Railhead: Rail Features. Thyra Thompson Building, Casper Wyoming

Railhead: Rail Features. Thyra Thompson Building, Casper Wyo...: 

Rail Features. Thyra Thompson Building, Casper Wyoming.

The State of Wyoming recently completed the construction of a massive new state office building, the Thyra Thompson Building, in Casper.  All of the state's administrative bodies, except for the district and circuit courts, are housed there.

The building does house, however, the Chancery Court for the entire state, a new court that's only recently been established.

The building is built right over what had been the Great Northwest rail yard in Casper, which was still an active, although not too active, rail yard into my teens.  I can't really recall when they abandoned the line, but it was abandoned.

In putting the building in, and extending the Platte River Parkway through it, the State did a nice job of incorporating some rail features so that there's a memory of what the location had been.

They also put in some historical plaques, which are nice. The curved arch at this location, moreover, is the location of the old turntable.  It was a small one, which I hate to admit that I crossed over when I was a teenager, a dangerous thing to do.

Being dim on the laws of other countries.

Among the comments I've seen about the riots in France is one wondering if this would be happening if the French were allowed to own firearms.

The French are allowed to own firearms.

There's a really weird, and dim, assumption that Americans are the only people on earth who are allowed to own firearms.  It's completely in error.  Most countries around the globe allow their citizens to own firearms. Even Japan, which is often cited as an example of complete firearms' prohibition, allows some firearms' ownership.

Lots of countries have considerably more restrictions than the US on firearms' ownership, but not all do.  Perhaps that's what confuses Americans, as we don't pay much attention; 1) beyond our own borders or 2) to anyone who doesn't speak English as their native language.  The UK has very strict firearms laws, as do Canada and Australia.  The latter two are far stricter than they should be, in my view.

But not every European country is anywhere near as strict as Americans seem to believe.  Yes, stricter than the US, but not as strict as apparently Americans commonly believe.

Interestingly, the opposite is true on abortion and surgical/chemical gender related mutilation of minors.

By and large, most European countries, maybe all European countries, are stricter than most of the US on abortion.  The US, thanks to the scientific illiteracy of Roe v. Wade, is far more bloody and liberal than Europe, by and large. FWIW, at least one large European country provides that abortion in general is illegal, but oddly allows it, on a much more restrictive basis than the US, on some odd legal reasoning basis that I don't really follow.

And on transgenderism and minors, Europe is very much beginning to ban  afflicting minors with surgery and pharmaceuticals, taking the approach, correctly, that its completely unsupported by the science.

Blog Mirror: The New York Times' Distortion of Two Major Supreme Court Rulings

 It's not only the New York Times that exhibits what this clear thinking article discusses:

The New York Times' Distortion of Two Major Supreme Court Rulings

Amy Howe on the Supreme Court.

In case you missed it, the Supreme Court decided a boatload of really important cases recently:

JUN 30 2023

Supreme Court rules website designer can deny same-sex couples service

The court handed a major victory to business owners who oppose same-sex marriage for religious reasons on Friday. A six-justice majority agreed that Colorado cannot enforce a state anti-discrimination law against a Christian website designer who does not want to create wedding websites for same-sex couples because doing so would violate her First Amendment right… Read More

JUN 30 2023

JUN 30 2023

Supreme Court strikes down Biden student-loan forgiveness program

This post was updated on June 30 at 3:53 p.m. By a vote of 6-3, the justices ruled that the Biden administration overstepped its authority last year when it announced that it would cancel up to $400 billion in student loans. The Biden administration had said that as many as 43 million Americans would have… Read More

JUN 29 2023

Justices rule in favor of evangelical Christian postal worker

Federal law bars employers from discriminating against workers for practicing their religion unless the employer can show that the worker’s religious practice cannot “reasonably” be accommodated without “undue hardship.” The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a trivial burden is not the kind of “undue hardship” that will justify an employer’s failure to accommodate an… Read More

JUN 29 2023

Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action programs in college admissions

This post was updated on June 29 at 4:08 p.m. In a historic decision, the Supreme Court severely limited, if not effectively ended, the use of affirmative action in college admissions on Thursday. By a vote of 6-3, the justices ruled that the admissions programs used by the University of North Carolina and Harvard College… Read More

JUN 27 20

JUN 27 2023

Court upholds state corporate registration law in major personal jurisdiction case

The justices narrowly rejected a challenge to the constitutionality of a Pennsylvania law that allows any company doing business in the state to be sued there – even if the corporation is not headquartered in Pennsylvania and the conduct at the center of the lawsuit occurred somewhere else. It was a major decision in personal… Read More

