So, the issue at Standing Rock is that there is no question that the land is reserve native land but the government maintained an easement for military purposes to access the water. What has transpired is not unfamiliar.

So, the issue at Standing Rock is that there is no question that the land is reserve native land but the government maintained an easement for military purposes to access the water. What has transpired is not unfamiliar.  The easement has a limited and prescribed purpose that does not involve commercial use or commercial purposes. However, many years after the initial provisions concerning the ownership, a commercial entity has sought to achieve some commercial purpose and was not certain how to address the issue or comply with the issue of an easement's limited, non-commercial purposes.  You are to contact the owner of the land who will liaise with the party to whom he granted the easement.  The easement agreement did say that the native community was to receive $ 1 billion dollars a year as of 1968. These monies must be paid.  They could build some condos collectively while each native band member from the age of 12 will receive $50,000.00 per year. If they need additional funds  to start a car dealership, they could seek access to their family's entitlements(now in arrears) via a credit union service and the monies would have to be used for the prescribed purpose of the car dealership or else it would have to be returned. You could, whoever you are,  also stop editing my website since Marie Antoinette did not dress up like her husband as rumored. That was only to make you gay and help certain apostatizing elements expand their community.      If the commercial entity wishes to achieve a commercial purpose using the easement, they would have to liaise with the owner of the land to seek approval, requisite approval to use the easement since the military purpose does not provide the military with ownership rights but a right to access for military purposes in the same way that an easement could be granted to electricity, other utility and phone companies or to a neighbor of adjoining lands to cross a property to access a river or a pond for appropriate and private use; and I did not go to school to seek attention but to serve my general community. As such, there really is no issue. The easement could be used for non-military, commercial purposes but because of the unique nature of the easement, the military would have to be consulted to see if their access would remain unfettered and their purposes would have to be considered.  If the owner and the military approve the commercial use of the easement, then some kind of written agreement would have to be arranged and prepared. At standing Rock, a license with a rent for use may be best for both parties as it does not give the commercial use exclusive occupation and the owner could access the land at any time to access the water along with the military.  A lease could be thought of and is helpful since the commercial user will need some kind of exclusive occupation for a reasonable period of time for the prescribe commercial, industrial and limited purpose that could be spelled out in a lease and that  would also recognize the military's continued access rights and the rights of the owners. The pipelines would be demarcated and protected with fencing of some kind so access to the water only would not be an issue for the owner or the military and nor would there be a safety issue.  So, the lease would entitle the commercial user an exclusive occupation at a term with a rent for a specified number of years with an option to renew and the rent in either case(lease or license) would be paid to the owners of the land. This is an excellent exam question for black acre and green acre in property law 101.  In the agreement, each Native band leader would sign and provide details for payment by wire transfer. A separate account for each band could be set up for this particular agreement as the Standing Rock account at their particular financial service provider. The monies could be distributed and used for band purposes with payments to each registered native band member once a month by fedwire transfers and everybody can show up by the river once a year to roast some fresh beaver and baby lambs; thank the creator!

By Warren Augustine Lyon, Consultant.

Child-care workers Lilliane Namukasa, left, and Vivian de Jesus are suing their former employers for unpaid wages and wrongful dismissal. (Adrien Veczan/Toronto Star)

Child-care workers Lilliane Namukasa, left, and Vivian de Jesus are suing
their former employers for
unpaid wages and wrongful dismissal.
(Adrien Veczan/Toronto Star)

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/toronto/caregivers-urge-wage-theft-victims-to-go-public-1.1023507

 shares

Two Ontario caregivers seeking more than $350,000 they allege they're owed for lost wages and wrongful dismissals are urging other workers to come forward to help push for changes in the province's employment standards law.

Lilliane Namukasa, a former Brampton live-in nanny of two small children whose claim filed in Ontario Superior Court came to light  on the weekend, was joined by Vivian de Jesus at a news conference at Queen's Park on Monday.

"Please, for any caregiver in Canada, if you have a problem, don't be scared," Namukasa, who left Uganda to work in Canada, said about her alleged firing about a year ago for no cause.

Now 24, she is seeking $162,000 for breach of contract and unpaid wages, and holiday pay and vacation pay, as well as $33,000 in wrongful dismissal compensation. She is now working as a live-in nanny for three children, and says she is being treated well.

However, Warren Lyon, a lawyer for Namukasa's employer, Beatrice Ssekabira, said via email to various media, including CBC.ca, that Namukasa "was not a candid and forthright, diligent immigrant who made an honest effort to stay in Canada."

Lyon, who is with Angel Ronan S.L.R.P., added: "Be assured that my client is a victim of a very hurtful intention that rested in the heart of her employee."

De Jesus says she cared for an elderly woman and her two adult children with developmental disabilities for 10 years. In the last four years working for them, she alleges, she was living with them and putting in 132 hours a week — almost three times the statutory 48-hour work week — with no overtime pay.

She is now seeking $55,000 in lost wages and $104,000 in other compensation.

"They gave me 20 minutes to pack my bags and get out. If they [other employers] mistreated you, caregivers like us, please come forward and stand up for your own rights," she said.

None of the allegations has been proved in court, and no statements of defence have been filed.

The name of the other employer in question was not immediately available.

