Skip to main content

Posts

Warren A. Lyon took this photo! Send your question to the android using the portal above.

Warren A. Lyon took this photo! Send your question to the android using the portal above.
/Our Android answers: $80.00. Our Android is happy to assist; with home work. His name is Buenosio.

Angel Ronan LEx Scripta(TM) Service. Call today.

Angel Ronan LEx Scripta(TM) Service. Call today.
New Address: DEV Hub for all meetings at Spadina, Toronto.

Angel Ronan(TM) LEx Scripta Service. Call today so we can answer your question.

Angel Ronan(TM) LEx Scripta Service. Call today so we can answer your question.
Warren A. Lyon in this photo; Litigator, Consultant.

There is a drop-in clinic once a week on Friday. Ask for Angel Ronan Greenfield Urban(TM). Law Clinic. If we are not in, we may be at Court, so please contact us and let us know you arrived. We will be in office every Friday at 9: 00 am for 1 hour. Please text so we can come down to greet you. We are looking for a few volunteers to help on a fee share arrangement. You will receive 40% on each file. All you have to do is assist interested people in writing down the nature of their problem or question in thirty words. If you would like people at your charity or church to be assisted, you can assist patrons, people or members in filling out the 30 word query and remember to put the name of your organisation. If you would like to discuss this further, please email w.a.lyon.angelronan@mail.com.

By
  There is a drop-in clinic once a week on Friday. Ask for Angel Ronan Greenfield Urban(TM). Law Clinic.  If we are  not in, we may be at Court, so  please contact us and let us know you arrived.  We will be in office every Friday at 9: 00 am for 1 hour. Please text so we can come down  to greet you.    We are looking for a few volunteers to help on a  fee share arrangement.  You will receive 40% on each file.  All you have to do is assist interested people in writing down the nature of their problem or question in thirty words.  If you would like people at your charity or church to be assisted, you can assist patrons, people or members in filling out the 30 word query and remember to put the name of your organisation.  If you would like to discuss this further, please email w.a.lyon.angelronan@mail.com. 
Post a Comment
Read more

Maybe you just wanted to buy a FIAT or a Caviat! So, you sold some shares. You dont know what is going on in R and D or do you? The key issue is 'knowledge' or 'mens rea' and it is very difficult to impute knowledge of materiality before the transaction is made and to then connect the sale to an intention to avoid a market response. IBM's stock goes up in spite of failed android tests that may or may not be announced. The material information committee usually decides materiality after the sale is made and before the announcement is made to the public. If the Director selling the shares is not in charge of deciding materiality, you could only impute an intention to defraud when the market may or may not respond negatively to the eventual public disclosure. But, it is not a fraud to sell. However, the director must satisfy reporting requirements within the 90 day period. Did he make the required filings? A market response is a probability and it could reward the honesty and good, positive, forward looking statement in the company's eventual public disclosure concerning the material issue. CAN YOU BE GUILTY FOR SELLING STOCK IN YOUR PERSONAL RISK TOLERANCE IF THE IN-HOUSE BUSINESS MANAGER IN THE COMPANY HAS NOT YET DEEMED ANY INFORMATION ARISING WITHIN THE COMPANY 30 DAYS BEFORE THE SALE AS BEING MATERIAL INFORMATION? WHEN IS THE POTENTIALLY MATERIAL ISSUE BROUGHT TO THE COMPLIANCE MANAGER'S ATTENTION? WHEN DID THE SALE TAKE PLACE? IS IT REALLY MATERIAL? IS THERE A CASE THAT RULED ON THE MATERIALITY OF FAILED DRUG TRIALS? Hmm? ONCE, THE INFORMATION IS DEEMED MATERIAL MAYBE BEFORE OR MAYBE AFTER THE SALE USUALLY BY PERSONS that MIGHT BE EXECUTIVES WHO ARE HEAD OF THE MATERIAL INFORMATION COMMITTEE, WE WOULD BE ABLE TO SAY THAT THE INFORMATION SATISFIES LEGAL DEFINITIONS OF MATERIALITY AND IF THE INTENTION IS UNTOWARD. DID HE MAKE THE REQUISITE FILINGS IN 90 DAYS? THIS COULD BE THE ONLY ISSUE. BEFORE YOU PROSECUTE, DO YOU HAVE A CLEAR CASE ON THE MATERIALITY OF A FAILED DRUG TEST WHILE I AM JUST AS AFRAID AS YOU ARE ABOUT HOW DISAPPOINTED YOU MAY FEEL IF YOUR DICK IS LEFT BLOWING IN THE WIND BUT AS OFFICERS, YOU HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO ENSURE YOU HAVE A CASE AND NOT JUST ANIMATION SINCE IT COULD BE EMBARRASING AND HURTFUL TO PEOPLE WHO HAVE WORKED VERY HARD AND I KNOW ITS GETTING SLOW NOW THAT MOST PEOPLE IN THE ENTIRE COUNTRY MOVED TO MINNESOTA AND ARE NOT AS DESPERATE ECONOMICALLY TO COURIER DRUGS IN FRIED CHICKEN BATTER. BUT A FAILED DRUG TRIAL IS NOT USUALLY DEEMED MATERIAL ACCORDING TO THE MOST CURRENT AND LEADING JURISPRUDENCE IN THIS AREA AND THE BEST ANSWER FOR THOSE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR DETERMINING MATERIALITY IS TO CONFIRM THAT THEY ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR DETERMINING MATERIALITY AND NOR DID THEY BELIEVE IT IS MATERIAL WITH THE EVIDENCE THAT THE DRUG TRIALS ARE ON GOING OR THAT THE CONTINUED drug trials ARE AT LEAST IN THE ON GOING FUTURE PLANS OF THE COMPANY THAT REMAINS A GOING CONCERN. Now, if this was about UK law, would be less shocked about the efficacy of the answer? It is essentially the same law since markets are certainly international and so is the investment that needs to be just as secure as the airline tickets and hotel bookings. See the article below. You could call the Brown guy; Call the Angel Ronan Lex Scripta(TM Android service. Regulation FD Prohibits Selective Disclosure: Unintentional disclosures of material nonpublic information must be publicly disclosed promptly after a senior official of the issuer learns of the disclosure and knows, or is reckless in not knowing, that the disclosure is both material and nonpublic. "Promptly" means as soon as reasonably practicable, but in no event after the later of 24 hours or the commencement of the next trading day on the NYSE after a senior official learns of the selective disclosure. You better call the Brown guy; Call Angel Ronan LEx Scripta(TM) Note: This information is not intended as legal advice. I just want to give a shout out to that nice person in Toronto. Thank you for using Angel Ronan Lex Scripta(TM). This might help although it is not intended as advice. It i a copy of an article from a general website( not a law firm web site): Regulation FD Prohibits Selective Disclosure https://corporate.findlaw.com/finance/new-regulation-fd-prohibits-selective-disclosure-winter-2000.html 0 53 On August 10, 2000, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) adopted Regulation FD (Fair Disclosure), a regulation that prohibits public companies from selectively disclosing material information to analysts and institutional investors before making the same disclosures to individual investors and the general public. In the same release, the SEC also adopted Rules 10b5-1 and 10b5-2 that clarify certain principles of insider trading. Regulation FD is intended to prohibit the selective disclosure practices that have been observed by the SEC and other participants in the capital markets. The SEC believes that selective disclosure, and the related problems of "tipping" and insider trading, diminish investor confidence in the capital markets. In addition, the SEC believes that the new rules will reduce the conflict of interest faced by analysts who have an incentive to report favorably about companies in order to maintain their access to corporate insiders. Regulation FD and the new rules regarding insider trading became effective on October 23, 2000. Prohibition of Selective Disclosure The General Rule Regulation FD requires a public company to disseminate all material nonpublic information publicly and not only to select persons. The regulation requires companies to make intentional disclosures of material information immediately available to the public through an SEC filing or other means reasonably designed to provide broad, non-exclusionary distribution of the information. Companies must make similar public disclosure of unintentional disclosures of material nonpublic information within 24 hours of discovering the selective disclosure. The SEC believes that technological developments allow companies to make broad dissemination of information and eliminate the need for companies to rely on analysts to disseminate information. Press releases, internet webcasting and teleconferencing enable companies to communicate directly with the public. Access to the internet permits individual investors to conduct independent research online and obtain information in "real time" without the assistance of an intermediary. Issuers Subject to the Regulation Regulation FD will apply to all issuers that file periodic reports with the SEC, including closed-end investment companies. The regulation does not apply to other investment companies, foreign governments or foreign private issuers. Communications Covered by the Regulation Regulation FD applies to communications made by or on behalf of an issuer to the following four categories of persons and persons associated or affiliated with those persons: broker-dealers; investment advisers and certain institutional investment managers; investment companies and their hedge funds; and holders of the issuer’s securities under circumstances in which it is reasonably likely the recipient will trade on the basis of the information. The rule excludes ordinary-course business communications, such as communications with the media, customers or suppliers and government agencies. In addition, the regulation expressly excludes the following four types of communications: communications with temporary insiders, such as attorneys, investment bankers and accountants; communications with persons who expressly agree to maintain the information in confidence; communications with credit rating agencies who make their credit ratings publicly available; and communications made in connection with most registered securities offerings. If an issuer intends to rely on a person’s agreement to maintain information in confidence, it should discuss documenting the agreement in writing with counsel even though the SEC indicates that an express oral agreement will suffice. Disclosure by a Person Acting on an Issuer’s Behalf Regulation FD only covers communications made by persons acting on an issuer’s behalf. This includes the following persons: senior officials of an issuer (executive officers, directors, investor and public relations officers or other employees performing similar functions); and any other officer, employee or agent of an issuer who regularly communicates with securities market professionals or securities holders. The regulation covers communications by senior management and investor relations professionals; however, these persons cannot escape the regulation by telling non-covered persons to make the disclosures. The regulation also states that issuers are not liable for selective disclosures made by persons who breach a duty to the issuer, such as an issuer’s employee disclosing information in violation of a confidentiality agreement. Material Nonpublic Information The