JUN 27 2023

Justices throw out Colorado man’s stalking conviction in First Amendment dispute

The Supreme Court on Tuesday threw out the conviction of Billy Raymond Counterman, a Colorado man who was sentenced to four-and-a-half years in prison for stalking based on his Facebook messages. By a vote of 7-2, the justices ruled that the state courts had applied the wrong test to determine whether Counterman’s statements were “true… Read More

JUN 27 2023

Supreme Court rules against North Carolina Republicans over election law theory

In a major election-law decision, the Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that although the Constitution gives state legislatures the power to regulate federal elections, state courts can supervise the legislature’s exercise of that power. By a vote of 6-3, the court rejected the so-called “independent state legislature theory,” holding that the North Carolina Supreme Court… Read More

Monday at the Bar: The best of both worlds: Rodeo and law live side by side in the life of CNFR competitor

 

The best of both worlds: Rodeo and law live side by side in the life of CNFR competitor

"How can you represent. . . "

Elk Mountain.

Every lawyer has been asked that question at some point.  Usually it's "how can you represent somebody you know is guilty?"

Usually, amongst lawyers, it's regarded as kind of an eye rolling "oh how naive" type of question.  For lawyers who have a philosophical or introspective bent, and I'd submit that's a distance minority, they may have an answer that's based on, basically, defending a system that defends us all.  Maybe they have something even more sophisticated, such as something along the lines of St. Thomas More's statement in A Man For All Seasons:

William Roper : So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!

Sir Thomas More : Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

William Roper : Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

Sir Thomas More : Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

That's about the best answer that there may be, and frankly the only one that applies to civil litigation.  We can console ourselves that in representing the interests of the potentially liable, we protect the interest of everyone.

But what about plaintiff's lawyers?

Frankly, the excuse is wearing thin.  

I.e., I don't believe it for a second.  It's all about cash.

And this is a real problem.

The question is what to do about it.

Well, frankly, the average person can't do much.  But you don't really have to accept it, either.

Shunning has a bad name in our culture.  Indeed, one English language European source states:

More specifically, shunning or ostracising is a form of abuse. It is discrimination and silent bullying. Unfortunately, often people who have been shunned also face other forms of abuse, ranging from death threats and physical assaults to murder.

And there's a lot of truth to that.

At the same time, it was and is something that is often practiced to varying degrees in religious communities.  Indeed, up until the revision of the Code of Canon Law in 1983, Catholic excommunications were of two types, vitandus and toleratus, with vitandus requiring the Faithful to cease all normal connections with the excommunicated.  It was very rare, but it could happen. Since 1983 that distinction does not exist.  Some Amish, however, still have such a practice, and they are not alone.

Realizing this is extreme, I also realize, as I've seen pointed out twice, that land locking rich magnates cannot do it without local help. They always hire somebody, I've heard them referred to as "goons" to be their enforcer, and when they need legal help, they hire a Wyoming licensed attorney.  Indeed, in this instance, remarkably, the plaintiff did not use a Denver attorney, which I thought they likely would have. 

And this has always been the case.  Wyoming Stock Growers Association stock detectives were sometimes enforcers back in the late 19th Century, and they were hired men.  In the trial of the Invaders, a local Cheyenne attorney was used, but then again, that was a criminal case, which I do feel differently about.

Elk Mountain is basically mid-way, and out of the way, between Laramie, Rawlins and Saratoga.  People working for Iron Bar Holdings have to go to one of those places for goods and services.  There's really no reason the excluded locals need to sell them anything.  Keep people off. . .drive to Colorado for services.

And on legal services?  I don't know the lawyers involved, so I'm unlikely to every run into them. But I'm not buying them lunch as we often do as a courtesy while on the road, and if I were a local rancher, and keep in mind that outfits like Iron Bar Holdings don't help local ranchers keep on keeping on, I'd tell that person, if they stopped in to ask to go fishing or hunting, to pound sand.

If this sounds extreme, and it actually is, this is what happened with some of the law firms representing Donald Trump in his effort to steal the election.  They backed out after partners in their firms basically, it seems, told Trump's lawyers to chose Trump or the firm.

And there are many other examples.  Lawyers bear no social costs at all for whom they represent in civil suits.  People who regard abortion as murder will sit right down with lawyers representing abortionists, people seeking a radical social change will hire lawyers to advance the change, and the lawyers fellows feel no pressure as a result of that at all.

Maybe they should.

Or is that view fundamentally wrong?

Miscarriages of justice.

From the Cowboy State Daily:

The Romanian man who stole a $7,500 bottle of scotch from a Jackson liquor store by hiding it in his crotch has been sentenced to probation.  