Centre pushes for better laws

Namukasa and de Jesus, who are getting pro bono legal representation, were joined at the news conference by Deena Ladd, co-ordinator of the Toronto-based Workers' Action Centre, an advocacy group that aims to improve working conditions for people in low-paying jobs.

Ladd said a survey by the centre released two weeks ago suggests violations of basic labour rights "are the norm" for many immigrant workers in "precarious jobs."

"Workers should have the confidence that when they go to work, they will get paid ... that they will be protected and receive overtime, and vacation pay and statutory benefits. We believe when this does not happen, it is wage theft.

"The province is not doing the job of enforcing employment standards … most [caregivers and other such workers] are fearful of their employers' reprisals, and losing their jobs and the chances of getting permanent residency," she added.

The non-profit centre says the two women's cases are but a fraction of those involving Ontario's most vulnerable workers.

It wants the province to take steps to improve workers' plight that include:

• Raising the cap on money that can be recovered under the Employment Standards Act to $25,000 from $10,000.
• Increasing the six-month limit on monetary complaints to 3.5 years for live-in caregivers, because they must accumulate the equivalent of two years of full-time employment hours before they can apply for permanent residency.
• Put programs in place that educate caregivers and other "vulnerable" workers so they know their workplace rights.

The Ice Cream Truck, the stolen cream and chocolate eggs found in the cream like secret AND precious little seeds.   

By Warren Augustine Lyon.

So, there were ten people in an ice cream truck driving around Santos Avenue right near JN street.  They did not know the truck was stolen so they put their hand in the lovely and cool tubs of coconuts and cream and enjoyed the cool, ready surgical nuclear egg devices. The driver was eventually pulled over and  said "..This is rather unusual but don't worry me love!" The occupants tried to escape as they noticed the rather unusual experience of indigestion with cold cream; cold, cold cream and some of the cream had no sugar which was absolutely the best. The driver said the following to the king in the back named Soothi; "I will call you. Then I will smoothie you while I also accuse you."  They ran like clowns only to be arrested and charged with possession of a weapon.  The actus reus is to be in physical possession but being an occupant in a vehicle is not possession.  Are they guilty of an offence?  The answer is no. But, pourquoi? You must always remember that every criminal matter must have an actus reus or mens rea.  The answer must state each identifiable criminal element in the question. Sometimes, there are several matters disclosed in a question that raises more than one offence in the problem question.  You must spot every issue that appears in the question.  You must also state the defence and the penalty along with the relevant cases. According to Raymond Emson, an author of a book on evidence and a lecturer, you must tell the examiner all that you know. The answer in brief is as follows although penalties and defenses are not outlined but you can distill them in rebutting the presumption concerning possession of a weapon if you are paying attention:  1. To be guilty of an offence, it would have to be shown that  the occupants were not only in possession of the vehicle but also the weapon;  2. As passengers only, they are not in immediate possession of the vehicle.  If they are not in possession of the vehicle, they are not in possession of the weapon; and  3. All of the clowns cannot be in possession of the weapon generally speaking unless it could be shown that they had knowledge of the weapon and that they were involved in some joint enterprise involving the weapon.  To achieve joint enterprise concerning the weapon, they did not need to know the vehicle was stolen.   Even if they had  knowledge the vehicle was stolen for joint enterprise in the theft of the vehicle,  it would not mean that they had knowledge of the contents of the vehicle. It is a stolen vehicle and how can anyone say they were aware of all of the contents that may have been in the vehicle prior to the theft? If the only issue is possession of a weapon in a stolen vehicle, the only person who can be found guilty is usually the driver who is in immediate possession of the vehicle and who is also presumptively aware of the vehicle's contents that include the stolen  weapons although there is no proof that he had knowledge of the contents.  But, it is easy to say he was are the vehicle is stolen except for one other issue. What if he borrowed the vehicle?  Each case will always be distinguished on its own facts and there is no evidence in this tiny case scenario to suggest the vehicle was borrowed.   The weapons were in tubs of ice cream.   The driver may not have known of the eggs in the naturally round and well contoured glove box in addition to the eggs in the ice cream tubs.  He will suffer the consequences of the eggs if he is to make contact with them.   The passengers might have had knowledge of the vehicle being stolen or of the weapons in a joint enterprise but if they did, this knowledge would have to be demonstrated so that it could be said they had sufficient mens rea to establish guilt as far as being knowingly in possession of a stolen vehicle and, more importantly, the key concern being the weapons  of mass destruction. So, what can you prove concerning any one of those ten individuals so that we can all go home and enjoy our homes and our Nets that need to catch some balls?  .

  In any event, the Crown cannot advocate convictions without evidence at trial.  It would be an error and an omission.  They could advocate a resolution that involves a withdrawal of charges with community service completed up front with proof since the Crown is the only person carrying  an onus to prove anything.  You cannot advocate a verdict that is ultra vires in any circumstance such as advocating attempted murder as a sentence in a murder trial. It is ultra vires and will remain so unless the person is found alive before sentencing. If he is found alive, then it should not have been a murder trial but a trial for attempted murder or assault causing bodily harm but if you are a  centcom assassin (formerly black friar or hotstone) and you kill under orders of the state, then you cannot be held or charged for murder  since you are just following instructions.  If you are not patched into the system as a local cop or priest while on assignment in a particular jurisdiction, then you may have to avoid capture by the local police service which is a redundancy and an unnecessary distraction to your work to protect the Britmilahcracy.

By Warren Augustine Lyon.