Tuesday, July 29, 2008

checking up on the overachievers: part two, or, blogging the first day of second year

View Larger Map

6:00 a.m.: I got up this morning, had a bath (my new apartment doesn't have a shower curtain yet, so washing is strictly horizontal), ate the shitty one-sided first slice of a loaf of bread, and was on the subway at about 6:45. It takes under 4 minutes to walk from my apartment to the subway. It's a nice walk right now. In December it will be dark and blustery. But that can wait.

6:45 a.m.: One nice thing about getting up at such a horrendous hour is the subway is uncrowded and there's nobody on it you know. I was permitted to read in peace and didn't have to tell anyone about my summer --- they can read the blog --- or pretend to care about anyone else's.

7:30 a.m.: During the walk between the York Lanes bus stop and Osgoode Hall, I got that cold, tight feeling in my stomach and I felt like crying a little bit. I chose to interpret this as a sign that I am excited --- nay, thrilled, thrilled! to be back at school. In the foyer were a bunch of orientation leaders in rather attractive Osgoode soccer jerseys. Their excitement was non-sarcastic.

8:45 a.m.: My nerves diminished somewhat over the next hour and a half while I stood in line to purchase some books and a locker. These purchases set me back $313 and I am by no means finished. The staff were unwilling to let me buy a locker with an absent locker partner, but just as I was about to lose my spot in line, somebody else volunteered to share with me and screw over my proposed partner. Win-win for everyone! Except my original partner, she loses.

8:50 a.m.: I know no one here. How is this possible? I was here for a year, an interminable year! So far I've seen like ten people I recognize. One of them told me she was surprised that I had returned, given how much I hated first year. I wasn't aware this was common knowledge. I don't know how to feel knowing that some of my bile spilled over and affected another person's first year law school experience. I told her that I had resolved to quit if I didn't like my summer job, but that I had liked my summer job enough that I was willing to give it another shot. This was only partially true. It was my mother's idea that I should quit law school if I didn't like my summer job, and I only tacitly agreed. I don't like quitting, because Greens Do Not Quit, I Am An Army Of One, O'Doyle Rules, Mandelbaum, Mandelbaum, Mandelbaum, etc.

10:00 a.m.: The cafeteria at Osgoode has been "renovated". The walls have been painted a more lawyerly colour and the dated inspirational posters have been removed and replaced with nothing; now we're a lost cause. The Asian kitchen staff has been replaced with presumably a more agreeable Caucasian troupe. I feel bad for the old staff. I hope they found a better home, with windows and adequate ventilation. The coffee remains execrable, but the number of blends has been reduced from three to one, because obviously the problem with the coffee before was Choice.

10:35 a.m.: Shortly before it was scheduled to begin, I dropped out of Intensive Legal Research & Writing. If they're going to put Intensive right in the name, it's clearly not for me. I already know how to use QuickLaw, and, as someone pointed out to me earlier today, I am good at binding documents. Instead I'm taking Intellectual Property at 12:30 with the professor who last year gave me my best-albeit-still-mediocre mark.

12:00 p.m.: Tomatoes should be kept separate from bagels until the two are ready to be served.

12:30 p.m.: My IP prof is a deep bronze colour. I recall from first year Property class that she has a chalet in Italy. It appears she has made good use of it this summer. I know four people in this class by name, in a class of 40 or 50. My section was a quarter of last year's first-year class; this is a statistical anomaly.

12:50 p.m.: Dear God, did she just say we might be relocating downtown during construction of the Osgoode addition? Please let this be true.

1:05 p.m.: 15% of the mark for this class comes from "the blogging component". [Tim Allen sound!]


Conclusion, one week later: Second year is already less loathsome than first.  Even the individuals whom I found most unbearable last year now have a place in my heart, in large part because new, more annoying people have emerged to overshadow them. I haven't managed to get up at 6:00 a.m. since that first day, but I haven't missed any classes either, so things are looking up. As I anticipated, my Criminal Law-related courses are far more compelling to me than anything I've taken heretofore, but even the money stuff, Business Associations and I.P., don't make me want to hole-punch myself to death. At this stage I can even delude myself into believing that I may enjoy this term. Is it premature to say that New Model Will is being forged?


