you needed to have her confirm someone WILL be phoning me back and get her name and or security or id number and a reasonable time frame. not a maybe. they work for us right?
David, I watched your video called bursting bubbles aswell as John harris's "its an illusion" (uk freemans video) and im enjoying the education which is freely being presented by you wiser people in the knowledge of the current legal system. Thanks a lot dude! Not only do you make it easy to understand but your actually quite a funny guy. Thanks a lot :)
hi rob your videos have effectively changed my entire perspective of life i live in pennsylvania but the language you speak is universal and just as compliant here as it is in canada thank you so much for the most valuable education ii am currently setting up a paypal account and will surely make a donation may god and peace be with you
omegasher, I don't know what you are so concerned about. I gave her sufficient information so she would know where to direct my query. Should we not tell them what our questions are unless they are willing to answer it? Should we call them and say "I have a question but I can't tell you what it is. Now direct me to the right party to answer my question."
They need to know what questions are being asked even if they do not know answers so they can direct to right party.
Using someone to "lay some ground work" by asking questions you know they can't answer is not setting a good example for people who also wish to follow in your footsteps, as many people are doing (with out a true understanding of what they are dealing with).
Is this woman you're speaking with someone you have dealt with in the past, or is it just the secretary for th law society?
Even if she did answer with her personal opinion, what would you get out of that? What would that do for your video? It would only be her opinion and not a fact that you can build an argument on.
In the opening you lay out that you want to know "whether or not the section of this act is applicable to people who aren't lawyers." You do not ask her anything to do with that, instead you ask about discrimination based on religion.
And to that effect you already know the answer to your question "whether or not the section of this act is applicable to people who aren't lawyers."
They are not claiming that "people" can't, they clearly state "persons"
Rob you already know the difference!
The question then is "whether or not it's applicable to "persons" who are not lawyers". Clearly as we know it's not applicable to people since it' states persons.
You claim at the beginning of the video that you are asking "whether or not the section of this act is applicable to people who aren't lawyers."
Yet you don't ask her that. Instead you ask her a subjective question that can only be answered by opinion. When we have already established you already know the answer to the question you claim to be posing, that you do not actually pose. Sound like you're using the old bait and switch there Rob.
Also the real question is not "whether or not the section of this act is applicable to people who aren't lawyers."
They are not claiming that "people" can't, they clearly state "persons" Rob you already know the difference!
The question then is "whether or not it's applicable to "persons" who are not lawyers". Clearly as we know it's not applicable to people since it' states persons.
I love how she wouldn't answer the question directly, no deception there. Rob would you mind if she called you Mr Mitee, haha? An interesting thing to ponder, her last name is Wiseman and she's a lawyer. Go figure.
She couldn't answer his question directly because it was a rhetorical question. Her answer would have been speculation and opinion, not fact. She did exactly what she should have done and that is direct Rob to someone who can answer his question. It would help if it was one that could be answered. Also she was a secretary not a lawyer.
She's a lawyer according to the BC Law Society's website.
Since she personally filled the lawsuite against Mr. Mitee I think she should be directly accountable to answer his questions reagrding the nature of their claims.
If she can't, then what grounds are they making the claim?
1. The woman in this video does not give her name. 2. Rob does not indicate that he knows this woman in any way, or that there is a prior history. 3. Lawyers don't usually hang out answering the phone for the law society. They have secretaries for that.
4. Rob did not ask her any questions relating to any claim. He asked a rhetorical question regarding religion and discrimination in ht society.
1. Just because you don't recognize her voice doesn't mean I don't. That was Carmel Wiseman, call her yourself. 604 443 5774
2. You're judging whether he knows her based on what he said?
3. I supposed Lawyers don't have direct lines.
4. Ya he did. Do you even know what's going on, what this is all about? Based on what you've said, it appears you're nitpicking over details when you aren't even familar with the story.
I don't think she can answer your question because it is antagonistic. If she was to answer it it would only be her personal opinion because it likely isn't written in the policy manual that there is discrimination between officials and their power and authority. Of course the only reasonable answer to your question is no.
Then we see she refused to be reasonable. I did not mean to be antagonistic, but if they would simply answer questions honestly there would be no antagonism at all, nor need for it.