Jackson Circuit Court Judge Curt Haws sentenced Marian Firu, 50, to six months of unsupervised probation, according to a court filing that became available this week.  

Firu faces a possible 179 days in jail if he violates his probation, according to the judgment and sentence filing.  

$7,500 is something of real value (I'll comment on that again in a moment), so why is this reduced to something so minor?

It's a felony.  He should do time, and then be sent back to Romania. 

Secondly, why are there $7,500 bottles of Scotch?  That's obscene and really simply shouldn't be.

Blog Mirror: The We The People Amendment.

A proposed Constitutional Amendment introduced by Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Washington):

Section 1. [Artificial Entities Such as Corporations Do Not Have Constitutional Rights]

The rights and privileges protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights and privileges of natural persons only.

An artificial entity, such as a corporation, limited liability company, or other for-profit entity, established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign State shall have no rights under the Constitution and are subject to regulation by the People, through Federal, State, or local law. 

The privileges of artificial entity shall be determined by the People, through Federal, State, or local law, and shall not be construed to be inherent or inalienable.

Section 2. [Money is Not Free Speech]

Federal, State, and local government shall regulate, limit, or prohibit contributions and expenditures, including a candidate's own contributions and expenditures, to ensure that all citizens, regardless of their economic status, have access to the political process, and that no person gains, as a result of their money, substantially more access or ability to influence in any way the election of any candidate for public office or any ballot measure.

Federal, State, and local government shall require that any permissible contributions and expenditures be publicly disclosed.

The judiciary shall not construe the spending of money to influence elections to be speech under the First Amendment.

Section 3. 

This amendment shall not be construed to abridge the privilege secured by the Constitution of the United States of the freedom of the press.”.

I like it. The concept that corporation are people is problematic in every sense, but particularly in regard to the idea that they have the same rights, or some of them, as natural-born real people.

This clearly attacks the Citizens United decision, which frankly was decided wrongly.  Indeed, early in the country's history not only was this idea completely foreign, but the formation of corporations was strictly constrained and relatively rare.

Unfortunately, of course, even in this hyper populist era, this populist idea, as it's from the populist left, is probably stillborn.  The McCarthy GOP isn't going to pass anything that a Democrat comes up with, particularly as its a minoritarian party in some significant ways that might fear the result.

Monday at the Bar. So, Yeoman, what do you think about. . .

Lots of legal news recently.

1. Donald Trump indicted.

He deserves to be charged with a crime, but that crime is sedition.  Maybe other things connected with taking documents and the like, but sedition is the big one.

The current charges?  Hmmmm. . . .

Frankly, those who regard the New York DA as pushing it are probably correct.  These charges are never brought and they look weak.  Added to that, New York prosecutors are subject to claims which at least have some merit that they tend to be influenced by politics.  The state's going after the NRA, for example, had that appearance. This does as well.  

Given that, this probably only serves to discredit the more serious claims to come, assuming that something surprising isn't revealed.

2.  Fed Judge says name the names.

In Wyoming, that is.

This is the suit involving the UW sorority, which has admitted as a member a guy claiming to identify as a girl, even though his anatomical reactions to the girls suggest that his biology isn't that confused.  The plaintiffs, member of the sorority, wanted to sue anonymously. The Federal District Court judge presiding over the case said no to that.

He's right.  It's not like anyone is a minor, and while I don't even think there really is such a thing as transgenderism, we all know who the guy is.  The Plaintiffs' should be known, and for that matter, there's honor in being known in a cause, even amongst those who oppose those in it.

3. Gwenyth Paltrow v some guy.

Didn't follow it and don't care.

4. The Justice Thomas vacation "scandal"

M'eh.

There's no law that says members of the Supreme Court can't accept gifts, even lavish ones, from their admirers.  Accepting them may not be wise, but it's not illegal.

Is it supposed to be reported?  The law seems vague on that.

Basically, this amounts to an effort to get Thomas to resign, which the political left has been working on for some time.  The Thomas' for their part don't seem to act wisely in this area, giving fuel to those who are trying to ignite it.

This is also part of the unfortunate modern trend of dragging the privileged down.  That may sound odd, but the real story of American wealth since World War Two is that the population has moved from mostly being lower middle class to mostly being upper middle class.  Not everyone, of course, but that's been the move of the economic center.  Oddly, as it has happened, resentment towards the really wealthy has increased, even though more Americans than ever are in the wealthy class at some point in their lives.

5.  Amending Title IX to include transgenderism

It's an attempt to usurp democracy at the state level.

