kyla lee

Weird and Wacky Wednesdays: Episode 336

This week on Weird and Wacky Wednesdays, we’re diving into the world of people who thought they could ignore a judge’s ruling—only to find out the hard way that the law doesn’t take kindly to being ignored. While this might seem like a legal technicality, the reality is that court orders exist for a reason. If even a single individual can disregard them without consequence, it undermines the entire system. Unfortunately, history has shown that when those in power decide that court orders don’t apply to them, the results can be catastrophic.

Let’s take a look at three bizarre cases where people ignored court orders—and paid the price.

A Landlord’s Jailhouse Redemption

In 2019, a New York landlord named Joseph Amoroso learned that ignoring a judge’s order can come with a hefty cost. Amoroso had been ordered by the court to repair multiple dangerous violations in his apartment building—things like broken windows, severe mold, and rat infestations. Instead of making the necessary fixes, he decided to double down and evict tenants who dared to complain.

The court wasn’t amused. After multiple warnings, the judge issued a bench warrant, and Amoroso found himself locked up in Rikers Island until he agreed to comply. Even then, it took a $500,000 fine and an additional lawsuit before the city forced him to clean up his act. Turns out, being a slumlord doesn’t pay—especially when you try to ignore the law.

The Anti-Vax Mom Who Fought the Law (and the Law Won)

In 2017, a Michigan mother named Rebecca Bredow made headlines when she refused to comply with a court order requiring her to vaccinate her son. The case started as a dispute with her ex-husband, who wanted their child immunized. A judge ruled in favor of the father and ordered Bredow to get the vaccinations done.

Rather than comply, she stood her ground—claiming it was her “parental right” to refuse. The judge disagreed. Bredow was sentenced to seven days in jail for contempt of court and, in a brutal twist, her son was vaccinated anyway while she was locked up.

Ignoring court orders doesn’t make you a hero—it just makes you a cautionary tale.

The “Sovereign Citizen” Who Evicted Himself

If there’s one group of people who love ignoring court orders, it’s sovereign citizens. In 2015, a Florida man named Julio Garcia decided that the law didn’t apply to him. When he was evicted from his home for failing to pay his mortgage, he simply moved back in and declared himself the “rightful owner.”

A judge issued a restraining order, barring him from returning, but Garcia wasn’t about to let a silly piece of paper get in the way. He changed the locks and even rented the house out to new tenants, claiming it was now his property under some obscure, made-up legal principle.

His luck ran out when the police arrived and charged him with trespassing, fraud, and burglary. Instead of living rent-free, he ended up in jail—without even a house to return to.

The Big Picture

These cases might seem amusing, but they illustrate a serious point: the moment a government, individual, or organization decides that court orders are optional, the rule of law collapses. Whether it’s a landlord ignoring safety regulations, a parent refusing a custody ruling, or a political figure refusing to follow a judge’s orders, the results are the same—chaos, consequences, and, often, jail time.

As we’ve seen in recent weeks, ignoring court rulings isn’t just a personal risk—it’s a warning sign of something much worse. When those in power decide that laws don’t apply to them, history has shown that it doesn’t take long before the rest of the legal system follows suit.

That’s it for Weird and Wacky Wednesdays! Tune in next time for more bizarre legal tales that make you wonder how people thought they could get away with it.

Weird and Wacky Wednesdays: Episode 336 Read More »

Kyla Lee in The Tyee: Pierre Poilievre’s Pipe Dream: Imprison Drug Users for Life

In December 2022, Conservative Party of Canada Leader Pierre Poilievre wrote in a National Post op-ed, “People struggling with addiction belong in treatment, not prison.” Last week, he unashamedly called for many of those same people to be imprisoned for life.

It was a stunning culmination of Poilievre’s opposition to drug decriminalization and harm reduction policies, including supervised consumption sites (which Poilievre referred to as “drug dens”) and prescribed alternative drug programs.

Kyla Lee in The Tyee: Pierre Poilievre’s Pipe Dream: Imprison Drug Users for Life Read More »

Testimonial Accommodations and Hearsay: Cases That Should Have Gone to the Supreme Court of Canada, But Didn’t!