Friday, July 25, 2008

Construction on Spadina subway extension to begin!

Hooray! And it could be finished as early as 2015! Oh what wonderf -- wait.

Some emails from the Department of Justice

There is water on the floor in the ladies washroom [in the Exchange Tower, in Toronto], please be careful.
So and So
Ontario Regional Office
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
The Exchange Tower
130 King Street West, Suite 3400, P.O. Box 36
Toronto, Ontario
M5X 1K6

Hi William. I'd like to confirm that August 1, 2008 is your end date with us. Please advise. Thank you.
Such and Such
Public Prosecution Service of Canada
Ontario Regional Office
The Exchange Tower
130 King Street West
Suite 3400, Box 36
Toronto, Ontario
M5X 1K6

Many of our Individual Learning Plans (ILP's) are not fully completed.

To be properly completed, you have to click on "Save final version" and send it to your manager for approval. It has to be in final form in order for your manager to approve it.

Once it is approved, a hard copy has to be dated and signed by you and your manager. The hard copy then goes to HR.

Please do your best to finalize your ILP's and forward them to So and So by the end of the month, so we can finalize the PREA process. These ILP's have to be attached to the PREAs.

Thank you for your cooperation.

So and So
Public Prosecution Service of Canada/Service des poursuites pénales du Canada
Ontario Region Office/Bureau Région de l'Ontario
The Exchange Tower/la tour Exchange
130 King Street West/130 rue King ouest
Suite 3400, Box 30/Piéce 3400, CP36
Toronto, Ontario/Toronto, (Ontario)
M5X 1K6

Does anyone have any boxes??????
Legal Assistant
Anti-Organized Crime Team
Public Prosecution Service of Canada
130 King Street West, Ste. 3400
Toronto, Ontario
M5X 1K6

Thanks to all of you who have volunteered for the Habitat for Humanity project. The response has been wonderful: we already have considerably more than our maximum of 20 volunteers for December 5. I've asked about arranging a second day, but at this point Habitat is fully booked through 2008 and is not yet taking bookings for 2009. (We're on a waiting list in case another group cancels, though that is apparently not very likely.)

If you still want to volunteer but haven't yet (maybe because December 5 didn't work for you), I can add your name to the list for our to-be-determined second day and confirm with you once we know when it is.

Network connection is down in Brampton office.


Please take note of the above, we hope to have this resolved as soon as possible.

Thank you.

[How did this message get out if the network is down? I smell a rat.]

I am pleased to announce that Mahvish Mian and Lucas Price, who articled last year for us and the Department of Justice, are being called to the bar, and will be joining us this Monday.

Mahvish received her BA in psychology with distinction at York University, and was on the Dean's Honour Roll. She then pursued her legal studies at Osgoode Hall, receiving her LLB in 2007. While studying law, she was active in the Community and Legal Aid Services Programme. Mahvish will be joining our Brampton team.

Lucas received his BA in history and international relations from Mount Allison University in 1998, and went on to acquire his Teacher's Certificate in 2000. After teaching high school for four years, he began his legal studies, receiving his LLB with distinction from the University of Western Ontario in 2007. Elected by his class to give the valedictorian address, Lucas received a number of awards in law school, including the Brian Dickson medal for top oralist in 2006, and the JSD Tory writing prize in 2007. Lucas will be joining our Old City Hall team.

Please join me in welcoming these new counsel to our offices.
Senior guy
Public Prosecution Service of Canada/Service des poursuites pénales du Canada
Ontario Region Office/Bureau Région de l'Ontario
The Exchange Tower/la tour Exchange
130 King Street West/130 rue King ouest
Suite 3400, Box 30/Piéce 3400, CP36
Toronto, Ontario/Toronto, (Ontario)
M5X 1K6

[That one I find especially funny, if only because it confirms how astoundingly unqualified I am to work for these people.]

