Finally! My Northwest Territory Breakthrough!

I’ll be on in Yellowknife at 7:35 a.m. Monday.

Maybe even better, I’ll be on in Gander at 7:20 a.m. and in Whitehorse at 8:30 a.m.

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation will be doing a series of 6 minute interviews with me Monday morn.  Canada is adapting a U.S.-style “No Fly List.” The CBC wants me to offer some cheerful hints of what Canadians can expect, based on how the list  adds suspense and surprises to so many Americans’ travels.

Here is the full schedule:

7:00 Charlottetown
7:20 Gander
7:35 Yellowknife
7:50 Ontario AM
8:00 P.George/P.Rupert
8:15 Regina
8:30 Whitehorse
8:40 Victoria
9:00 Vancouver

Whitehorse is in the Yukon Territory. This may be the first time since before the Gold Rush that a Bovard popped up in the Yukon and wasn’t pursued by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. 

This is being arranged by the CBC’s Radio Syndication office.

Hmmm… They do syndicating differently up north.


, , , , , ,

13 Responses to Finally! My Northwest Territory Breakthrough!

  1. Carl Bovard June 17, 2007 at 8:14 am #

    We didn’t know there were too many Bovards in Canada. The Royal Canadian Police pursueing a Bovard gave us a chuckle. (There are Bovairds in Canada. Check the phone books for us. We always do!

    We are not in IL right now–so probably won’t get to hear your 6-minute excerpts.

    Do a good job as we know you will.

    Thelma (Carl’s wife.)

  2. americanintifada June 17, 2007 at 10:07 am #

    You better be careful up there, Jim! After you let those Canadiens know the truth about America’s “no-fly nonsense”, the RCMP just may rush you and your precious little “Bovards” right into a local jail. Or do they call it “gaol” up there just like their Olde English compatriots in the UK?

  3. Jim June 17, 2007 at 12:41 pm #

    Lucky for Bovards everywhere that expunging the record was part of the plea bargain settlement.

  4. Jim June 17, 2007 at 12:43 pm #

    Thelma – good to hear from you!

    I would not expect many Bovards in Canada because my impression is that most of the Bovards who emigrated were Huguenots. Besides, the Canadians stayed loyal to the King after 1776, and I suspect there may be a bit of [redacted] in the family blood.

  5. Mace Price June 17, 2007 at 5:05 pm #

    …Jim, are there to your knowledge any replica/practice Bar Exams marketed? I’m Goddamned if at 56, I’m going to sit in a classroom for 4 years to obtain a pre-requisite BA to get into some Law Facility. Particularly in some courses that I could probably teach. While I ain’t no potential Kingfish; you will recall Chief Justice William Howard Taft’s comment on the litigious abilities of one ill educated Huey Pierce Long. “Possesses one on the best legal minds that I have yet encountered in 30 years as a Jurist…”

  6. Mace Price June 17, 2007 at 5:07 pm #

    …That and in my estimation, Nifong got off easy.

  7. Lawhobbit June 17, 2007 at 6:36 pm #

    I don’t think that there are any states left that will let you just sit for the bar – I’m pretty sure they all require a J.D. from an accredited law school. And that means 6-7 years of work, if you’re starting from scratch.

  8. Mace Price June 18, 2007 at 10:26 am #

    …No one, me included should expect to be capable of passing any Bar Exam without first attending a Law Facility, or at the very least having experience as a Legal Clerk. The rub is that you can’t get yourself into any Law School without a BA…There are any number of semi-literates with BA’s. I would know, I helped a College Professor friend correct term papers. And used to write papers for another friend who passed the California Bar on the first attempt–Your thoughts on such a dilemma then Lawhobit. That and could Nifong be charged with Malicious Prosecution? I know the charge is on the books. But don’t know if it would apply to Officers of The Court.

  9. Lawhobbit June 18, 2007 at 10:49 am #

    I’d disagree about the “need” for law school. The 6 week “Bar Prep Course” that most places offer gives you all you need to pass the Bar in most states. All law school does is – supposedly – teach you HOW to think, not WHAT to think. Once I realized I wasn’t going to get into that covetted “Top 10 Percent” I spent most of my time there snoozing – and still am in about the middle third of the class.