You can't really have it two ways with democracy, for the most part.  Democrats became very used to rule through the courts until the court turned to the right and started sending stuff back to legislatures.  That's distressed the left no end, even though court rule fed the populist right.  Since the January 6 Insurrection, the left has rediscovered democracy, but it can't quite break itself of its old habits.

5.  Booting legislators out of their legislatures.

We've all been reading about the three legislators who have been booted out of Tennessee's legislature for violating decorum rules.  It's being portrayed as a shocking attack on democracy.

Frankly, this example should be followed more. There's a Wyoming legislator right now who is in trouble for wearing an assault rifle themed transgender shirt, right during a time period in which it seems there were in fact two armed assaults by people identifying themselves in that fashion.  She's apologized, but maybe she should get the dope slap.

Anthony Bouchard of Wyoming's legislature certainly should have.  MTG should have been booted out of Congress.

Lex Anteinternet: Monday, March 5, 1923. The Thomas, Collins, affair.

Lex Anteinternet: Monday, March 5, 1923. Reds.: 

Yesterday, we noted this item, amongst other:

If ever there was a story that there must be a lot more to, this is it. And yet, it's impossible, based on the limited resources available, to learn much more.

Thomas, I'd note, didn't merely state that she wished Cornish dead.  He was a "persistent wooer", as the article indicates, and apparently the couple had engaged in some prior wooing.  She also reported to the police that he was consistently abusive and had been that day.  That's likley why Thomas shot Cornish.  He not only wanted her ardently, but he was, she thought, or stated, abusive.

Thomas packed a pistol, we'd also note, which while it's something we'd expect of Lauren Boebert of Colorado today, wasn't average lady like behavior in Colorado in 1923.  Heck, my paternal grandparents were married and living in Denver at the time, and my guess is that neither of them routinely packed pistols.  Indeed, as far as I know, the only firearms my material grandfather routinely used were shotguns, which he was reportedly very skilled at.  My uncle reported to me that when he was a boy, and they were living in Scottsbluff, my grandfather would take just the number of 410 shells necessary to fill his pheasant limit, and come back with the limit.  Here in Wyoming, he hunted ducks.

Seems that's genetic.

Anyhow, I'll bet my grandmother didn't pack heat.  Either Thomas figured she needed to, due to Cornish's nature, or she routinely did.  We'll never know.  She had a pistol anyhow.

A Coroners Jury found Thomas acted with premeditation, which doesn't mean what people think it does.  It just means she had sufficient time to know what she was doing.

Well, they're all gone now.  My God rest their souls, and I hope Thomas's time in the pokey wasn't too hard.

Courthouses of the West: Oklahoma County Courthouse, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

Courthouses of the West: Oklahoma County Courthouse, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.: 

Oklahoma County Courthouse, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

This impressive art deco courthouse was built in 1937 and serves Oklahoma County, Oklahoma.  Apparently it was loosely inspired by Mayan temples, which is unusual.

It was a Great Depression works project.

The United States Supreme Court Achieves Record Slowness

No opinions have been released for three months, which is a modern record.

Why?  Who knows, but tension amongst the justices perhaps, or perhaps the repeated unwarranted attacks on this Court actually applying the law to correct the past political actions of earlier courts.

Courthouses of the West: Supreme Court Dobb's Decision Leaker remains a mys...

Courthouses of the West: Supreme Court Dobb's Decision Leaker remains a mys...:

Supreme Court Dobb's Decision Leaker remains a mystery.

The U.S. Supreme Court concluded its investigation of the leak of the draft Dobb's decision with no determination as to who the leaker was.

Be that as it may, like most such events, the furor seems to have passed.

A cold northern wind. The Alberta Sovereignty Within A United Canada Act.

From the prospective of the self-absorbed United States, it's often hard to realize that anything else is going on elsewhere, let alone that something much like what has been occurring in the US in recent years has been.

But in Canada, it has.

We got a glimpse of populist discontent in our northern neighbor this year with the Canadian truckers protest.  Since then, the government of Justin Trudeau has further restricted firearms access in Canada, where it was already severely restricted.

None of this sits well in some of rural Canada and the Canadian West.  Now Alberta, the province most like to react to such things, has reacted and passed a sovereignty bill.