Hi William.

You're [sic] offer letter is dated until August 1st and as far our HR department is concerned that is your last day. In order to stay until the 6th, David will need to speak to someone else for approval and then there is additional paperwork that will need to be completed.

Senior Guy, can you or David let me know once approval for Will's extension has been given (or not), please. Thank you.

Once again there is water on the floor in the ladies washroom, someone has been contacted to clean it up, please attend at the 34th floor washroom.

Thank you.
Other Person
Ontario Regional Office
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
The Exchange Tower
130 King Street West, Suite 3400, P.O. Box 36
Toronto, Ontario
M5X 1K6

Thursday, July 24, 2008

"Accuse the accuser; typical pee narc tactic!"

If anyone other than my brother knows from whence the above quotation is derived, I will eat my stapler. It is a black Corporate Express stapler, rather than a red Swing Line stapler, which obviously anyone would prefer. Corporate Express is a funny name for an office supply company though, so it gets some points there.

This has been a pretty boring week. I've gone to Video Remand court every morning, then come back to the office and vetted files. These always offer some amusement --- here a kid walks into the courthouse carrying $400 worth of drugs, there a police officer detains someone for no reason other than that he looks shady --- but mostly they're tedious.

Sometimes I read about the other other half. Or the first half, I suppose. They must be busy up there in the clouds: their blog output is declining. I worry for them.

Once I drew a map of my Toronto neighbourhood using a ruler and Google Maps as a guide, then photocopied it and filled in the street names. I didn't docket a lot of hours that day, but I had a great 8 1/2" x 11" reference for my weekend of frenzied house hunting.

Tomorrow I might get to do some summary guilty pleas. I did this last Friday. It was interesting to see the accused in person rather than on a video screen (they're the same but better dressed), to have an actual impact on the administration of justice rather than just endorsing dates and telling defence lawyers that their disclosure is not ready, and to be in front of an honest to god judge rather than a justice of the peace. I recommended a sentence of one day with time served for a nineteen-year-old girl incarcerated for marijhuana possession. She had been in jail for 22 days for possession of 0.2 grams -- hardly enough to get your cat stoned, should you be so inclined. She got the time, however, because she had been charged with trafficking in another province and was in violation of a condition of her probation not to leave that province. (She was also carrying a cell phone, in violation of another condition, but as the judge pointed out, every nineteen year-old in the country has a cell phone.) I was there when she went in the clink, too: it was the Saturday before Father's Day, and she cried when she found out she wouldn't be getting out. I felt bad for her. I guess that's something I'll have to get over if I want to do something like this for a living.

Did I mention she left her kid in the other province?

As I was leaving the courthouse she was outside talking to a friend. (In person, not by phone.) It was awkward walking past her, acting like I hadn't just read her offence to the court and (sort of but not really) held her fate in my hands. She didn't look thrilled to see me either. Last I saw her she was heading downtown.

Hopefully tomorrow I'll get to give somebody a real punishment. Maybe something with hard time!

Friday, July 18, 2008

This week in bad news: this is where I'm moving!

Don't tell my mom that this is 200 yards from my new apartment. She's a worrier.

And hey, thanks, Toronto Star, for as always quoting the most thoughtful and perceptive comments made by your interviewees, casting them in a reasonably favourable light:
“My heart was beating a lot and I was like, f--k, this is real, for sure,” Biginelli said.

Thursday, July 17, 2008

"Officer Safety Reasons"

I'm getting sick of people going to jail for CDSA offences because of quasi-lawful searches. The police have found a loophole---namely, R. v. Mann---by which they can search anyone whom they suspect might be carrying drugs, but whom they have no reasonable grounds to search: those people might be carrying knives or guns that could put the officer's life in jeopardy, so they must be searched for "officer safety reasons".

Perfectly reasonable, right? What about when it's a seventy-five-year-old man who was pulled over for failing to come to a complete halt at a stop sign? Is it really likely that the officer feared for his safety? According to the file I'm reading right now, one did.