My point is that the question was unreasonable and antagonistic to begin with, and impossible for her to answer. Really it was more like you picking on someone who doesn't know what your talking about. You put her in a corner with a question she couldn't answer. I'm not surprised at all at her response, you set her up for it.
Are you for real omegasher Lawyers are in the business of controversy that is how they make their bread. There was nothing antagonistic in the question Rob was seeking clarification of what this Act really means.
The person he was talking to is not a lawyer. She's a secretary. Asking rhetorical questions like "are all justices equal" or "if there's one who's Jewish or Catholic do they have a greater degree of judicial immunity?"
These questions can not be answered by the person he's asking. If he wants real answers he should ask real questions that the person he's asking can answer.
Yes it was. Asking a secretary if she believes that judges have power based on their religion is rhetorical. Even if she said yes, what does Rob get out of that other than her opinion? She did answer his question by directing him to someone more informed than she. Rob was just picking on her.
Yes that is true but in this case Rob was using this woman for the benefit of a video that she doesn't even know shes a participant in, asking her a question that he knows she can't factually answer (putting her in a corner), that doesn't even have anything to do with the question that the video is supposed to be about which is "whether or not the section of this act is applicable to people who aren't lawyers."
She answered his first question by saying "I don't know I'll have to get someone to call you back"
That is about all she is able to honestly answer. He should have given his information and waited to ask the person who called him back. Someone more capable of actually answering his questions.
@omegasher You fail to realize one thing however. The purpose of the work was the creation of a video, and I wanted to establish some groundwork. Additionally, I know for fact that all those calls are recorded, and when it gets passed on, so does the recording, so I was speaking in large part not just to her, but to whoever would be listening to the recording.
I do not fail to realize that at all. I don't feel however that your tactics are sound in this case. For the video you could have said "thanks" and then taped the return call, which would I'm sure be much more interesting. As a role model for people in this process you should be exhibiting the best and most effective means of speaking to people in the system. To me that doesn't include picking on secretaries with questions they can't answer.
Rob clearly tried to avoid confilcit here and they wanted no part of it. The Law Society made very little effort to 'avoid conflicty' even the average government agency would have made more of an effort, let alone a society that is supposed to "...preserve and protect public interests;;;"
Yes, same here we have JP and JJPs however the authority they have either as a JP or a JJP is not a function of whether they were lawyers or not. All JP's are treated equally, all JJP's are treated equally, but a JP is not a JJP.
The squeaky toy always puts a smile on my face. Thank you R.A.M. for posting good data.
BenZeneProject 11 months ago
you needed to have her confirm someone WILL be phoning me back and get her name and or security or id number and a reasonable time frame. not a maybe. they work for us right?
LOVE THE VIDS ROB
EASTENDGLEN 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
David, I watched your video called bursting bubbles aswell as John harris's "its an illusion" (uk freemans video) and im enjoying the education which is freely being presented by you wiser people in the knowledge of the current legal system. Thanks a lot dude! Not only do you make it easy to understand but your actually quite a funny guy. Thanks a lot :)
ashleelmb 1 year ago
hi rob your videos have effectively changed my entire perspective of life i live in pennsylvania but the language you speak is universal and just as compliant here as it is in canada thank you so much for the most valuable education ii am currently setting up a paypal account and will surely make a donation may god and peace be with you
organictripod 1 year ago
rice is siyonide
iirepoii 1 year ago
the box shows up when the first copy stuff shows up and carries through 1/2 way through the vid. says enter your text here. :)
2livepeacefully 2 years ago
the comment box stays in the centre of the video and covers most of the law copies.
2livepeacefully 2 years ago
@2livepeacefully where do you mean? I will fix it if I can...
mrmitee 2 years ago
@mrmitee
yea during the whole video you have a caption box that says "Enter your text here". Just remove annotations from the video if you can.
pwjm 1 year ago
omegasher, I don't know what you are so concerned about. I gave her sufficient information so she would know where to direct my query. Should we not tell them what our questions are unless they are willing to answer it? Should we call them and say "I have a question but I can't tell you what it is. Now direct me to the right party to answer my question."
They need to know what questions are being asked even if they do not know answers so they can direct to right party.
mrmitee 2 years ago
Using someone to "lay some ground work" by asking questions you know they can't answer is not setting a good example for people who also wish to follow in your footsteps, as many people are doing (with out a true understanding of what they are dealing with).