It reads:

BILL 1

2022

ALBERTA SOVEREIGNTY WITHIN A UNITED CANADA ACT

(Assented to , 2022)

Table of Contents

1 Definitions

2 Interpretation

3 Resolutions

4 Powers of the Lieutenant Governor in Council

5 Authority and orders cease

6 Effect of directives

7 Crown is bound

8 No cause of action

9 Judicial review

10 Regulations

Preamble

WHEREAS Albertans possess a unique culture and shared identity within Canada;

WHEREAS it is the role of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta and the Government of Alberta to preserve and promote this unique culture and shared identity;

WHEREAS the Constitution Act, 1867, the Constitution Act, 1930 and the Constitution Act, 1982 are foundational documents that establish the rights and freedoms of Albertans and the relationship between the provincial and federal orders of government, including the division of legislative powers between them;

WHEREAS the Province of Alberta is granted rights and powers under the Constitution Act, 1867, the Constitution Act, 1930 and the Constitution Act, 1982 and is not subordinate to the Government of Canada;

WHEREAS actions taken by the Parliament of Canada and the Government of Canada have infringed on these sovereign provincial rights and powers with increasing frequency and have unfairly prejudiced Albertans;

WHEREAS actions taken by the Parliament of Canada and the Government of Canada have infringed on the rights and freedoms of Albertans enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in an unjustified and unconstitutional manner;

WHEREAS the people of Alberta expect the Parliament of Canada and the Government of Canada to respect the Constitution Act, 1867, the Constitution Act, 1930 and the Constitution Act, 1982 as the governing documents of the relationship between Canada and

Alberta and to abide by the division of powers and other provisions set out in those documents;

WHEREAS the people of Alberta expect the Parliament of Canada and the Government of Canada to respect the rights and freedoms of Albertans enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; and

WHEREAS it is necessary and appropriate for the Legislative Assembly of Alberta to set out measures that the Lieutenant Governor in Council should consider taking in respect of actions of the Parliament of Canada and the Government of Canada that are unconstitutional or harmful to Albertans and for Members of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta to have a free vote on such measures according to their individual judgment;

THEREFORE HIS MAJESTY, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta, enacts as follows:

Definitions

1 In this Act,

 (a) “aboriginal peoples of Canada” includes the Indian, Inuit and Métis peoples of Canada within the meaning of section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982; 

(b) “Constitution of Canada” includes

 (i) the Canada Act, 1982, including the Constitution Act, 1982,

 (ii) the Acts and orders referred to in the Schedule to the Constitution Act, 1982, and

(iii) any amendment to any Act or order referred to in subclause (i) or (ii);

 (c) “federal initiative” means a federal law, program, policy, agreement or action, or a proposed or anticipated federal law, program, policy, agreement or action;

 (d) “person” includes a corporation and the heirs, executors, administrators or other legal representatives of a person;

 (e) “provincial entity” means

 (i) a public agency as defined in the Alberta Public Agencies Governance Act,

 (ii) a Crown-controlled organization as defined in the Financial Administration Act,

 (iii) an entity that carries out a power, duty or function under an enactment,

 (iv) an entity that receives a grant or other public funds from the Government that are contingent on the

provision of a public service,

 (v) a regional health authority established under the Regional Health Authorities Act,

 (vi) a public post-secondary institution as defined in the Post-secondary Learning Act,

 (vii) a board as defined in the Education Act,

 (viii) a municipal authority as defined in the Municipal Government Act,

 (ix) a municipal police service as defined in the Police Act,

 (x) a regional police service as defined in the Police Act, and

 (xi) any other similar provincially regulated entity prescribed by the regulations.

Interpretation

2 Nothing in this Act is to be construed as

 (a) authorizing any order that would be contrary to the Constitution of Canada,

 (b) authorizing any directive to a person, other than a provincial entity, that would compel the person to act contrary to or otherwise in violation of any federal law, or

 (c) abrogating or derogating from any existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada that are recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

Resolutions

3 If, on a motion of a member of Executive Council, the Legislative Assembly approves a resolution that

 (a) states that the resolution is made in accordance with this Act,

 (b) states that, in the opinion of the Legislative Assembly, a federal initiative

 (i) is unconstitutional on the basis that it

 (A) intrudes into an area of provincial legislative jurisdiction under the Constitution of Canada, or

 (B) violates the rights and freedoms of one or more Albertans under the Canadian Charter of Rights

and Freedoms,

 or

 (ii) causes or is anticipated to cause harm to Albertans,

 (c) sets out the nature of the harm, if the resolution states that, in the opinion of the Legislative Assembly, a federal initiative causes or is anticipated to cause harm to Albertans, and

 (d) identifies a measure or measures that the Lieutenant Governor in Council should consider taking in respect of the federal initiative, the Lieutenant Governor in Council may take the actions described in section 4.