In fact, I fully expect that the officer knew the accused, knew that he would be carrying drugs and was following him until the guy made the slightest traffic error. Which he did -- really the slightest traffic error conceivable. And this file is far from the only one of its kind.

I'm sure pretty that soon the courts will likewise have had enough of this and the loophole will be closed. But until then, don't commit any HTA offences, because you look like you could be a cop killer.


Edit: that old bastard turned out to have a bunch of flick knives on him. Serves me right for getting all hot and bothered.

Wednesday, July 16, 2008

Duty counsel was Hugo Chávez

A guy with mental health issues was in video remand today, claiming his attorney was Raúl Castro.

Tuesday, July 15, 2008

Fun with QuickLaw: the F word

I typed "fuck" into QuickLaw in one of many idle moments today. It got 1811 results. The winner was R. v. Littlecrow, [2007] S.J. No. 603, with 20 hits. Reproduced here is the scintillating passage that put it over the top:
46 A second telephone call was intercepted on November 12, 2004 (call fifteen), between Gerald and Donna. In respect to the trial, at page seven in response to Donna as to what Felicia should do, Gerald says she should "just talk to Roberta". "You (Donna) should go there and just ah ... fuckin' ask her if she's gonna show or anything." Donna: "Mmmm ... hmmm. See where she is."

47 On November 6, 2004 (call sixteen), Donna and Gerald spoke again on the telephone and the trial was apparently once more a topic of conversation. At page three Gerald asked if she got ahold of Roberta. Donna replied that Felicia said that when she went, nobody was home. Gerald said she should try again, "'cause fuck man two more days. 'Cause if I get found guilty I'm gonna be fuckin' ... they're probably gonna ask for two years. Fuck."

48 The same theme was allegedly addressed by Gerald and Donna in the final intercepted communication, which occurred on November 16, 2004 (call seventeen). At page fifty-three Gerald said "Well fuckin' take your walk there, Donna." To which she replied, "I'll ask Felicia when she gets back." Further, at page fifty-six Gerald says "Go for that walk today then Donna?" Her response, "Yes". Finally at page sixty-three he states "And go there because I want to get out." To which she replied, "Yes, yes".

49 The Crown submits that the foregoing nature of communications between Gerald Littlecrow and Donna Littlecrow constituted a scheme between them to attempt an obstruction of justice by dissuading material witnesses from testifying in the pending trial. The same allegation is made against the co-accused, Gregory Littlecrow. However, as noted, the focus for him was primarily one intercepted communication. It was part of the October 5, 2004 call (call seven). It appeared to have originated at a party, where various people took turns speaking to Gerald Littlecrow, including Gregory Littlecrow. The whole discussion between them, commencing at page twenty, line nineteen is as follows:

LITTLECROW: Yeah. Let me talk to Greg then.



UNKNOWN: Fuck no. Hahaha. Just Kidding. Hang on then.

GREG: Hey.

LITTLECROW: Hey. What's up dog?

GREG: Fuck all.


GREG: What'cha doing?

LITTLECROW: Fuck, just ... fucking sitting in my cell in a ...

GREG: (inaudible) sitting in your cell, playing jail bro?

LITTLECROW: You know how it is, eh.

GREG: Yeah. Playing jail.


GREG: So, fuck bro man. You might be out in two weeks if this shit goes good eh?

LITTLECROW: Well, next Tuesday I got court.

GREG: Next Tuesday bro?


GREG: Right on. Fuck. Fuckin' A.

LITTLECROW: Just tell him fuckin' ...

GREG: Yeah bro man.

LITTLECROW: Fuck. It's all good ...

GREG: We're ...

LITTLECROW: If you don't ...

GREG: We're gonna fuckin' go there man.

LITTLECROW: It's all good if you guys don't man.

GREG: Yeah.

LITTLECROW: Nothing more (inaudible) squashed be squashed if you don't show eh?

GREG: Yeah. Fuck yeah man. Yeah.

LITTLECROW: Just tell him that. Fuck.