Is this woman you're speaking with someone you have dealt with in the past, or is it just the secretary for th law society?
omegasher 2 years ago
Even if she did answer with her personal opinion, what would you get out of that? What would that do for your video? It would only be her opinion and not a fact that you can build an argument on.
In the opening you lay out that you want to know "whether or not the section of this act is applicable to people who aren't lawyers." You do not ask her anything to do with that, instead you ask about discrimination based on religion.
omegasher 2 years ago
And to that effect you already know the answer to your question "whether or not the section of this act is applicable to people who aren't lawyers."
They are not claiming that "people" can't, they clearly state "persons"
Rob you already know the difference!
The question then is "whether or not it's applicable to "persons" who are not lawyers". Clearly as we know it's not applicable to people since it' states persons.
omegasher 2 years ago
You claim at the beginning of the video that you are asking "whether or not the section of this act is applicable to people who aren't lawyers."
Yet you don't ask her that. Instead you ask her a subjective question that can only be answered by opinion. When we have already established you already know the answer to the question you claim to be posing, that you do not actually pose. Sound like you're using the old bait and switch there Rob.
omegasher 2 years ago
Also the real question is not "whether or not the section of this act is applicable to people who aren't lawyers."
They are not claiming that "people" can't, they clearly state "persons" Rob you already know the difference!
The question then is "whether or not it's applicable to "persons" who are not lawyers". Clearly as we know it's not applicable to people since it' states persons.
omegasher 2 years ago
Also Rob you're welcome to address this aspect of your video.
omegasher 2 years ago
you say she sounded nice, i agree, tho she did sound blown away, i bet thats the first time she has been asked that one before.
mtrevlac 2 years ago
Sounds like no-ones been up to Mount Carmel lately.
mark191416 2 years ago
I love how she wouldn't answer the question directly, no deception there. Rob would you mind if she called you Mr Mitee, haha? An interesting thing to ponder, her last name is Wiseman and she's a lawyer. Go figure.
Jasn1111 2 years ago
She couldn't answer his question directly because it was a rhetorical question. Her answer would have been speculation and opinion, not fact. She did exactly what she should have done and that is direct Rob to someone who can answer his question. It would help if it was one that could be answered. Also she was a secretary not a lawyer.
omegasher 2 years ago
She's a lawyer according to the BC Law Society's website.
Since she personally filled the lawsuite against Mr. Mitee I think she should be directly accountable to answer his questions reagrding the nature of their claims.
If she can't, then what grounds are they making the claim?
Jasn1111 2 years ago
1. The woman in this video does not give her name. 2. Rob does not indicate that he knows this woman in any way, or that there is a prior history. 3. Lawyers don't usually hang out answering the phone for the law society. They have secretaries for that.
4. Rob did not ask her any questions relating to any claim. He asked a rhetorical question regarding religion and discrimination in ht society.
omegasher 2 years ago
Since we're posting in bullet format...
1. Just because you don't recognize her voice doesn't mean I don't. That was Carmel Wiseman, call her yourself. 604 443 5774
2. You're judging whether he knows her based on what he said?
3. I supposed Lawyers don't have direct lines.
4. Ya he did. Do you even know what's going on, what this is all about? Based on what you've said, it appears you're nitpicking over details when you aren't even familar with the story.
Jasn1111 2 years ago
Exactly maybe omegasher does have an axe to grind :(
whitenightf3 2 years ago
yes_"mr"_boss
resuetil 2 years ago
Great info Rob, as usual.
Try to keep those audio levels under control :-)
nanciqwerty 2 years ago
I don't think she can answer your question because it is antagonistic. If she was to answer it it would only be her personal opinion because it likely isn't written in the policy manual that there is discrimination between officials and their power and authority. Of course the only reasonable answer to your question is no.
omegasher 2 years ago
Then we see she refused to be reasonable. I did not mean to be antagonistic, but if they would simply answer questions honestly there would be no antagonism at all, nor need for it.
mrmitee 2 years ago
My point is that the question was unreasonable and antagonistic to begin with, and impossible for her to answer. Really it was more like you picking on someone who doesn't know what your talking about. You put her in a corner with a question she couldn't answer. I'm not surprised at all at her response, you set her up for it.
omegasher 2 years ago
Are you for real omegasher Lawyers are in the business of controversy that is how they make their bread. There was nothing antagonistic in the question Rob was seeking clarification of what this Act really means.
whitenightf3 2 years ago
The person he was talking to is not a lawyer. She's a secretary. Asking rhetorical questions like "are all justices equal" or "if there's one who's Jewish or Catholic do they have a greater degree of judicial immunity?"