regulation does not define the terms "material" or "nonpublic," but rather relies on the definitions that have been established by case law. Based on these definitions, information is material if a reasonable investor would have considered it important and likely to have significantly altered the total mix of information available. Information is nonpublic if it has not been disseminated in a manner making it available to investors generally. Many of the comments received by the SEC expressed concern about the ability of companies to make prompt determinations about whether information is material under this definition. The SEC explained that it was unable to state an adequate bright-line rule for something that is unique to each issuer, but stated that the following types of information and events should be carefully considered by issuers as potentially being material: earnings information; mergers, acquisitions, tender offers, joint ventures or changes in assets; new products or discoveries or developments regarding customers or suppliers (such as an acquisition or loss of a contract); changes in control or management; changes in auditors or notification by an issuer’s auditor that the issuer may no longer rely on the auditor’s audit report; events regarding the issuer’s securities (e.g., defaults on senior securities, calls of securities for redemption, repurchase plans, stock splits or changes in dividends, changes to the rights of security holders, public or private sales of additional securities); and bankruptcies or receiverships. In particular, the SEC warned that private discussions by an issuer’s official with an analyst giving direct or implicit guidance on the analyst’s earnings estimates will likely violate Regulation FD. Intentional disclosures of material nonpublic information must be made simultaneously to the public. Intentional selective disclosures occur when the issuer or a person acting on behalf of the issuer knows or is reckless in not knowing that the information is both material and nonpublic. The circumstances under which the disclosure was made are relevant for determining whether the person making the disclosure was reckless in knowing something was material. For example, materiality judgments made during preparation of a written statement may be more likely to be found reckless than if the same judgment was made in response to an impromptu question. Unintentional disclosures of material nonpublic information must be publicly disclosed promptly after a senior official of the issuer learns of the disclosure and knows, or is reckless in not knowing, that the disclosure is both material and nonpublic. "Promptly" me ans as soon as reasonably practicable, but in no event after the later of 24 hours or the commencement of the next trading day on the NYSE after a senior official learns of the selective disclosure. Method of Public Disclosures The regulation gives issuers significant flexibility to determine the appropriate method for disseminating information to meet the public disclosure requirement. The public disclosure requirement can be satisfied by filing a Form 8-K, circulating a press release or by another method or combination of methods of disclosure that are reasonably designed to provide broad, non-exclusionary public access. This flexible approach is designed to give issuers the ability to use current technology, such as webcasting of conference calls. Conference calls and electronic transmissions are acceptable methods so long as the public has adequate notice and means of accessing the disclosure. Providing public access to a conference call, however, does not require that the issuer permit everyone to speak or ask questions during the call. Issuers choosing to file information on a Form 8-K may either file a report under Item 5 or furnish it under new Item 9. Information filed under Item 5 will be subject to liability for any misleading statements contained in the report and will be automatically incorporated by reference into registration statements and therefore subject to liability as part of a prospectus or registration statement. If the information is merely furnished under Item 9 instead of filed under Item 5, it will not be subject to such liability unless the disclosure is specifically incorporated in a filed report, proxy statement or registration statement. All disclosures on Form 8-K remain subject to the antifraud rules. The regulation specifically provides that filing information on Form 8-K will not be considered an admission of its materiality. The SEC suggested the following model for a planned disclosure of material information, such as a scheduled earnings release: First, issue a press release distributed through regular channels; Second, provide adequate notice through a press release, including time, date and access instructions, of a scheduled conference call to discuss the information; and Third, hold the call providing for public access. The SEC has indicated that an issuer’s determination of whether a method of communication is reasonably designed to provide broad, non-exclusionary public distribution will be evaluated in light of the relevant facts and circumstances, such as compliance with or deviations from usual practices or knowledge that the issuer’s press releases are not generally carried by major business wire services. Posting information on an issuer’s website is not currently a sufficient means of public disclosure, but may be used in combination with other methods designated to provide public disclosure. The SEC also advised issuers disclosing information on a webcast or conference call to make the information available for a long enough period of time to enable people to access the information even if they miss the initial announcement. Disclosure Made During a Securities Offering The SEC determined that sufficient protections already exist under the mandated disclosure requirements of the Securities Act to prevent selective disclosure in connection with a registered offering. As a result, Regulation FD does not apply to disclosures made in connection with a registered securities offering, unless the registered offering is an ongoing and continuous registered shelf offering, such as a debt securities shelf or an employee benefit plan registration. The rules specify when different types of registered public offerings are considered to have commenced and terminated for purposes of the regulation. Because the same public disclosure protections and sources of liability do not exist for unregistered offerings, Regulation FD will apply to disclosures made in connection with unregistered offerings. Public companies should have the parties to unregistered offerings agree to keep the information confidential or be prepared to make public disclosure of any material nonpublic information provided during the offering. The SEC noted that public disclosure of such information during an unregistered offering may conflict with the private offering exemption upon which the issuer may be relying for the unregistered offering. Liability for Violations of Regulation FD Failure to comply with Regulation FD may result in SEC enforcement actions seeking a cease-and-desist order or civil actions seeking injunctive or civil monetary penalties. The SEC also may bring an action against the individual responsible for the violation as "a cause of" the violation or as an aider or abettor. The SEC expressly stated that failure to comply with Regulation FD will not create antifraud liability or private rights of action; however, disclosures made under Regulation FD containing false or misleading information, or omitting material information, will not be protected from traditional antifraud liability. The SEC received comments in response to the proposed release from issuers who were concerned about the liability that could result from the SEC second-guessing their materiality judgments. In response to these concerns, the SEC has specifically indicated that the regulation only applies if the person making the disclosure knows or is reckless in not knowing that the information is both material and nonpublic. In addition, a failure to file a Form 8-K when no other public disclosure has been made will not result in a loss of eligibility to use short-form registrations or prevent the issuer’s shareholders from reselling their securities under Rule 144. The regulation does not obligate issuers to develop policies to avoid violations, but the SEC expects that most issuers will adopt policies for complying with the regulation. In the proposing release, the SEC suggested the following policies for preventing selective disclosure: limit the number of persons authorized to speak to analysts and investors; keep a record of communications with analysts; defer answering sensitive questions until the speaker has an opportunity to consult with counsel and determine the materiality of the response; and seek time-limited "embargo" agreements from analysts, in which the analysts agree not to use or publish certain information.

By
Maybe you just wanted to buy a FIAT or a Caviat!   So, you sold some shares. You dont know  what is going on in R and D or do you?   The key issue is 'knowledge' or 'mens rea' and it is very difficult to impute knowledge of materiality  before the transaction is made and to then connect the sale to an intention to avoid a market response.  IBM's stock goes up in spite of failed android tests that may or may not be announced. The material information committee usually decides materiality after the sale is made and before the announcement is made to the public. If the Director selling the shares is not  in charge of deciding materiality, you could only impute an intention to defraud when the market may or may not respond negatively to the eventual public disclosure. But, it is not a fraud to sell. However, the director must satisfy reporting requirements within the 90 day period.  Did he make the required filings?  A market response is...
Post a Comment
Read more

According to the new definition of individuals who have significant control of the corporation or ISC under the updated CBCA rules, members of Angel Ronan Lex Scripta do not satisfy the definition. No register is required. They satisfy the definition of control person under "Control Person" in the Farlex Financial Dictionary. An important person in a corporation. Control persons include senior managers, members of the board of directors, and officers such as the CEO and CFO. Control persons are able to use both their authority and their influence to make decisions on the corporation's activities. A control person is also called an affiliated person. Farlex Financial Dictionary. © 2012 Farlex, Inc. All Rights Reserved

