176. ^ Lessig 2011, pp. 43-52, 117 ^ Lessig 2011, pp. 120-121 ^ Stiglitz, Joseph E. (2010). Freefall: America, Free Markets, and the Shrinking of the World Economy. Norton. pp. 5–6. ^ Lessig 2011, p. 83 ^ Sachs, Jeffrey D. (2011). The Price of Civilization: Reawakening American Virtue and Prosperity. Random House. ISBN 978-0-679-60502-7. ^ Reinhart, Carmen M.; Rogoff, Kenneth S. (2009). This Time Is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-15264-6. 12

^ Letters from 300 economists to the American Economic Association, 3 January 2011.] ^ Wall Street Journal, Stung by 'Inside Job,' economists pen a code of ethics, 12 October 2011. ^ The Economist, Dismal ethics, An intensifying debate about the case for a professional code of ethics for economists, 6 January 2011. ^ Wall Street Journal, Economists set rules on ethics, 9 January 2012. ^ Herman, Edward S.; Chomsky, Noam (1988). Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. Pantheon. ISBN 0-394-54926-0. Retrieved 2012-02-09. ^ a b c McChesney, Robert W. (2004). The Problem of the Media: U.S. Communication Politics in the 21st Century. Monthly Review Press. ISBN 1-58367-105-6. Retrieved 2012-02-09. ^ McCheney, Robert W. (2008). The Political Economy of the Media: Enduring Issues, Emerging Dilemmas. Monthly Review Press. ISBN 978-1-58367-161-0. ^ Bianco, Anthony; Grover, Ronald (September 20, 2004), "How Nielsen Stood Up to Murdoch", Business Week ^ [|Potter, Gary W.]; [|Kappeler, Victor E.], eds. (1998). Constructing Crime: Perspectives on Making News and Social Problems. Waveland Press. ISBN 0-88133-984-9. Retrieved 2012-02-09. ^ McChesney, Robert W. (2008). The Political Economy of the Media: Enduring Issues, Emerging Dilemas. Monthly Review Pr.. pp. 335–337. ISBN 978-1-58367-161-0. ^ Lessig, Lawrence (2004). Free Culture. pp. 162ff. ISBN 978-1-59420-006-9. Categories: Political corruption Legal ethics

http://www.scribd.com/doc/110394834/The-Bar-is-Used-to-Silence-People-Like-Richard-Fine

Continued
A constitution is a set of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or other organization is governed.[1] These rules together make up, i.e. constitute, what the entity is. When these principles are written down into a single collection or set of legal documents, those documents may be said to comprise a written constitution. Constitutions concern different levels of organizations, from sovereign states to companies and unincorporated associations. A treaty which establishes an international organization is also its constitution in that it would define how that organization is constituted. Within states, whether sovereign or federated, a constitution defines the principles upon which the state is based, the procedure in which laws are made and by whom. Some constitutions, especially written constitutions, also act as limiters of state power by establishing lines which a state's rulers cannot cross such as
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution

fundamental rights.
Generally, every modern written constitution confers specific powers to an organization or institutional entity, established upon the primary condition that it

13

abides by the said constitution's limitations.
According to Scott Gordon, a political organization is constitutional to the extent that it "contain[s] institutionalized mechanisms of power control for

the protection of the interests and liberties of the citizenry,
including those that may be in the minority."[7]

Human rights are commonly understood as "inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being."[1] Human rights are thus conceived as universal (applicable everywhere) and egalitarian (the same for everyone). These rights may exist as natural rights or as legal rights, in both national and international law.[2] The doctrine of human rights in international practice, within international law, global and regional institutions, in the policies of states and in the activities of non-governmental organizations, has been a cornerstone of public policy around the world. The idea of human rights[3] states, "if the public discourse of peacetime global society can be said to have a common moral language, it is that of human rights." Despite this, the strong claims made by the doctrine of human rights continue to provoke considerable skepticism and debates about the content, nature and justifications of human rights to this day.

Indeed,
the question of what is meant by a "right" is itself controversial and the subject of continued philosophical debate.[4] Many of the basic ideas that animated the movement developed in the aftermath of the Second World War and the atrocities of The Holocaust, culminating in the adoption of theUniversal Declaration of Human Rights in Paris by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948. The ancient world did not possess the concept of universal human rights.[5]Ancient societies had "elaborate systems of duties... conceptions of justice, political legitimacy, and human flourishing that sought to realize human dignity, flourishing, or well-being entirely independent of human rights".[6] The modern concept of human rights developed during the early Modern period, alongside the European secularization of Judeo-Christian ethics.[7] The true forerunner of human rights discourse was the concept of natural rights which appeared as part of the medieval Natural law tradition that became prominent during the Enlightenment with such philosophers as John Locke, Francis Hutcheson, and Jean-Jacques Burlamaqui, and featured prominently in the political discourse of the American Revolution and the French Revolution.

14

From this foundation, the modern human rights arguments emerged over the latter half of the twentieth century. Gelling as social activism and political rhetoric in many nations put it high on the world agenda.[8] All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. —Article 1 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)[9] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_Act,_1982 The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a bill of rights. The Charter is intended to protect certain political and civil rights of people in Canada

****from****
the policies and actions of all levels of government. It is also supposed to unify Canadians around a set of principles that embody those rights.[3][4] The Charter was preceded by the Canadian Bill of Rights, which was introduced by the government of John Diefenbaker in 1960. However, the Bill of Rights was only a federal statute, rather than a constitutional document. Therefore, it was limited in scope and was easily amendable. This motivated some within government to improve rights protections in Canada. The movement for human rights and freedoms that emerged after World War II also wanted to entrench the principles enunciated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.[5] Hence, the government of Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau enacted the Charter in 1982. Universal Declaration of Human Rights The pursuit of human rights was a central reason for creating the UN. World War II atrocities and genocide led to a ready consensus that the new organization must work to prevent any similar tragedies in the future. An early objective was creating a legal framework for considering and acting on complaints about human rights violations. The UN Charter obliges all member nations to promote "universal respect for, and observance of, human rights" and to take "joint and separate action" to that end. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights,

though not legally binding,
was adopted by the General Assembly in 1948 as a common standard of achievement for all. The Assembly regularly takes up human rights issues. A large share of UN expenditures addresses the core UN mission of peace and security. The peacekeeping budget for the 2005–2006 fiscal year was approximately US$5 billion, €2.5 billion (compared to approximately US$1.5 billion, €995 million for the UN core budget over the same period), with some 70,000 troops deployed in 17 missions around the world.[60] UN peace operations are funded by assessments, using a formula derived from the regular funding scale, but including a weighted surcharge for the five permanent Security Council members, who must approve all peacekeeping operations. This surcharge serves to offset discounted peacekeeping assessment rates for less developed countries. As of 1 January 2011, the top 10 providers of assessed financial contributions 15

to United Nations peacekeeping operations were: the United States, Japan, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Italy, China, Canada, Spain and the Republic of Korea.[61] Special UN programmes not included in the regular budget (such as UNICEF, the WFP and UNDP) are financed by voluntary contributions from other member governments. Most of this is financial contributions, but some is in the form of agricultural commodities donated for afflicted populations. Since their funding is voluntary, many of these agencies suffer severe shortages during economic recessions. In July 2009, the World Food Programme reported that it has been forced to cut services because of insufficient funding.[62] It has received barely a quarter of the total it needed for the 09/10 financial year. Many of the basic ideas that animated the movement developed in the aftermath of the Second World War and the atrocities of the Holocaust, culminating in the adoption of the

Universal Declaration of Human Rights
in Paris by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948. The ancient world did not possess the concept of universal human rights.[5] Ancient societies had "elaborate systems of duties... conceptions of justice, political legitimacy, and human flourishing that sought to realize human dignity, flourishing, or well-being entirely independent of human rights".[6] The modern concept of human rights developed during the early Modern period, alongside the European secularization of Judeo-Christian ethics.[7] The true forerunner of human rights discourse was the concept of natural rights which appeared as part of the medieval Natural law tradition, became prominent during the Enlightenment with such philosophers as John Locke, Francis Hutcheson, and Jean-Jacques Burlamaqui, and featured prominently in the political discourse of the American Revolution and the French Revolution. Multinational companies play an increasingly large role in the world, and have been responsible for numerous human rights abuses.[52] Although the legal and moral environment surrounding the actions of governments is reasonably well developed, that surrounding multinational companies is both controversial and ill-defined.[citation needed] Multinational companies' primary responsibility is to theirshareholders, not to those affected by their actions. Such companies may be larger than the economies of some of the states within which they operate, and can wield significant economic and political power. No international treaties exist to specifically cover the behavior of companies with regard to human rights, and national legislation is very variable. Jean Ziegler, Special Rapporteur of the UN Commission on Human Rights on the right to food stated in a report in 2003: In August 2003 the Human Rights Commission's Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights produced draft Norms on the responsibilities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises with regard to human rights.[54] These were considered by the Human Rights Commission in 2004,

but have no binding status on corporations and are not monitored.[55]

16

www.Romans13Defacto.com

http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/about/ag/agrole.asp The Attorney General has a unique role to play as a Minister. 17

One part of the Attorney General's role is that of a Cabinet Minister. In this capacity the Minister is responsible for representing the interests and perspectives of the Ministry at Cabinet, while simultaneously representing the interests and perspectives of Cabinet and consequently the Government to the Ministry and the Ministry's communities of interest. The Attorney General is the chief law officer of the Executive Council. The responsibilities stemming from this role are unlike those of any other Cabinet member. The role has been referred to as

"judicial-like" and as the "guardian of the public interest".

Much has been written on the subject of ministerial responsibilities and the unique role of the Attorney General. There are various components of the Attorney General's role. The Attorney General has unique responsibilities to the Crown, the courts, the Legislature and the executive branch of government. While there are different emphases and nuances attached to these there is a general theme throughout all the various aspects of the Attorney General's responsibilities that the office has a constitutional and traditional responsibility beyond that of a political minister. The statutory responsibilities of the office are found in section 5 of the Ministry of the Attorney General Act. Section 5 states: The Attorney General, (a) is the Law Officer of the Executive Council; (b) shall see that the administration of public affairs is in accordance with the law; (c) shall superintend all matters connected with the administration of justice in Ontario; (d) shall perform the duties and have the powers that belong to the Attorney General and Solicitor General of England by law and usage, so far as those powers and duties are applicable to Ontario, and also shall perform the duties and powers that, until the Constitution Act, 1867 came into effect, belonged to the offices of the Attorney General and Solicitor General in the provinces of Canada and Upper Canada and which, under the provisions of that Act, are within the scope of the powers of the Legislature; (e) shall advise the Government upon all matters of law connected with legislative enactments and upon all matters of law referred to him or her by the Government; (f) shall advise the Government upon all matters of a legislative nature and superintend all Government measures of a legislative nature; (g) shall advise the heads of ministries and agencies of Government upon all matters of law connected with such ministries and agencies; (h) shall conduct and regulate all litigation for and against the Crown or any ministry or agency of government in respect of any subject within the authority or jurisdiction of the Legislature; (i) shall superintend all matters connected with judicial offices; (j) shall perform such other functions as are assigned to him or her by the Legislature or by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. " What follows is an overview of the various components of the Attorney General's roles and responsibilities, primarily as outlined in the Act.

Chief Law Officer of the Executive Council (s. 5(a))
18

The role of chief law officer might be referred to as the Attorney General's overall responsibility as the independent legal advisor to the Cabinet - and some have even suggested that the role possibly extends to the Legislature as well.

The importance of the independence of the role is fundamental to the position and well established in common law, statutes and tradition.
As chief law officer, the Attorney General has a

special responsibility
to be the guardian of

that most elusive concept
- the rule of law. The rule of law is a well established legal principle, but

hard to easily define.
It is the rule of law

that protects individuals, and society as a whole,
from arbitrary measures and safeguards personal liberties.

Legal Certainty?
The Attorney General has

a special role to play
in advising Cabinet

to ensure
the rule of law is maintained and

that Cabinet actions are legally and constitutionally valid.
In providing such advice it is important to keep in mind the distinction between the Attorney General's policy advice and preference and the legal advice being presented to Cabinet. The Attorney General's legal advice or constitutional advice should not be lightly disregarded. The Attorney General's policy advice has the same weight as that of other ministers.

Criminal prosecutions (s.5 (d))
One of the most publicly scrutinized aspects of the Attorney General's role is the responsibility for criminal prosecutions encompassed in section 5 (d) and s. 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867. Section 92 gives the provinces authority to legislate in matters related to the administration of criminal justice and thereby gives the provincial Attorney General authority to prosecute offences under the Criminal Code.

19

The Attorney General does not, however, direct or cause charges to be laid. While the Attorney General and the Attorney General's agents may provide legal advice to the police,

the ultimate decision
whether or not to lay charges is for the police. Once the charge is laid

the decision
as to whether the prosecution should proceed, and in what manner, is

for the Attorney General and the Crown Attorney. OJ Obstruct Justice
It is now an accepted and important constitutional principle that the Attorney General must carry out the Minister's criminal prosecution responsibilities

independent of Cabinet and of any partisan political pressures.
The Attorney General's responsibility for individual criminal prosecutions must be undertaken - and seen to be undertaken - on strictly objective and legal criteria, free of any political considerations. Whether to initiate or stay a criminal proceeding is not an issue of government policy. This responsibility has been characterized as a matter of the Attorney General acting as the Queen's

Attorney - not as a Minister of the government of the day.
This is not to suggest that decisions regarding criminal prosecutions are made in a complete vacuum. A wide range of policy considerations may be weighed in executing this responsibility, and the Attorney General may choose to consult the Cabinet on some of these considerations. However any decisions relating to the conduct of individual prosecutions must be the Attorney General's alone and independent of the traditional Cabinet decision making process. In practice, in the vast majority of cases, these decisions are made by the Attorney General's agents, the Crown Attorneys. An important part of the Crown's - and thus the Attorney General's - responsibility in conducting criminal prosecutions is associated with the responsibility to represent the public interest - which includes not only the community as a whole and the victim, but also the accused. The Crown has a distinct responsibility to the court to present all the credible evidence available. The responsibility is to present the case fairly - not necessarily to convict. This is a fundamental precept of criminal law, even if it is not a particularly well-understood concept among the general public. One of the Attorney General's responsibilities in fostering public respect for the rule of law, is to assist the public in understanding the nature and limits of the prosecutorial function. Ultimately the Attorney General is accountable to the people of the province,

through the Legislature,
for decisions relating to criminal prosecutions. Such accountability can only occur, of course, once the 20

prosecution is completed or when a final decision has been made not to prosecute. The sub judicae rule bars any comment on a matter before the courts that is likely to influence the matter. The sub judicae rule strictly prohibits the Attorney General from commenting on prosecutions that are before the courts. Given the stature of the Attorney General's position, any public comment coming from the office would be seen as an attempt to influence the case. Although the Attorney general can become involved in decision-making in relation to individual criminal cases, such a practice would leave the Minister vulnerable to accusations of political interference. Accordingly, it is traditional to leave the day-to-day decision-making in the hands of the Attorney General's agents, the Crown Attorneys, except in cases of exceptional importance where the public would expect the Attorney General to be briefed.

Legislative Responsibilities (s. 5(e) and (f))
The Attorney General has broad responsibilities associated with Government legislation. These responsibilities have been described as twofold. One is to oversee that all legislative enactments are in accordance with principles of natural justice and civil rights (see also s. 5(b) above). This is obviously an important and broad area of responsibility. The second aspect of this responsibility is to advise on the constitutionality and legality of legislation. The Attorney General's legislative responsibilities are played out in a variety roles. The Office of Legislative Counsel reports to the Attorney General. Legislative Counsel plays a key role in ensuring the legal integrity of Government legislation. Although the Legislative Counsel's reporting relationship to the Attorney General does allow the Attorney General to provide guidance and set standards, individual pieces of legislation are drafted on instructions from client ministries and are not within the sole control of Legislative Counsel or the Attorney General. It should also be noted that Legislative Counsel also has a direct responsibility to the Legislature as the Office also drafts all private member's bills. The Attorney General has a further role to play as part of whatever Cabinet Committee is formed to review legislation and regulations. Here the Minister has an opportunity to comment on the technical issues related to legislation and regulations prior to Cabinet consideration. The Attorney General's role on legislative matters is as an adviser to the Cabinet. Although unlikely, Cabinet could, in theory, receive the Attorney General's legal opinion on legislation and choose to disregard it. The Attorney General's role is not independent of Cabinet decision making as in the area of criminal prosecutions. As was noted earlier, the Attorney General must make careful distinctions about the legal opinions and policy or political preferences being offered about legislation.

Civil Litigation (s.5(h) and (d))
In addition to the specific responsibilities to conduct civil litigation on behalf of the Government and its agencies (s. 5(h)), the Attorney General has broader litigation responsibilities flowing from the historical powers of the Attorney General referred to in s. 5(d) of the Act. These powers are based on the Crown's parens patriae (parental) authority. The Attorney General's authority, therefore, is not only to conduct litigation in cases directly affecting the government or its agencies but also to litigate cases where there is a clear matter of public interest or public rights at stake. 21

This has been characterized as a constitutional responsibility to ensure that the public interest is well and independently represented. It may involve interventions in private litigation or Charter challenges to legislation, even if the arguments conclude that the legislation does contravene constitutionally protected rights.

Responsibility for Court Administration (s. 5(c))
A key component of the Attorney General's responsibilities to ensure the administration of justice in the province is the administration of the courts and as a result the responsibility for maintaining liaison with the judiciary. Given the fundamental importance of the independence of the judiciary, the responsibility for courts administration is often a very sensitive and delicate issue. Great care and respect for the principles of judicial independence must be exercised in this area. The Ministry

• • • • •

Justice Ontario o How do I find a lawyer or a paralegal? o Family Law o Criminal Law o Lawsuits & Disputes o Human Rights o Wills & Estates o Tickets & Fines Court Services Victims of Crime Family Justice Public Guardian & Trustee Justice on Target

Explore Government Contacts Follow the Ministry
• • •

Twitter RSS Facebook 22

• •

Flickr (photo gallery) Ministry Podcasts

Contact Us | Help | Accessibility | Privacy Statement | Important Notices © Queen's Printer for Ontario, 2008 - 2010 Last Modified: Monday, December 13, 2010

Ultimately the Attorney General is accountable to the people of the province,

through the Legislature,

However the legislature legislated RUNS Responsibly Unaccountable Nuances Subversives Attorney General, guardian of the public interest 13. (1) The Attorney General for Ontario shall serve as the guardian of the public interest in all matters within the scope of this Act or having to do in any way with the practice of law in Ontario or the provision of legal services in Ontario, and for this purpose he or she may at any time require the production of any document or thing pertaining to the affairs of the Society. R.S.O. 1990, c. L.8, s. 13 (1); 1998, c. 21, s. 7 (1); 2006, c. 21, Sched. C, s. 13. Admissions (2) No admission of any person in any document or thing produced under subsection (1) is admissible in evidence against that person in any proceedings other than proceedings under this Act. R.S.O. 1990, c. L.8, s. 13 (2); 1998, c. 21, s. 7 (2). Protection of Minister (3) No person who is or has been the Attorney General for Ontario is subject to any proceedings of the 23

Society or to any penalty imposed under this Act for anything done by him or her while exercising the functions of such office. R.S.O. 1990, c. L.8, s. 13 (3); 1998, c. 21, s. 7 (3). The Legislature has refused to respond to the issues www.cdfji.ca www.Romans13Defacto.com

http://www.scribd.com/doc/113882977/Spirit-Intent-Precedence-de-Jure-Constitution-or-Romans-13Gaming-the-System-de-Facto

24

http://www.scribd.com/doc/112431371/Would-a-Government-Appointed-Court-of-CompetentJurisdiction-Independent-Judiciary-Be-Appropriate-to-Protect-Us-From-Appropriating-Governments Constitution Act, 1982 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom Whereas Canada is founded on principles that recognize the Supremacy of God and the Rule of Law

MANURE SREADER Manufactured Authority Nuances Unscrupulous Rule Elusivity Satanic Rulers Evasive Admin Disrepute Evil-angel-ist Rights
24. (1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.

(2) Where, in proceedings under subsection (1), a court concludes that evidence was obtained in a manner that infringed or denied any rights or freedoms guaranteed by this Charter, the evidence shall be excluded if it is established 25

that, having regard to all the circumstances, the admission of it in the proceedings

would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
Such evidence usually stopped at the gate http://www.scribd.com/doc/114245060/OJ-Obstruct-Justice NA Not Admissible Ad hoc Authority disrepute honor obstructive cover <<<<Constitution De facto>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hoc Ad hoc is a Latin phrase meaning "for this". It generally signifies a solution designed for a specific problem or task, non-generalizable, and not intended to be able to be adapted to other purposes (compare a priori). Common examples are organizations, committees, and commissions created at the national or international level for a specific task. In other fields the term may refer, for example, to a military unit created under special circumstances, a tailor-made suit, a handcrafted network protocol, or a purpose-specific equation. Ad hoc can also mean makeshift solutions, shifting contexts to create new meanings, inadequate planning, or improvised events. In science and philosophy, ad hoc means the addition of extraneous hypotheses to a theory to save it from being Ad hoc hypotheses compensate for anomalies not anticipated by the theory in its unmodified form. Scientists are often skeptical of theories that rely on frequent, unsupported adjustments to sustain them. Ad hoc hypotheses are often characteristic of pseudoscientific subjects.[1] Ad hoc hypotheses are not necessarily incorrect, however. An interesting example of an apparently supported ad hoc hypothesis was Albert Einstein's addition of the cosmological constant to general relativity in order to allow a static universe. Although he later referred to it as his "greatest blunder," it has been found to correspond quite well to the theories of dark energy.[2] The court refuses my right to Legal Counsel inconsistent with the responsibilities of the unaccountable Attorney General legislated by the Legislature who he is accountable to the people through the Legislature evidencing self not a Court of Competent Jurisdiction. However, I may represent myself entitled to a fair trial, but may not raise the issue the judiciary is not a Court of Competent Jurisdiction Independent Judiciary nor present the irrefutable evidence I will not have a fair trial consistent with the Constitution conducive to my and every individual’s Charter rights Rule of Law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law The Rule of law in its most basic form is no one is above the law. Perhaps the most important application of the rule of law is the principle that governmental authority is legitimately exercised only in accordance with, publicly disclosed laws, adopted and enforced in accordance with established procedural steps that are referred to as due process. The rule of law is hostile to dictatorship and to anarchy. 26

falsified.

According to modern Anglo-American thinking, hallmarks of adherence to the rule of law commonly include

a clear separation of powers, legal certainty,
the principle of legitimate expectation and equality of all before the law. The concept is not without controversy, and it has been said that "the phrase the rule of law has become

meaningless thanks to ideological abuse and general
over- use"

GO POE General Over-use Proclamations Only Elusivity publicly disclosed laws 52. (1) The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency,

of no force or effect.

27

www.POTS13.com Power of the Spirit www.cdfji.ca Constitution Diligence Fiduciary Judiciary Independence www.mcfrauds.com RCMP investigate self finding self Innocent Since June 30 2005 have turned every rock, now it is time to Step on every rock killing serpents

www.Docket13.com 1/30, 31/13
Exhaustive investigation government organized crime began 6/30/05 irrefutably proving the entire government is the epitome of Constitution humanity frauds from Crown to RCMP, Freedom of Information and Privacy Act evidence not permitted to be released without criminals permission. On 1/30/13 the courts will once again refuse to allow my evidence thereby evidencing self complicit with the government organized crime personified.