Powers of the Lieutenant Governor in Council

4(1) If the Legislative Assembly approves a resolution described in section 3, the Lieutenant Governor in Council, to the extent that it is necessary or advisable in order to carry out a measure that is identified in the resolution, may, by order,

 (a) if the Lieutenant Governor in Council is satisfied that doing so is in the public interest, direct a Minister responsible for an enactment as designated under section 16 of the Government Organization Act to, by order,

(i) suspend or modify the application or operation of all or part of an enactment, subject to the terms and conditions that the Lieutenant Governor in Councilmay prescribe, or

 (ii) specify or set out provisions that apply in addition to,or instead of, any provision of an enactment,subject to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council,

 (b) direct a Minister to exercise a power, duty or function of the Minister, including by making a regulation under an enactment for which the Minister is responsible, or

 (c) issue directives to a provincial entity and its members, officers and agents, and the Crown and its Ministers and agents, in respect of the federal initiative.

(2) A directive issued in accordance with subsection (1)(c) may be general or particular in its application.

(3) Where there is a conflict or inconsistency between

 (a) an order made or an order that is directed to be made under subsection (1), and

 (b) a provision of an enactment to which the order relates, the order prevails to the extent of the conflict or inconsistency.

(4) Nothing in this Act abrogates any authority or power vested in the Legislative Assembly or Lieutenant Governor in Council by any other enactment or by operation of law, including any authority or power of the Lieutenant Governor in Council to take action with respect to the federal initiative.

Authority and orders cease

5(1) Subject to subsection (2), the Lieutenant Governor in Council ceases to have an authority to make an order under section 4(1), and any order issued by the Lieutenant Governor in Council or a Minister under section 4(1) expires and ceases to have any force or effect, on the earliest of

 (a) the date on which the Legislative Assembly rescinds the resolution referred to in section 4(1), or

 (b) 2 years after the date on which the resolution referred to in section 4(1) was approved by the Legislative Assembly.

(2) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may extend an order issued under section 4(1) for an additional 2 years from the date on which the original order was set to expire.

(3) An extension of an order by the Lieutenant Governor in Council under subsection (2) may be made only once.

Effect of directives

6(1) A provincial entity and its members, officers and agents, and the Crown and its Ministers and agents, must comply with any directive issued by the Lieutenant Governor in Council under this Act.

(2) A directive issued under this Act must be published in The Alberta Gazette within 30 days from the date the order is made by the Lieutenant Governor in Council under section 4(1).

(3) The Regulations Act does not apply to a directive issued under this Act.

Crown is bound

7 This Act is binding on the Crown.

No cause of action

8 No cause of action lies against and no action or proceeding may be commenced against

 (a) the Crown or its Ministers, agents, appointees or employees, or against the Legislative Assembly, the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, an office of the Legislature, or any agents, appointees or employees of the Legislative Assembly or an office of the Legislature, in respect of any act or thing done or omitted to be done under or in relation to this Act or a resolution or order under this Act, including, without limitation, any failure to do something when that person has discretionary authority to do something but does not do it, or

 (b) any other person or entity in respect of any act or thing done or omitted to be done in good faith under a directive issued under this Act, including, without limitation, anyfailure to do something when that person has discretionary authority to do something but does not do it.

Judicial review

9(1) An originating application for judicial review in relation to a decision or act of a person or body under this Act must be filed and served within 30 days after the date of the decision or act.

(2) In an application for judicial review to set aside a decision or act of a person or body under this Act, the standard of review to be applied by the court is that of patent unreasonableness.

(3) Nothing in this section is to be construed as making a decision or act of the Legislative Assembly subject to judicial review.

Regulations

10 The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations

 (a) prescribing provincial entities for the purposes of section 1(e);

 (b) defining any term or phrase used but not defined in this Act. 

GOVERNMENT AMENDMENT AMENDMENTS TO BILL 1

The Bill is amended as follows:

A Section 1 is amended by adding the following after clause (e): (f) “regulation” means a regulation, order, rule, form, tariff of costs or fees, proclamation, bylaw or resolution enacted

(i) in the execution of a power conferred by or under the authority of an Act, or

(ii) by or under the authority of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, but does not include an order of a court made in the course of an action or an order made by a public officer or administrative tribunal in a dispute between 2 or more  persons.