Welcome to “Cases That Should Have Gone to the Supreme Court of Canada, But Didn’t!”

Today, Kyla Lee from Acumen Law Corporation discusses a significant case involving testimonial accommodations and hearsay exceptions, raising concerns about the right to cross-examination in criminal trials.

Testimonial Accommodations and Hearsay: Cases That Should Have Gone to the Supreme Court of Canada, But Didn’t! Read More »

When Traffic Stops Become Charter Breaches

Imagine a situation where police stop a car, and things escalate from there, leading to a big legal battle over whether the evidence they found can even be used in court. That’s essentially what happened in the case of R. v. Anwyll, a case that highlights how important it is for the police to follow the rules under the Charter.

This case demonstrates the intersection of driving law and Charter rights, specifically concerning the legality of vehicle stops for prohibited driving and subsequent police actions.

This case is particularly relevant for driving law, as it highlights the limitations of police authority under the Motor Vehicle Act (MVA) and the consequences of exceeding those limits.

When Traffic Stops Become Charter Breaches Read More »

Navigating Traffic Court: Guilty Pleas, Defences, and Appeals

Close-up of a hand adjusting an unbalanced golden scale of justice, symbolizing inequality or bias in decision-making processes.

Traffic court can be confusing and overwhelming. Discussions with officers in the hallway outside court can persuade self-represented accused person who believe they have a defence to plead guilty. They are told that their defence may be taken into account on sentencing. For most people, they think this will help with the points. But the power of the court on a guilty plea in traffic court can be limited.

The recent British Columbia Supreme Court case of R. v. Hessabi, 2024 BCSC 1572, sheds light on some of these complexities in traffic court proceedings, particularly when a defendant attempts to argue that their actions were justified by necessity.

This case, which involved an appeal of a guilty plea to a charge of changing lanes unsafely, demonstrates the importance of understanding legal defences and the court process.

Navigating Traffic Court: Guilty Pleas, Defences, and Appeals Read More »

Weird and Wacky Wednesdays: Episode 335

It feels like American has lost its mind. This week on Weird and Wacky Wednesdays, some folks in the legal world appear to have lost their minds. We start with a law firm scandal that makes office politics look tame, a woman’s crusade to keep her holiday decorations up at all costs, and a baffling retail policy that makes shopping for garden tools an adventure. It’s just another week where logic takes a backseat to the absurd.

Weird and Wacky Wednesdays: Episode 335 Read More »

Similar Fact Evidence: Cases That Should Have Gone to the Supreme Court of Canada, But Didn’t!

Welcome to “Cases That Should Have Gone to the Supreme Court of Canada, But Didn’t!”

Today, Kyla Lee from Acumen Law Corporation examines a sexual assault case involving similar fact evidence, raising key concerns about fairness in criminal trials.

Similar Fact Evidence: Cases That Should Have Gone to the Supreme Court of Canada, But Didn’t! Read More »

Kyla Lee on CTV News: A&W manager who suffered life-changing burns when car hit the restaurant can’t sue driver

Ruby Punzalan was on shift as an area manager at a North Vancouver A&W last March when a car in the drive-thru hit the restaurant. The impact splashed burning hot oil from the deep fryer all over her face and body.

“I almost died,” said Punzalan. “I spent three weeks in ICU with the life support and almost one month in burn recovery.”

Kyla Lee on CTV News: A&W manager who suffered life-changing burns when car hit the restaurant can’t sue driver Read More »

The Most Common Sentences for a First DUI in Canada: What to Expect

A distressed man sitting in a car at night with a police car's flashing lights visible through the window, holding his head in frustration.

Being charged with a first DUI in Canada can be an overwhelming experience, and understanding what penalties you might face is crucial for preparing yourself and navigating the legal process.

A DUI conviction can have significant repercussions, even for a first-time offence, impacting your employment, travel, and personal life.

This post aims to clarify the typical sentences imposed for a first DUI in Canada, explain the factors that can influence these penalties, and emphasize the critical importance of securing skilled legal representation.

The Most Common Sentences for a First DUI in Canada: What to Expect Read More »

Scroll to Top
CALL ME NOW