By
According to the new definition of individuals who have significant control of the corporation or ISC under the updated CBCA rules, members of Angel Ronan Lex Scripta do not satisfy the definition. No register is required.  They satisfy the definition of control person under " Control Person" in the Farlex Financial Dictionary.   An important person in a  corporation . Control persons include senior managers, members of the  board of directors , and officers such as the  CEO  and  CFO . Control persons are able to use both their authority and their influence to make decisions on the corporation's activities. A control person is also called an affiliated person. Farlex Financial Dictionary. © 2012 Farlex, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Post a Comment
Read more

Kingston Gleaner Newspaper Archives, Feb 16, 2006, p. 17 https://newspaperarchive.com/kingston-gleaner-feb-16-2006-p-17/ Feb 16, 2006 - Rattray Mrs. Cynthia Small served as office manager of Rattray Patterson Rattray ... Here with her on the occasion of her retirement in 2004 are (from left) her son ... The legal Arm ofRattray Patterson THE LIFE OF ALFRED RATTRAY ... In addition to his practice of the law, AlfredRattray was a Lecturer and ... You've visited this page 3 times. Last visit: 08/06/18

By
<a href="https://newspaperarchive.com/kingston-gleaner-feb-16-2006-p-17/"></a> Kingston Gleaner Newspaper Archives, Feb 16, 2006, p. 17 https://newspaperarchive.com/kingston-gleaner-feb-16-2006-p-17/ Feb 16, 2006 -  Rattray Mrs .  Cynthia Small  served as  office manager  of  Rattray Patterson Rattray  ... Here with her on the occasion of her  retirement  in 2004 are (from left) her son ... The legal Arm of Rattray Patterson  THE LIFE OF ALFRED  RATTRAY  ... In addition to his  practice  of the  law , Alfred Rattray  was a Lecturer and ... You've visited this page 3 times. Last visit: 08/06/18 Kingston Gleaner Newspaper Archives, Feb 16, 2006, p. 17 https://newspaperarchive.com/kingston-gleaner-feb-16-2006-p-17/ Feb 16, 2006 -  Rattray Mrs .  Cynthia Small  served as  office manager  of  Rattray Patterson Rattr...
Post a Comment
Read more

A corporation becomes dormant when it is no longer active. It cannot be re-registered. If the only director is deceased, he is unable to maintain the corporate responsibility of yearly reports and returns. As such, it is dormant. It is much like a person who is deceased and cannot re register his driver's license or his passport. Did you know Angel Ronan(TM) is available for $1.00? Call today. Please read the following case on corporate responsibility and a Director's fiduciary duty. ------------ Regina v. Ben Smith Regina v. Harry Smith, 1962 CanLII 100 (ON CA) Document History (0) Cited Documents (18) Cited by (16) CanLII Connects (0) PDF Date: 1962-09-04 Other citations: [1963] 1 OR 249 — 36 DLR (2d) 613 —[1963] 1 CCC 68 — 38 CR 378 Citation: Regina v. Ben Smith Regina v. Harry Smith, 1962 CanLII 100 (ON CA), , retrieved on 2019-06-11 Regina v. Ben Smith Regina v. Harry Smith [1963] 1 O.R. 249-271 ONTARIO [COURT OF APPEAL] PORTER, C.J.O., ROACH AND MCLENNAN, JJ.A. 4th SEPTEMBER 1962. Criminal law -- Theft -- Directors of company purchasing stock with company funds and pledging with bank as security for personal overdraft -- Cr. Code, s. 269(1). Accused, who were directors of B comapny, were convicted of stealing certain shares belonging to B company by pledging them with a bank to secure a personal overdraft. On evidence that accused, without the knowledge of the other directors and without any authority from the company, used company funds to purchase the shares in question which they then used, in circumstances involving secrecy, deceit and risk of harm to the company, to pledge with the bank for their own personal use, held, on appeal, that accused were properly convicted of theft under s. 269(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, 1953-54 (Can.), c. 51, in that they did "fraudulently...convert [the shares]...with intent to deprive, temporarily or absolutely, the owner...or a person who has a special *Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada refused November 5, 1962. property or interest [therein]" and it was immaterial that the accused, who certainly were not bailees of the shares, might have honestly intended, with reasonable prospects, to redeem the shares and pay back the company. It was also a conspiracy to commit murder when some wanted to know what happens to the business name if the only owner ended up dead. It is not an offence to collect money as a group for a wedding gift or to buy the new church land or property but it is an offence to collect money while intending only to see the owner dead. If he is dead, how can he sign a document to register your group as the new owner. You can buy Angel Ronan(TM) for $1.00 by emailing w.a.Lyon.angelronan@mail.com or phoning 1-914-539-7655. Any sums above $1.00 is unrequested gift. So, there is no need to have your entire group investigated as people who give money to own a business or rent a condo for ten months or more but do not have any contract. You may be more handsome than the current owner but your handsomeness is not reason to do anything illegally and nor is it reason to hope it can be done improperly. If the owner is dead, re registration of the name to someone else is blocked. Regina v. Ben Smith Regina v. Harry Smith, 1962 CanLII 100 (ON CA)

By
  A corporation becomes dormant when it is no longer active.  It cannot be re-registered.  If the only director is deceased, he is unable to maintain the corporate responsibility of yearly reports and returns. As such, it is dormant. It is much like a person who is deceased and cannot re register his driver's license or his passport.  Did you know Angel Ronan(TM) is available for $1.00?  Call today. Please read the following case on corporate responsibility and a Director's fiduciary duty.  ------------   Regina v. Ben Smith Regina v. Harry Smith, 1962 CanLII 100 (ON CA) Document History (0) Cited Documents (18) Cited by (16) CanLII Connects (0)  PDF Date: 1962-09-04 Other citations: [1963] 1 OR 249 — 36 DLR (2d) 613 —[1963] 1 CCC 68 — 38 CR 378 Citation: Regina v. Ben Smith Regina v. Harry Smith, 1962 CanLII 100 (ON CA), , retrieved on 2019-06-11    Regina v. Ben Smith Regina v. Harry Smith  [1963] 1 O.R. 249-271 ONTARIO [C...
Post a Comment
Read more

In Psalms 111, we see the promise to Israel of a homeland is fulfilled. It was not just land belonging to others but a land once made home by Abraham, Isaac and Jacob(Israel). Yet, this is not permission to presume God has given you the right to take property and land belonging to others. Abraham left his ancestral land and ended up immediately within the gates of Egypt as a guest and benefactor of a Pharaoh. Israel today was not just any land but the land of Abraham's people and before Moses left Egypt, some other tribes occupied the promised land temporarily in Jacob's absence. As such, it would be anathema for Israel to just claim other people's land today. The purpose of Israel is to witness about the ten commandments. -Ten commandments- The ten commandments confirm that we honor our neighbours and what belongs to them; including their land. We see in history that for sometime Israel, as a political entity, no longer existed. -Historical fact as recorded in the bible- We see the historical fact of Israel's occupation confirmed in the bible. See Hezekiah and the Assyrians. See the occupation of Israel by the Romans in the first century A.D. See the story of Nehemiah. There is no doubt that Israel was to exist and left Egypt as a people with great abundance. See Deuteronomy 15. As the Egyptians blessed them when the time of Israel's labor in Egypt ended, the Egyptians blessed them in honor of a principle. -Hebrew is a rich language- Hebrew is a rich language. The OHCHR is a rich nation's economic strategy as they make Arrangements to work with Canada and the United States to benefit from Automaton and a vast existing infrastructure in need of investment, a vital domestic market and modernisation. Warren A. Lyon.