GREG: Mmmhmm. And there's gonna be a lot of us to go there man. (inaudible)

LITTLECROW: Fuck yeah. It's a mission for you guys.

GREG: Yeah. That's our fuckin' drunken mission. Yeah. Not drunken, but fuckin' that's a mission. Yeah. Bro's gotta good Striker. Solid. Fuck. He's a good solid guy. He's got some pads on him. Fuck. He's not skinny man. He's a good guy. He's tall too.


GREG: About the same size as Elwood.


GREG: Yeah. But maybe he's a little bigger than Elwood. Young guy too, but fuck ...

LITTLECROW: Didn't tell you why?

GREG: Fuck, though he looks like Billy though. Haha.

LITTLECROW: Yeah. What time you guys get there then?

GREG: About half hour ago.


GREG: Just walked in. Happy birthday bro. We bought you a case of Colt. He just looks. Really. Haha. And then he comes out. Really. I was like yeah fuck, look. Haha.

LITTLECROW: Right on. Showing ... showing the cuz some love?

GREG: Fuck yeah man. It's his birthday and we're gonna keep going till bros birthday. But, me and bro probably go on a mission tomorrow and make some cash.

LITTLECROW: Oh yeah. Where's Elwood then?

GREG: He's sitting there having a beer. Hey bro. Can I have a drag?

LITTLECROW: Oh yeah. Let me talk to him. Uh ... birthday ... birthday boy.

GREG: Haha. Okay. Peace out bro.

I love it. I love it. What the fuck are they talking about? I think their "drunken ... not drunken" mission is to whale on somebody.

I could never be a cop

As I was leaving the courthouse today I watched a commotion at the metal detector. A guy tried to back through it after the cadets asked him what was in his pockets. They pursued, cuffed and searched him. He had a bottle of pills, Tylenol 3 and probably some other stuff, for which he could not produce a prescription. One cadet asked him if he was under orders not to possess such things, and he put his head in his hands and started to cry.

I felt bad for the guy. He had come to the courthouse just to pay a fine and he didn't think to take the controlled substances (and relatively benign controlled substances, at that) out of his pocket first. The cadet was impassive.

Monday, July 14, 2008

new low

I just ate some noodles at my desk using pencils for chopsticks.

Potential career alternative: court clerk

  • work a scheduled shift
  • get paid by the government
  • know where the lawyers are supposed to be, what they're supposed to do much better than they do
  • see your law school classmates sweat while you observe in relative comfort
  • boss judges around
  • wear sexy robes
  • your law school classmates may not understand your life decision; but since when do you care what those dead-eyed robots think?

Thursday, July 10, 2008


It's a gorgeous day outside and I'm incredibly bored. The video remands finished in a record-breaking hour, the files are vetted, I already took a languorous lunch and now I'm at my desk, looking around. If I had a tennis ball, I would be throwing it against a wall. If I had one of those desktop toys where the little steel bearings swing back and forth, I would be making that bitch clack.

Next Wednesday I'm accompanying my boss to court to assist (read: watch him do all the work) with guilty pleas. Since the Crown and the defence have already negotiated a suitable sentence, I can't imagine this is terribly challenging. Nevertheless, I have reviewed the upcoming files and recorded the proposed sentences.

A little inside baseball:


CDSA s. 4(5) - possession of marihuana in an amount that did not exceed the amount set out in CDSA schedule VIII (to wit, half a gram); CC s. 145 - breach of recognizance:
- $200 fine
- withdraw CC s. 145

CDSA s. 4(5) - possession of marihuana in an amount that did not exceed the amount set out in CDSA schedule VIII (some residue and a joint); CC s. 145 - breach of recognizance:
- criminal record, not drug related
- "this is worth a fine"
- withdraw CC s. 145

CDSA s. 5(4) - possession of marihuana for the purpose of trafficking, in an amount that did not exceed the amount set out in CDSA schedule VIII:
- 45 days + 12 months probation; get treatment -- intermittent is ok.
- CC s. 109 order (weapons ban): 10 years, w/ DNA sample.