B Section 3(b)(ii) is struck out and the following is substituted: (ii) causes or is anticipated to cause harm to Albertans on the basis that it

(A) affects or interferes with an area of provincial legislative jurisdiction under the Constitution of Canada, or

(B) interferes with the rights and freedoms of one or more Albertans under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,

C Section 4 is struck out and the following is substituted:

ALBERTA SOVEREIGNTY WITHIN A UNITED CANADA ACT

Amendment A1 agreed to December 7, 2022

Powers of the Lieutenant Governor in Council 4(1) If the Legislative Assembly approves a resolution described in section 3, the Lieutenant Governor in Council, to the extent that it is necessary or advisable in order to carry out a measure that is identified in the resolution, may, by order,

 (a) if the Lieutenant Governor in Council is satisfied that doing so is in the public interest, direct a Minister responsible for an enactment as designated under section 16 of the Government Organization Act to, by order,

 (i) suspend or modify the application or operation of all or part of a regulation authorized by that enactment, subject to the terms and conditions that the Lieutenant Governor in Council may prescribe, or

 (ii) specify or set out provisions that apply in addition to, or instead of, any provision in a regulation authorized by that enactment,  subject to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council,

 (b) direct a Minister to exercise a power, duty or function of the Minister, or

 (c) issue directives to a provincial entity and its members, officers and agents, and the Crown and its Ministers and agents, in respect of the federal initiative.

(2) A directive issued in accordance with subsection (1)(c) may be general or particular in its application.

(3) Where there is a conflict or inconsistency between

 (a) an order made or an order that is directed to be made under subsection (1), and

 (b) a provision of a regulation to which the order relates, the order prevails to the extent of the conflict or inconsistency.

(4) For greater certainty, a regulation as referred to in this section does not include an Act of the Legislative Assembly.

(5) Nothing in this Act abrogates any authority or power vested in the Legislative Assembly or the Lieutenant Governor in Council by any other enactment or by operation of law, including any authority or power of the Lieutenant Governor in Council to take action with respect to the federal initiative.

What's all this mean?

Well, good luck in finding out.  The U.S. press doesn't follow Canadian politics at all, even in those regions where you would think it should.  Alberta is just north of Wyoming and many Albertans come through and work here, but the local news isn't covering it.  Canadians themselves, as part of their culture, tend to keep all of their complaints big secrets, so they'll never actually tell you what's going on.  We're more likely down here to find out about the blathering of some Pop Tart or Pop Twit, or the fastest weird tweet from Donald Trump written all in caps and featuring weird diction, than we are about something going on in Canada that really matters.

What we can say about Canada is this.  Canada has undergone massive societal and cultural shifts since the 1950s.  The country was once extremely English, save for in Quebec, and in a conservative way.  Quebec itself was extremely conservative as well, but in its own Quebecois way.  Starting in the late 1950s, Canada began to jettison its culture in this fashion and has gone the other way.  Laws regarding speech are in the books which would be unconstitutional in the US, and the country more or less has an unwritten highly liberal ethos in which things to the contrary are not culturally allowed, no matter what people may actually think.  A culture of Canadian politeness operates in this so that, at least on the surface, Canadians go along and don't interject their personal views much.  In the Canadian West, however, this meets opposition, but even there the culture of Canadian politeness operates so that you just have to know what's going on, as at least to non Canadians, Canadians aren't telling.

Canadians are also a very proud people and bristle at statements from outsiders, as a rule, that everything might not be prefect.  A claimed statistic I saw today, however, would suggest that more Canadians died of euthanasia within a referenced time frame than of COVID 19 which may be a tribune to its COVID 19 policies, but which serves to illuminate the introduction of euthanasia, which is distressing.

The trucker's convoy briefly brought out Canadians who were latent Trump supporters, oddly enough.  The difficulty of knowing what's going on in Canada from the outside, and its own culture of not really saying anything if strangers are invited to the dinner table, however, may be suppressing a bit a news story that's similar to what's been going on here for some time.

Following this act's passage, there were indications from Alberta's leadership that it might have to seek a referendum on, essentially, separation.

It'll be interesting to see how this develops.

Was Shakespeare Right? Should We Kill All the Lawyers? - Minding The Campus

Was Shakespeare Right? Should We Kill All the Lawyers? - Minding The Campus: I always thought that William Shakespeare was a bit too harsh when, in Henry VI, Part 2, he said “Let’s kill all the lawyers.” Given the antics of our nation’s leading law schools and the American Bar Association (ABA), however, perhaps Shakespeare was onto something when he penned those words over four centuries ago. In […]

Let the duels begin?

The other day, we posted, in jest, about the "less government, more freedom" line of some members of the GOP that now duels could be legal and how nifty that would be. 

And now, in a five to two decision, the Wyoming Supreme Court has held as follows about an apparently high and intoxicated fellow who seems to have been a general nuisance at a campground and who shook a vehicle an armed person, who had encountered him earlier, was sleeping in. That person's view was, apparently, that the high person was attempting to break in the car, although according to the opinion, there was no obvious physical evidence of that.  The person, who had been camping for several days in an Albany County campground in his car (and car camping isn't really that unusual) ended up shooting the other guy in the leg, with a .22.  Apparently the shot guy was high enough, it would seem that he didn't even really grasp that at first.

The Supreme Court held, in part:

[¶41] We find the record contains facts from which a jury could have concluded Mr. Pickering was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering Mr. Howitt’s habitation. After thoughtfully and thoroughly examining the record, the dissent reached the opposite conclusion. This illustrates the fact-intensive nature of this inquiry and highlights the need for this factual question to be resolved by the jury.

[¶42] In Widdison we stated: “[t]he determination whether [the victim’s] home was [the defendant’s] residence was a question that had to be answered before the jury could have been instructed on the castle doctrine.” 2018 WY 18, ¶ 23, 410 P.3d at 1213. This language should not be read as requiring the trial court to bifurcate the proceedings and have the jury determine the factual questions surrounding the castle doctrine before the court determines what self-defense instructions to give. The trial court has the discretion to determine the best method for allowing the jury to resolve factual questions surrounding the castle doctrine. A trial court may choose to bifurcate the proceedings or use instructions and a detailed special verdict form to allow the jury to resolve all the factual questions raised by the evidence.

CONCLUSION

[¶43] Mr. Howitt presented competent evidence to create factual issues about whether hisvehicle was adapted for overnight accommodation and fit within the definition of a habitation and whether Mr. Pickering was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering that habitation when he was shot. The district court should have allowed these factual questions to be resolved by the jury. We reverse and remand for a new trial.

There were two dissents, including that of the Chief Justice. The dissent, written by a Justice who was a very long serving district court judge before becoming a Wyoming Supreme Court Justice:

[¶47] The majority opinion does not find the statutory language ambiguous, and it is not.It is entirely plain and unambiguous. We should rely on the plain meaning of the wordsand phrases the legislature used. See Ailport v. Ailport, 2022 WY 43, ¶ 22, 507 P.3d 427,437 (Wyo. 2022) (“If the [statutory language] is sufficiently clear and unambiguous, theCourt simply applies the words according to their ordinary and obvious meaning.”) (citations and quotation marks omitted).[¶48] The plain meaning of “in the process of” is “working on (doing something) thattakes a certain amount of time to do[.]” https://www.merriamwebster.com. The plain meaning of “forcefully enter” is “to go into” “in a forceful, powerful or emphatic manner.”https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/forcefully and https://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/enter. Under these definitions, it was appropriate to give thestatutory castle doctrine instruction only if there was evidence the victim was going into,i.e., entering, Mr. Howitt’s vehicle. Subsection 6-2-602(b)(ii) reinforces the necessity of aphysical effort to enter before the castle doctrine applies by requiring that the defendant knew or had reason to believe “an unlawful and forcible entry . . . was occurring.”(Emphasis added).

[¶49] As the majority recognizes, the facts show the victim neither entered nor made an effort to enter Mr. Howitt’s vehicle. The majority also acknowledges in Paragraph 40 that Mr. Howitt’s subjective belief the victim would attempt to enter the vehicle was clearly insufficient to warrant instructing the jury on the castle doctrine. What the facts show is he never grabbed the door handle, attempted to break the windows, or otherwise tried to gain entry in any manner, much less in a forceful manner. Being in the vicinity of the car, knocking on the windows, bumping the car, and engaging in verbal threats all are insufficient to establish the victim was working on or attempting to enter Mr. Howitt’s vehicle. Even if the victim “lunged,” as Mr. Howitt claimed, that act does not constitute entry, or even an attempted entry. Furthermore, when the shooting occurred, the victim was not doing any of those things.

    * * * 

[¶54] The effect of the majority opinion is to greatly expand the castle doctrine statute in Wyoming. It permits juries to find defendants can use deadly force even though no one is in the process of entering a home, but only knocks on a window, makes a verbal threat, or stands outside. The majority’s approach ignores the statutory limitation of the castle doctrine presumption to circumstances when someone is in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering a home or habitation and permits juries to apply that presumption in speculative circumstances. That simply is not what our statute provides.

[¶55] Because there was no evidence showing the victim was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering Mr. Howitt’s vehicle when Mr. Howitt shot him, the trial court correctly refused to give the castle doctrine instruction. 

Interesting.

Note that this doesn't decide that the shooter was in the right, only that a jury instruction should have been given.  But it does seem to expand the castle doctrine.