By
In Psalms 111, we see the promise to Israel of a homeland is fulfilled. It was not just land belonging to others but a land once made home by Abraham, Isaac and Jacob(Israel). Yet, this is not permission to presume God has given you the right to take property and land belonging to others.  Abraham left his ancestral land and ended up immediately within the gates of Egypt as a guest and benefactor of a Pharaoh.   Israel today was not just any land but the land of Abraham's people and before Moses left Egypt, some other tribes occupied the promised land temporarily in Jacob's absence.  As such, it would be anathema for Israel to just claim other people's land today. The purpose of Israel is to witness about the ten commandments. -Ten commandments- The ten commandments confirm that we honor our neighbours and what belongs to them; including their land. We see in history that for sometime Israel, as a political entity, no longer existed. -Historical fact as recor...
Post a Comment
Read more

AMERICANS WHO LOVE UK FOOD! | First impressions of the UK - Postmodern F...

By
Post a Comment
Read more

THE BEST SUNDAY ROAST! | The Postmodern Family EP#80

By
Post a Comment
Read more

OATH vs. Oath Jurisprudence is much like Legere and R v. W(D). 2+2, -1+5,3+1 and 7-3 all add up to 4. It is Another way to communicate the jurisprudence of R v. W(D) rather. It is not new jurisprudence. It is based on the same principle as R v. Legere(1995). See this analysis again in Sklar v. Borys, 1917 CanLII 121 (SK QB). This is summarised again in the following. The Oath vs. Oath jurisprudence is seen in the UK legal tradition dating back to 1877 in the case of Anderson v. Titmas(1877): Young v. Kershaw (1899), 81 L.T. 531 (which was followed in Varette's case, Varette v. Sainsbury) Smith L.J., stated at p. 532: "Further, it would only amount to oath against oath, and that is not enough," as was pointed out in Anderson v. Titmas (1877), 36 L.T. 711, by Huddleston, B.

By
OATH vs. Oath Jurisprudence is much like Legere and R v. W(D).   2+2, -1+5,3+1 and 7-3 all add up to 4. It is Another way to communicate the jurisprudence of  R v. W(D) rather.  It is not new jurisprudence.  It is based on the same principle as R v.  Legere(1995).  See this analysis again in Sklar v. Borys, 1917 CanLII 121 (SK QB).  This is summarised again in the following.      The Oath vs. Oath jurisprudence is seen in the UK legal tradition dating back to 1877 in the case of Anderson v. Titmas(1877):  Young v. Kershaw (1899), 81 L.T. 531 (which was followed in Varette's case; see Varette v. Sainsbury) Smith L.J., stated at p. 532: "Further, it would only amount to oath against oath, and that is not enough," as was pointed out in Anderson v. Titmas (1877), 36 L.T. 711, by Huddleston, B. 
Post a Comment
Read more

Warren thanks the older lawyers whose mentoring and advice was helpful when approaching the unique facts of this file. One or two Canadian lecturers also helped. Former Caribana now called Scotiabank Caribbean Carnival Toronto

By
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2011/05/25/former_caribana_now_called_scotiabank_caribbean_carnival_toronto.html Former Caribana now called Scotiabank Caribbean Carnival Toronto By  HENRY STANCU   STAFF REPORTER Wed., May 25, 2011 It’s more of a mouthful than it used to be. Caribana, the celebration of Caribbean culture that brings more than a million people to the streets of Toronto each summer, has a new name. The 44th annual event will now be known as the Scotiabank Caribbean Carnival Toronto, organizers announced Wednesday. Cyrese King, centre in red, dances on Lake Shore Blvd. during the Caribana Parade in Toronto on Aug. 2, 2008.  (AARON HARRIS / CANADIAN PRESS FILE PHOTO) Mike Colle, MPP for Eglinton-Lawrence, announced a $400,000 provincial “investment” in the carnival. Councilor Joe Mihevc said the city will contribute “just under $500,000 in cash as well as $100,000 of relief of permit fees.” The name change, ord...
Post a Comment
Read more