CDSA 4(5), 1.4 grams; CC s. 259(4)(a) - driving while disqualified:
- $150 fine
- withdraw CC s. 259

CDSA 5(2) - possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking (6.6 grams); CDSA 5(2) - possession of methamphetamines for the purpose of trafficking (21 tablets); CDSA 5(2) - possession of ecstasy for the purpose of trafficking (8 tablets); CDSA 4(5):
- 6 - 9 months (closer to 9)

CDSA 5(3) - trafficking in a schedule III substance (5 Ritalin pills); CC 355(b) - possession of property obtained by crime, under $5000 (actually $5 cash):
- 12 months probation, w/ treatment
- withdraw CC 355 (b)
- forfeit the $5 ("seriously, it is POC")

CDSA 5(2) - grow op; CDSA 7(1) - production of cannabis marihuana; CC 145 (outstanding charges, P4P 40 grams cocaine):
- 12 months
- something of a tool recidivist; growing pot in London while out on bail in Goderich
- the CC charge stays

CDSA 4(5) - 1.3 grams of cannabis resin; CC 145:
- of note: this guy's offence date was December 29th; must have been a fun New Year's for that family
- withdraw CC 145
- sentence to 15 days consecutive

CDSA 4(3) - possession of 2 pills of hydromorphone:
- fine
- counselling/probation if needed, to address substance issues


So that's that! Nine people with CDSA charges, which will likely be about a quarter of the accused persons pleading that day. I look forward to seeing them in the flesh, rather than on a video screen. And if I'm really lucky, Samuel L. Jackson will gun someone down as they leave the courthouse.

Monday, July 7, 2008

today is a great day

The sun is shining, 12 Court finished in under two hours, I have almost nothing to do and a sneeze just dislodged something from the back of my throat that has been bothering me for a week and a half.

Too much?

Sunday, July 6, 2008

checking up on the overachievers: part one

When I started writing this blog, I didn't really know what I wanted it to be, but I had a pretty good idea of what I didn't want it to be. I didn't want it to be a series of complaints about how hard I'm working, nor a diatribe about how the practice of law is rotting my soul. I frankly don't work hard enough to justify the former, and I'm too fresh and inexperienced to write the latter -- and anyway there are enough of those blogs out there already. I also didn't set out to establish a networking tool to get a leg up in the biz, though apparently this is a popular reason for law blogging. I don't think the biz would be bowled over by my insightful analysis of the R. Kelly trial, or by my refreshing display of empathy for the plight of undercover police officers' families.

In part, I started blogging after an article appeared in my RSS reader about an upstart blog from the summer employees at Cassels, Brock and Blackwell (CSS), a lofty Bay Street firm.

The Cassels summer team seem like nice people. They write earnestly and charmingly about their days, which seem pretty arduous and which I don't envy in the slightest. I bet I would get along with them if I worked there. (In fact, one of them was a friend of mine in undergrad; he doesn't know I've been following his exploits from afar.)

But I don't work there. With my marks, I don't have a hope in hell of working there. I work here, where I have one daily responsibility, followed by several hours of slow, methodical file vetting and once in a while some QuickLaw research. I have more than enough time to publish blog posts about nothing that are read by no one, and lately I go home at five pretty much every day. Unlike the Cassels crew, I don't live up to the stereotype of the frantic summer law student galley slave.

I've tried ... a little bit. I thought for a while that I was doing something wrong, that I was somehow shirking my duties. But today when I ran out of files to vette and asked if there was any more work for me to do, anything, I was told no. I offered to wash the paralegals' cars and was cheerily declined. Aside from video remand court and vetting files, there's just not that much for a student to do around here.

So I read the updates from the Cassels crew. I read their Bay Street at 6 a.m. tell-all, which more than confirmed that I am snoozing the summer away while others are being dynamic and securing a future and an office for themselves in a Toronto highrise. The mere mention of 6:00 a.m. made my ears hot -- I get up at 8:00 and get to work around 8:50.

I read What's the Point and for Whom?, which I was excited to read, thinking it would be an angsty burned-out nihilist screed. It turned out to be a blog-self-analysis not unlike this one. The CSS bloggers, it seems, are likewise staring the oblivion of the internet in the face and are feeling a cold wind blast up at them. The post ended with a message to would-be Bay Street lawyers to find a firm where they are more than rabid automatons, where they are free to explore outlets they might heretofore not have considered -- like blogs. I have none of the all-consuming ambition of such people, and I already have a blog, so this advice is of limited utility to me.

I read One Week by Sarah J. (How are you going to build reputations as rising legal stars if no one knows your last names?) Brash up-and-comer Sarah J. spent her Canada Day reviewing case law. I spent my Canada Day drinking Corona and watching Lost. Clearly we're both winners, only in different games. The game Sarah J. is playing is conducive to a future of wealth and esteem. The game I am playing is conducive to knowing how Lost ends. And quenching of thirst.

I want to have their ability, their ambition and their idealism. I also want to be a snarky blogger, an outsider with a wry perspective. The fact that they have already accomplished both diminishes my already negligible achievement, but it gives me some sense of purpose: where their blog is a marriage of sharp legal intellect with a modicum of blogger malaise, I shall hurl my weight on the other side of the scale, combining feeble legal comprehension with a great deal of wretched blogginess. I hope they keep up their blog, as I will keep up mine. And maybe some day we can be friends.

potential career alternative: process server

  • slightly more popular than tax collector, dog catcher
  • probably a pay decrease
  • won't this shit be done by robots and the internets and microchip implants soon?

Friday, July 4, 2008

an undercover cop just came into the office

to speak to the Crown about his upcoming testimony. I've read a lot about him in police reports but I've never seen him. Very exciting. As is to be expected, he looks pretty rough around the edges. Picture this:Now imagine like the exact opposite of that. More than anything, he looked like a younger, sun-bleached Tommy Chong.

I understand why he looks this way -- if you're gonna lie, you should lie big, and nobody would accuse this guy of knowing how to spell cop, let alone of being one -- but it seems like overkill. How can a man have a decent life when his job requires him to look like a dangerous degenerate? Does the man have a wife and children? Are his children afraid of him? Conversely, if they are not afraid of their father, are they unnaturally affectionate toward or trusting of other skeezy junkies on the street? These questions trouble me.

I'm afraid of the information Google is collecting about me.

I don't want it to start showing me ads based on my search for case law relating to sildenafil citrate trafficking.

Save Legal Aid

Some altruistic law student really needs to go work for Legal Aid at the Elgin Middlesex Detention Centre --- not me, Christ no, but someone. It's a mess down there. Every day, familiar faces appear on the Courtroom 12 video screen, requesting that their next court date be pushed back until they can receive approval from Legal Aid. It has gotten to the point that the Justices of the Peace have begun furrowing their brows and swinging their chins and audibly exhaling through their noses, which I think is a bad sign indeed.

The provincial Crown has promised to look into expediting the process, but there seems to be little he can do. For a variety of reasons, the EMDC facility is often locked down, which means that prisoners are only released from their cells for half an hour per day. This gives them no time to consult with Legal Aid or undergo its apparently lengthy interviews. If an inmate doesn't get an interview, he doesn't get Legal Aid. If he doesn't get Legal Aid, his lawyer pushes back his next court appearance until he can get Legal Aid. The system is so backlogged that some of them are incarcerated for a month before their lawyers can or will act for them. It's frustrating for everyone concerned.

Something has to be done about this. If inmates don't get their Legal Aid soon, the prison will become overcrowded, ultimately leading a situation akin to the scene in Ghostbusters when William Atherton kills the power and all the ghosts get out of the metal box and resume terrorizing Manhattan. It would be like that but with more Oxycodone.

So come on, (both) you altruistic law students: Ellen "Big Mama" Clarke, sixty-year-old godmother of the crack cocaine trade in London Ontario, needs your help!