    As for the getting-in part, the U of Idaho, at least, will let you in so long as your undergraduate institution will grant you a BA upon completion of your law school experience. That could arguably knock the total time needed down to three years or so. My personal thought is that the Bar license should be like a Goodhousekeeping Seal and nothing more – and that anybody who wanted to sit for the exam should be allowed to do so. My former Congressional representative (I moved, he’s still in Congress) Paul Kanjorski was one of the last attorneys in Pennsylvania to get in that way and I don’t know that it makes any real difference in the quality of legal representation you get. I know plenty of attorneys who can’t analyze their way out of a paper bag, while there are quite a few people who’ve never seen a law school or license who represent themselves (and could presumably do so for others) in court to an excellent professional standard.

    Nifong’s over in North Carolina so I can’t say for sure based on their standards, but I do know that here in Oregon the test is generally “prosecution for purposes other than the enforcement of law.” Evidence there seems to suggest that he was looking for publicity and re-election improvement, so that sure seems to me to be malicious.

    My preference would be to create a new category, though, of “negligent prosecution.” Something has to be done to rein in out-of-control prosecutors if there’s to be any hope for the country….

  10. Mace Price June 18, 2007 at 11:45 am #

    …Thanks all to hell and back for the counsel, Counselor. As for that sonofabitch Nifong. I get the idea that he thought—or wanted to think—That the Ministers of Political Correctness a la the Clintonista’s remained well situated enough in N.C. Politicaly & Judiciously to insulate him from any effective efforts at being held responsible for such a arrogant stunt. Accordingly I believe he also overestimated the Left’s stranglehold on UNC at Chapel Hill, and was ambitious enough to project it Statewide…Or else some highly placed Leftists sucked him in, and he got ambushed…Bottom line: He couldn’t possibly have been stupid enough to prosecute that case without credible assurances that the evidence the sneaking prick withheld, would stay withheld. I mean shit fire man, the News coverage alone revealed the facts of the case publicly, this by the second-third day.

  11. Lawhobbit June 18, 2007 at 1:41 pm #

    I’ve been mostly following it through the eyes of William Anderson over at I think he pretty much nailed it – the guy was pandering for votes and just grabbed more than he was going to be able to hold onto this time. The “criminals” had more in the way of resources to fight and stay in the fight than his usual run of the mill victim. I question some of the recent articles suggesting that this was somehow an aberration; prosecutors like that don’t just suddenly wake up and find themselves on The Dark Side. They have been at it for years and years – but they’ve finally gotten caught. The fact that the boys didn’t just roll over and plead, combined with his need to look good for the election, was what let his id take charge of his brain and off into Stupid Mistakeland he went.

  12. Mace Price June 18, 2007 at 3:44 pm #

    …Sure, had these LaCross players been regular assholes w/numerous priors, the outcome might have been considerably different. What’s that old saying amongst lawyers? “Any Prosecutor can convict a guilty man; but it takes a helluva Prosecutor to convict an innocent man.” Failing that, they would have undoubtedly taken a plea bargain at the suggestion of the Public Defender.

    As for Nifong? If statistics indicate that the average DUI Offender has violated the same statute previous to a first arrest at least 1000 times…Then it follows that Nifong was guilty of applying the same template to the “Sudden aberrant, Dark Side” ethics you’ve refuted just as well. In the end you had a sanitized inversion of The Scottsboro Boys…Yet, personally, I’m inclined to believe that it was a calculated, bloodless assassination of Nifong; who was only too eager to swallow the bait hook line and sinker.

    In view of this angle, I would refer you to the 17th Century case of The British Admiralty vs. Captain William Kidd. Who, was assured before setting out on a voyage cum harebrained scheme to combat Piracy in the Persian Gulf and Red Sea by committing Piracy that: “Noble Lords would stifle all complaint.” It was a remarkable event in that truth is usually stranger than fiction; and in the end Noble Lords didn’t stifle a damn thing. Kidd was convicted and hanged.

  13. Lawhobbit June 18, 2007 at 5:20 pm #

    I think it’s “a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich.”

    On a related note: