LordEd wrote:So we can say (Menardian style) that Burnaby49 and Quatloos are judicially recognised.Burnaby49 wrote:What I can say is that Quatloos and I have been a topic of discussion in British Columbia courts.
Are these cases to be reported in the sovereign forum or the detaxer forum?
You'll find out when they are posted. It's going to be a while because of the issue of publication bans.
I am currently attending, or trying to attend, five trials. Three have publication bans. These three are entirely separate trials with separate defendants. All have individual publication bans imposed and one has, as I understand it, a second ban imposed because of my presence at trial. Don't bother asking how you can impose a ban on top of a ban, I'm confused myself. Publication bans are automatically lifted at the conclusion of a trial so I could normally publish my report on each trial as soon as a decision is given. However in this situation I can't if I want to include full coverage. A while ago the three defendants had a joint application hearing, a combined trial hearing to resolve a common issue. That hearing is covered by all three bans (or four, or maybe even five, I've lost track) so I can't report on the application hearing for any of them until the last of their trials is concluded. Two may be done in a few months but the third is quite late in the year. I can either wait until the third trial is concluded and include the application hearing in all three write-ups or I can publish the first two as soon they finish by leaving the hearing out. I prefer the former because I think the hearing is significant.
It's enough to drive me to drink if I wasn't already there.