28

Once a legal Court of Competent Jurisdiction Independent Judiciary is established the bastards will be put through the ringer http://www.scribd.com/doc/71333371/Who-Would-Be-Foolish-Enough-to-Leave-a-Paper-Trail http://www.scribd.com/doc/106684083/Satanic-Al-Capone-Genocidal-Crime-Boss-Case-SetPrecedence-Organized-Crime-Corporation-Persons-Can-Be-Taken-Down-for-Life-Under-theAuspices-of-Tax-Evasion http://www.scribd.com/doc/62297204/On-Realizing-the-Debts-Incurred-by-the-Satanic-Theirs-ShouldBe-Enough-to-Make-Even-the-Anti-Christ-Convert-to-Believing-in-God

All sane Taxpayers will be with me The obvious problem is to get the truth to them eh?
29

Guarantee: Assurance, promise, pledge, agreement, security, warranty, certification, undertaking Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms 1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. Why would an individual need to finance an appropriating lawyer? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort A tort, in common law jurisdictions, is a wrong[1] that involves a breach of a civil duty (other than a contractual duty) owed to someone else. It is differentiated from a crime, which involves a breach of a duty owed to society in general. Though many acts are both torts and crimes, prosecutions for crime are mostly the responsibility of the state, private prosecutions being rarely used; whereas any party who has been injured may bring a lawsuit for tort. It is also differentiated from equity, in which a petitioner complains of a violation of some right. One who commits a tortious act is called a tortfeasor. The equivalent of tort in civil law jurisdictions is delict. Tort may be defined as a personal injury; or as "a civil action other than a breach of contract."[citation
needed]

guarantees

A person who suffers a tortious injury is entitled to receive "damages", usually monetary compensation, from the person or people responsible — or liable — for those injuries. Tort law defines what is a legal injury and, therefore, whether a person may be held liable for an injury they have caused. Legal injuries are not limited to physical injuries. They may also include emotional, economic, or reputational injuries as well as violations of privacy, property, or constitutional rights. Tort cases therefore comprise such varied topics as auto accidents, false imprisonment, defamation, product liability (for defective consumer products), copyright infringement, and environmental pollution (toxic torts), among many others. In much of the common law world, the most prominent tort liability is negligence. If the injured party can prove that the person believed to have caused the injury acted negligently – that is, without taking reasonable care to avoid injuring others – tort law will allow compensation. However, tort law also recognizes intentional torts, where a person has intentionally acted in a way that harms another, and "strict liability" or quasi-tort, which allows recovery under certain circumstances without the need to demonstrate negligence. Kleptocracy, alternatively cleptocracy or kleptarchy, (from Ancient Greek: κλέπτης (thief) and κράτος (rule), "rule by thieves") is a form of political and government corruption where the government exists to increase the personal wealth and political power of its officials and the ruling class at the expense of the wider population, often without pretense of honest service. This type of government corruption is often achieved by the embezzlement of state funds. 30

Kleptocracies are generally associated with corrupt forms of authoritarian governments, particularly dictatorships, oligarchies, military juntas, or some other forms of autocratic and nepotist government in which no outside oversight is possible, due to the ability of the kleptocrat(s) to personally control both the supply of public funds and the means of determining their disbursal. Kleptocratic rulers typically treat their country's treasury as though it were their own personal bank account, spending the funds on luxury goods as they see fit. Many kleptocratic rulers also secretly transfer public funds into secret personal numbered bank accounts in foreign countries in order to provide them with continued luxury if/when they are eventually removed from power and forced to flee the country. Kleptocracy is most common in third-world countries where the economy (often as a legacy of colonialism) is dominated by resource extraction. Such incomes constitute a form of economic rent and are therefore easier to siphon off without causing the income itself to decrease (for example, due to capital flight as investors pull out to escape the high taxes levied by the kleptocrats). Implicit Complicit Explicit ICE Insidious Capitalist Emperors Like other financial empires in history, Smith claims the contemporary model forms alliances necessary to develop and control wealth, as peripheral nations remain impoverished providers of cheap resources for the imperial-centers-ofcapital.[1] Belloc estimated that, during the British Enclosures, "perhaps half of the whole population was proletarian", while roughly the other "half" owned and controlled the means of production. Now, under modern Capitalism, J.W. Smith claims fewer than 500 people possess more wealth than half of the earth’s population, as the wealth of 1/2 of 1-percent of the United States population roughly equal that of the lower 90percent. www.Romans13Defacto.com TASK

Truth and Source Kill
"A man who has made a mistake and doesn't correct it is making another mistake" "To see what is right, and not do it, is want of courage, or of principle"

www.Docket13.com
Will I make it to court?

31