The focus will now shift from When Manitoba Justice becomes criminal to documenting the process of bringing forth a complaint against a lawyer(s). As previously discussed in "YES WE CAN" there are rules and consequences for "lawyers that really go above and beyond sheer impertinence ... A Government cover up could never happen without the collaboration of all parties. It is therefore only fitting that all parties, including lawyers, be held accountable.
Thou shalt not be a victim. Thou shalt not be a perpetrator.
Above all, thou shalt not be a bystander.
- Holocaust Museum, Washington, DC
October 2009 Anna Schmidt Beauchamp [as newly appointed Director of Civil Service Commission] signed a Solemn Declaration, prepared by Rob Olson of Thompson Dorfman Sweatman. It was a ten-page Reply to a Request for Review and Reconsideration with no attachments, but with one blatantly obvious screw-up on page 5 para. (x): sticking out as obvious as a "Kick Me I'm Stupid" post-it note, stupidly left in the document by Olson, and he then filed it with the Labour Board without reading it first.. The Registrar Janet Duff gave me a copy, no doubt, without reading it herself. [Another extra-wide sticky note for Duff, please.]
Paragraph (x) claimed that the Civil Service Commission always had an external Employee Assistance Program (EAP) provider in place for its employees (who felt confidentiality would be breached--EAP was, in fact, staff of CSC.) Olson provided no documentation to corroborate this alleged fact (as was the case with the majority of the hearsay testimony always gratuitously accepted by the tribunals), no doubt confident that the matter would never proceed to hearing anyway.
I immediately responded that the Reply should not be allowed as Olson was clearly the author of paragraph (x) and undoubtedly the whole document. Furthermore, it should be obvious Beauchamp Schmidt did not read the document before signing it, and therefore could not possibly have knowledge of the facts deposed to which is a criminal offence: punishable under Section 17 of the Act.
Government--who only speaks through its lawyer, Olson--dismissed the seriousness of the matter as being just a ‘typo.’ (A whole paragraph?) A seemingly biased Chair of the Labour Board, W.D. Hamilton, accepted the explanation as reasonable but failed to be reasonable with me. Numerous letters went unacknowledged: October 12th, 20th and 28th. A final letter sent on November 4th stated:
"… an offence under The Manitoba Evidence Act should be regarded as an offence against the public…If this is not properly addressed the message the Board is sending out is that we, as a province have set a lower standard for government bodies such as the CSC when it comes to making a false declaration under oath..."
The Board through its Chair, W.K. Hamilton, then decided to abuse his power and authority by retaliating against me by dismissing my Request for Review without hearing. Hamilton then haughtily stated that seeing as the matter is dismissed, he saw no need to respond to any of my four letters. The Labour Board's Decision stated as follows:
Page 5 para. 15 “…the Respondent addressed a typographical error that certain information had inadvertently been left on a document filed as an attachment in its Reply.”
Page 7 para. 17(d) “…As to the Applicant’s request in the letter of October 12, 2009 to the Board [See para. 14, supra] that the Board ought to disregard the Respondent’s Reply, the Board notes that, following an extension of time to the Respondent, the Reply was properly filed in a timely manner by the Respondent in accordance with the Board’s Rules. The Board affirms that the Reply is properly before it."
If we are to believe that there was no attachment to the Respondent’s Reply then either the Labour Board Chair (Hamilton) screwed up when he stated that the “’typo was in an attachment”; or at the time he dismissed my complaint, there was a bait-and-switch for the benefit of the Ombudsman's pseudo-investigation, and a revised one was filed in a cover up--based on the Labour Board Decision, “…following an extension of time…Reply was properly filed…”
Even with all the monkey business going on, Manitoba Ombudsman Irene Hamilton could not see the forest for the trees: it's all relative when dealing with Government's monkey business.
*NOTE: The blog, Black Rod, indicated in one of its past postings that a conflict existed due to the fact Ombudsman Irene Hamilton is related to Chair, W.K. (Bill) Hamilton. Accordingly, the complainant felt Irene should have recused herself, but she did not. The Ombudsman's decision was viewed by the complainant as unfair and biased. I can neither confirm or verify how they are related, or whether it is true. But it would explain a lot. (See Manitoba Ombudsman buries report that Manitoba Labour Board Violated Privacy Laws.)
IT'S NOT THE LAW YOU KNOW, IT'S WHO YOU KNOW
Thompson Dorfman Sweatman (TDS) 0 Degrees of Separation
Manitoba Labour Board Chair: William (Bill) D. Hamilton (TDS Alumni)
Manitoba Labour Board Vice-Chair: Blair Graham Q.C. (TDS Lawyer)
Manitoba Labour Board Vice-Chair: M. Lynn Harrison (TDS Lawyer)MB Justice Attorney General/Minister of Justice: Andrew Swan (TDS Star Alumni)
 |
| "At Your Service" is our motto. Step this way out the EXIT... I mean, ah Complaint Department. |
When MLB dismissed my complaint in its entirety, without hearing, I then filed a formal complaint December 3, 2009 regarding the criminal violation under Manitoba Evidence Act to Deputy Minister Jeffrey Schnoor As I had previously worked with Schnoor at Justice during 2006-2007, I expected, at the very least, the courtesy of a response. Clearly, my expectations were set too high: having received no response, I escalated the matter on January 25, 2010 to Attorney General Andrew Swan.
Only in government can one 'escalate' an issue and in return, get a 'Swan Dive': my complaint was delegated down the food chain to a Manager in Human Resources who responded in part as follows:
"Manitoba Justice does not have the authority to review or investigate this matter. The Manitoba Evidence Act provides the statutory foundation for the way information and documentation is to be handled. It does not provide the Deputy Minister or employees of Manitoba Justice with the authority to investigate ...you may want to contact the Manitoba Labour Board for advice... You may also consider consulting a lawyer."
ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED??!!!
CSC doggedly responded to a FIPPA request for all information in existence regarding the alleged external EAP [as sworn to in the Reply -para. (x)]
Upon order from the MB Ombudsman (after 2nd complaint) CSC, on January, 2011 responded with the only information they had -- an email from the EAP Director dated June 19, 2009 that the program would be implemented that fall. One year after termination from employment which spells out perjury by government and its lawyer, Robert Olson: "Marielle was well aware of an external EAP existed".
Everyone has a right to their own opinion, but when government lawyers are paid over $200 an hour to do government's bidding -- there must never be a time when we fail to protest when counsel (with purpose and malice) is wrong with the facts and the law.
