I wrote earlier on a legal fight going on with the tranny lobby in British Columbia, Canada. Read that here. In short, the perverts were trying to get the Law Society of BC, LSBC, to pass a rule that said that everybody must declare their pronouns in court, and whatever they say you have to abide by. So if I get up there and call myself Suzie and my pronouns are (tiahs/knorffff), they’ve just got to suck it up and play along.

When we left of last Linde had just sent the OK Corral Gunfight meme to the general public to try to get some eyeballs on the whole thing. Well the resolution passed anyway, and the whole thing not all that important in the first place. Nevertheless, the dilating trannies pretended that Linde’s frankly kind of lame Boomer-tier attempt at a meme was a direct threat of violence towards them. They wrote to the LSBC literally shaking, making sure the voice of the oppressed would not be silenced.

We don’t get to see that complaint. What we do get to see is the letter that the LSBC sent to Carey Linde.

November 30, 2021 

Sent via Portal 

Carey Linde 

Carey Linde Personal Law Corporation 

#605 – 1080 Howe Street 

Vancouver, BC V6Z 2T1 

Dear Mr. Linde: 

Re: The Law Society of BC, Our File No. 20210955 

I write further to our telephone conversation of November 25, 2021. I have now completed  my assessment of the complaint we had received in regards to the bulk email you had sent out  titled “Law Society Blues” which included a picture of two gunfighters holding guns and the  body of the email stating “Don’t Miss the Gun fight at the LSBC Corral”. 

The recipient of the email felt the email was unwelcomed and unsolicited which evoked a  sense of violence and appeared to be an attempt to incite others. They considered the email to  be inappropriate as the upcoming (at the time) vote, as a resolution was related to  introductions in court that is aimed at maintaining respect and dignity amongst all lawyers  including those who historically have been marginalized and have faced greater risk of  violence. They found the use of violent rhetoric in referring to the AGM as a gunfight  concerning. 

I don’t believe this is Sir Fluffy’s impressed face, but do go on.

Although I have concluded that the evidence does not support findings of professional  misconduct on your part warranting a disciplinary response, the investigation revealed  concerns about this type of conduct which could have been avoided if you had considered  whether the email was in keeping with the standards of this profession in light of the  following BC Code provisions: 

Translation: I can’t do anything to you, but you’re being real uppity here you fucking heterosexual. Be careful buddy, or we’re going to have to make an example of you.

2.1-5(c) A lawyer should make legal services available to the public in an efficient and convenient  manner that will command respect and confidence. A lawyer’s best advertisement is the  establishment of a well-merited reputation for competence and trustworthiness.  

2.1-5(f) All lawyers should bear in mind that they can maintain the high traditions of the profession by  steadfastly adhering to the time-honoured virtues of probity, integrity, honesty and dignity.  

2.2-1 A lawyer has a duty to carry on the practice of law and discharge all responsibilities to clients,  tribunals, the public and other members of the profession honourably and with integrity. 


845 Cambie Street, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6B 4Z9 

t 604.669.2533 | f 604.669.5232 

toll free 1.800.903.5300 | TTY 604.443.5700 


Commentary [2] 

Public Confidence in the administration of justice and in the legal profession may be  eroded by a lawyer’s irresponsible conduct. Accordingly, a lawyer’s conduct should reflect favourably on the legal profession, inspire the confidence, respect and trust of  clients and of the community, and avoid even the appearance of impropriety. 

To even respond here is to legitimize this argument as having been made in good faith. I agree that these people are concerned, very concerned, with public confidence in the administration of justice. I agree that Carey Linde is causing problems for these people. But the idea that they hate him because he’s “making threats of violence,” or some other shit is just too absurd to respond to. They want to censor him and use lawfare against him because he’s exposing how utterly anti-democratic and frankly ridiculous these people are.

4.2-5 Any marketing activity undertaken or authorized by a lawyer must not be:  


(e) contrary to the best interests of the public  

Commentary [1] to 4.2-5 includes the following:  

For example, a marketing activity violates this rule if it: 

(c) otherwise brings the administration of justice into disrepute.  

I am closing this file pursuant to Rule 3-8(1)(b) of the Law Society Rules 2015. The Law  Society’s role is to ensure lawyers act in accordance with the high standards of this  profession. In light of the concerns raised here, I recommend that in the future you consider  the extent to which your proposed email or distribution of a message might be contrary to the  best interest of the public or might otherwise bring the administration of justice into disrepute. Similar images depicting violence and stating “Don’t Miss the Gun fight at the LSBC Corral” could be seen as inciting violence and mocking the AGM, the legal profession, or the  administration of justice. It would likely be considered inappropriate and contrary to  maintaining the integrity of the profession.  

A question for the audience. What makes you more likely to want to do murderous violence to the people at the LSBC and other legal institutions: Carey Linde posting a boomer-tier meme, or these people’s sanctimonious and entirely non-reality based response? What diminishes public confidence and respect in the legal profession, Linde or these people?

Similarly in the future when considering sending any communication of a similar nature,  contact a Law Society Practice Advisor to discuss the possible breaches of your ethical  responsibility. 

Classic oppression technique. They can’t actually do anything to him, because he didn’t do anything wrong. However, they pretend that he needs to first talk to an LSBC Advisor before doing… literally anything. So now if he asks them if he can do what he wants, they can say no, without actually needing to legally explain their decision, since it’s just “advice.” If he bother getting their advice, they can tell him that they asked him to get advice beforehand. If he gets the advice, then does what he wants, they can then pretend that him ignoring the advice is grounds for future punishment, whether or not what he actually did could possibly be punished on its own merits.

Having completed my assessment and canvassed these concerns with you, I am satisfied that the valid concerns raised in this complaint have been adequately drawn to your attention  through this process and that no further action is warranted at this time. My decision not to  recommend further action in this case should not be taken as an indication that any similar  future complaint would reach the same conclusion. Future complaints of this nature could  result in referrals to the Practice Standards Committee and/or the Discipline Committee.  


Again, I’m going to post the meme he posted.

Yes, these people are telling you “this is a legitimate threat of violence,” is a legitimate complaint.


The Law Society wants to ensure that its investigation of complaints is fair and effective. We  will send you a questionnaire in the next few weeks, and we would appreciate your feedback.

Use of Complaint or Investigation Materials in another Proceeding 

This correspondence and any other documents relating to the complaint and its investigation are not admissible as evidence in any other proceedings without the consent of the author of  the material or the Executive Director pursuant to section 87 of the Legal Profession Act

Yours truly,  

Shehla Miyanji 

Staff Lawyer – Intake & Early Resolution  

Reply to: Direct line: (604) 605-5381 

Fax: (604) 605-5399 


Linde responded to them with his own email. I’ll get to that next time.

You may also like


  1. They aren’t marginalized, they are just marginal, and the more they are centered the more normal people are marginalized in actuality. This is kind of a gay way to talk about it but it’s a zero-sum game and their strategy involves the maximization of societal marginalization because marginalizing normal people dramatically increases the net marginalization of society more than marginalizing any minority group ever could.

    1. I mean the idea that people who still have twatter accounts are “marginalized,” by people who get censored by trillion dollar multinationals is too absurd to take seriously.

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

More in Activism