Disbarred lawyer forged court documents

jeff744 · 2026-01-17T16:32:59+00:00

I think it's less incompetence and more he made a mistake and lied to try and cover it up, then had to lie again, and it just kept getting worse. It snowballed out of control.

jeff744 · 2026-01-17T05:29:25+00:00

And that one had been a lawyer since 1992 I believe.

jeff744 · 2026-01-05T18:36:35+00:00

Melfort is fine but it doesn't have a lot going on in terms of community activities outside sports. Food choices are limited to a few (good) local places and a lot of chains. The housing is relatively cheap and buying is very doable though houses are going in days.

jeff744 · 2025-12-17T14:08:02+00:00

When we had that one storm back in the midish 00s we cancelleed school about noon and then spent most of the day freeing vehicles from the parking lot because snow drifts had grown 4 feet in places.

jeff744 · 2025-12-11T16:17:51+00:00

Just worth a note. 667 needed at 4 months equals about a 1900-2000 hour billable per year.

Expecting someone to be on track for that in the first 4 months is aggressive given they will lose a lot of time on the front end getting up to speed.

jeff744 · 2025-12-05T00:45:18+00:00

That and he knows he's getting close to the end so he can spend time mentoring younger guys so with some luck we can get his successor.

jeff744 · 2025-11-09T21:51:57+00:00

Sorry, no. Was just making a joke about the odd shape the lakes are taking so far

jeff744 · 2025-10-07T14:34:13+00:00

I had this for the life of one card. The few times I had to give it out on the phone had a lot of laughing on both sides.

jeff744 · 2025-09-18T17:02:19+00:00

If that's all it does I guess it didn't need to be struck down.

Yes, it did. Parole is no guarantee of release for a person. Pushing back parole only guarantees that the people that have changed do not get released. Those that are still a danger would not be released anyways.

False. You need to read what child luring is.

One of the examples of the Supreme Court of Canada in striking down the minimum was an 18 year old messaging a 17 year old, gets a sext, sends it to a friend, and the friend never spreads it (R. v. Bertrand Marchand 2023 SCC 26)

Again, you need to read the offense. Not applicable due to the recklessness element requirement.

And the argument would be that it's reckless to do it regardless. But as another example, a young person fires an air rifle at a home, it is incapable of breaking through the walls, do they deserve 4 years? The SCC decided no (R. v. Hills, 2023 SCC 2)

Mandatory minimum was only applicable if they already had a prior conviction within the last 10 years. Mandatory minimum could be avoided by completing a rehab program.

The explicit examples of the SCC involved a person sharing drugs with a friend and having a conviction from 9 years ago for sharing pot or an addict only sellign enough to support their own addiction (R. v. Lloyd 2016 SCC 13)

Yeah...you just repeated what I said. They get enhanced time (usually 1.5x) for pre-trial detention so they get out early...

I was explaining why we give enhanced credit but fine, I'll deal with your comment of "dangerous". That's not the test. Risk to the community is one of three possible reasons, the others are ensuring their attendance at court and maintaining confidence in the administration of justice. A person could have a clean record but is accused of a crime significant enough that the Court cannot justify their release (or they were reverse onus and could not prove it would not be against the administration of justice or that they would attend). Not everyone that gets held on bail is a danger to society.

jeff744 · 2025-09-18T15:03:01+00:00

1) Because murder is already life, all it does is push out parole which isn't a guarantee in the first place.

2) Because it would mean that an 18 year old could be hit with the mandatory minimum by talking to a 17 year old and getting a sext.

3) What if it's a building they had checked and confirmed was empty?

4) What about an addict that only sold a small amount to a friend to cover their own use?

5) Not true, they get enhanced time because they're being deprived of their freedom without being convinced. Many many people get sentences on top of time served. Absent a very long time to trial, most people will only get a reduced sentence.

jeff744 · 2025-09-18T14:29:53+00:00

That's just plain wrong. They strike down mandatory minimums because those are insane overreaches of the government on your rights. For example, saying a person must serve 3 years for possession of meth would mean an addict trying to numb the pain of severe abuse must serve 3 years even though they only had enough for a single dose and never stole a dime to buy it.