These questions can not be answered by the person he's asking. If he wants real answers he should ask real questions that the person he's asking can answer.
omegasher 2 years ago
What ever her status the question was not antagonistic imho.
whitenightf3 2 years ago
Yes it was. Asking a secretary if she believes that judges have power based on their religion is rhetorical. Even if she said yes, what does Rob get out of that other than her opinion? She did answer his question by directing him to someone more informed than she. Rob was just picking on her.
omegasher 2 years ago
Rhetorical but not antagonistic unless you claim to be a mind reader.
whitenightf3 2 years ago
Asking a question knowing that someone is not able to answer it is antagonistic.
omegasher 2 years ago
Do you understand what the word antagonistic means? How can you speak for the lady and read Rob's mind? I don't see any antagonism at all.
whitenightf3 2 years ago
that's because you're ignorant
omegasher 2 years ago
Antagonize: To incur the dislike of; provoke hostility or enmity.
The question he asked was hostile and provoking.
rhetorical question
Rhetorical Question
noun
a question asked solely to produce an effect or to make an assertion and not to elicit a reply, as What is so rare as a day in June?
omegasher 2 years ago
Rob even admits it was rhetorical. He was using her to try to make a point for his video. How is that not antagonistic?
omegasher 2 years ago
People can ask rhetorical questions without seeming to be hostile, philosophers do it all the time.
whitenightf3 2 years ago
Yes that is true but in this case Rob was using this woman for the benefit of a video that she doesn't even know shes a participant in, asking her a question that he knows she can't factually answer (putting her in a corner), that doesn't even have anything to do with the question that the video is supposed to be about which is "whether or not the section of this act is applicable to people who aren't lawyers."
That's pretty antagonistic.
omegasher 2 years ago
She answered his first question by saying "I don't know I'll have to get someone to call you back"
That is about all she is able to honestly answer. He should have given his information and waited to ask the person who called him back. Someone more capable of actually answering his questions.
omegasher 2 years ago
@omegasher You fail to realize one thing however. The purpose of the work was the creation of a video, and I wanted to establish some groundwork. Additionally, I know for fact that all those calls are recorded, and when it gets passed on, so does the recording, so I was speaking in large part not just to her, but to whoever would be listening to the recording.
mrmitee 2 years ago
I do not fail to realize that at all. I don't feel however that your tactics are sound in this case. For the video you could have said "thanks" and then taped the return call, which would I'm sure be much more interesting. As a role model for people in this process you should be exhibiting the best and most effective means of speaking to people in the system. To me that doesn't include picking on secretaries with questions they can't answer.
omegasher 2 years ago
Rob clearly tried to avoid confilcit here and they wanted no part of it. The Law Society made very little effort to 'avoid conflicty' even the average government agency would have made more of an effort, let alone a society that is supposed to "...preserve and protect public interests;;;"
guidomith 2 years ago
Please share which act you are reading. Also an enter text box is blocking out most of what we are supposed to be reading.
omegasher 2 years ago
superb work, priceless videos.
i will say it again, PRICELESS VIDEOS UPLOADED BY MRMITEE.
birkhauer 2 years ago
Here in Saskatchewan some JP's have special powers to conduct certain procedures in provincial court
So...No, they are not equal
MrjackieG 2 years ago
Yes, same here we have JP and JJPs however the authority they have either as a JP or a JJP is not a function of whether they were lawyers or not. All JP's are treated equally, all JJP's are treated equally, but a JP is not a JJP.
mrmitee 2 years ago
Nice lyrics. Danceable. I give it four stars and put it in heavy rotation.
KentBarrett 2 years ago
I love these video's and how you do it over a few weeks then upload them. It saves us from the anticipation. :-)
NotMarkk 2 years ago 2
That women did not like you.
or your call.
hahaha
to bad for her,
:-) Rob
Winst0nOBoogie 2 years ago
Thanks Rob. Super Work!
AnOTtOOhOTiSSUE 2 years ago 2