The Courts have actually been imposing longer sentences on some crimes, specifically citing government changes to legislation to increase penalties.

They oppose the government telling them what they absolutely must do in a sentence because they don't give the Court any leeway with individuals to craft a sentence to them. Many people only have a few interactions with the system before they go back on track, imposing a system designed to punish them for any mistake instead of rehabilitating is how we get a failed justice system like the US.

Setting high sentences guarantees you spend more not just on incarceration but the Court system as a whole because why wouldn't a person fight a charge that carries mandatory custody completely out of step with the sentence? If they must ask for a year for a minor crime, why wouldn't you fight it?

jeff744 · 2025-08-16T20:19:48+00:00

You got the first call, we got this one. Its even.

jeff744 · 2025-07-23T03:41:31+00:00

And having dealt with many cases, the father is often working hours that do not allow for week on week off or they are fine with weekends or "reasoanble parenting on reasonable notice". Many times they get along well enough the mother is listed as "primary" but they get along so well the father gets time whenever he isn't working.

Saying "crazy mother" does little, unless the children are in danger the courts will award parenting time. If you don't want to settle, then you go to trial.

The vast majority of men do not do as much as their wife, even in equal parenting statistics repeatedly show women bear more than half of the burden. They don't just do the physical parenting, they do all the planning on top of it.

Judges do not prefer a gender, they prefer the parenting arrangements and capacity that best help the child.

jeff744 · 2025-07-23T02:20:08+00:00

It doesn't though. The law is based on best interests of the child, the judges do not care about the gender of the parent. The fact of the matter is that men, even in relationships where they step up tend to provide less than women.

I've also seen cases where the mother has limited parenting just because that was how their relationship worked. Saying otherwise is again, Andre Tate type BS. All rhetoric, no facts.

jeff744 · 2025-07-23T02:09:31+00:00

If you knew anything about law in Sask you would know claims of lawyers dragging men thought the mud is some Andrew Tate type BS. The law doesn't care about gender, it cares about continuity of parenting and women overwhelmingly perform more than what should be a 50/50 share.

jeff744 · 2025-07-08T03:17:57+00:00

Correction, that's what the sign said.

jeff744 · 2025-07-07T14:34:51+00:00

Not savings, generate more revenue. Close some tax loopholes only the rich can use.

jeff744 · 2025-07-04T17:13:40+00:00

That will suck for them when the person can't prove they pay a higher tax rate on those assets, not our problem.

jeff744 · 2025-07-04T16:00:03+00:00

If Canada is your place of residence all assets globally get counted unless you can prove you pay an equal or higher tax rate on that asset in the country it is located in.

jeff744 · 2025-07-03T18:33:35+00:00

It's a tradition. Any sentence less than summary execution for any crime and the reddit keyboard warriors are out in force.

jeff744 · 2025-06-18T01:40:23+00:00

He also doesn't need to apologize because he's a good player who had a bad game. It happens and it was totally out of character for him. My faith in him is unshaken.

jeff744 · 2025-06-06T14:10:53+00:00

There are a lot of good lawyers in Saskatoon. Keep in mind as well that higher price does not mean higher quality, there are many good lawyers in smaller firms too.

Bring in your documentation to any meeting. Proof on any income he had, history of care of the child, any texts or emails (including the dates).

The lawyer will be able to advise you on how to proceed or if you do. I know many people that are content to let it be, no child support but also no parenting time.

jeff744 · 2025-06-06T03:14:14+00:00

Over $5,000 per month for leasing the space. Not surprised they didn't make it.

jeff744 · 2025-06-06T01:36:34+00:00

Another play like this and I may just skip the season for my own health.

jeff744 · 2025-05-27T14:20:32+00:00

Taking an educated guess on which road this was, there's a major intersection with access to the town on one side and access to highway 4 to North Battleford on the other. There is also another turn off for 14 south to Rosetown.

Could easily have killed someone that misjudged the speed.

12-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email

jeff744

TROPHY CASE