Masters*, judges, government lawyers and BS** politicians continue as members of the law society. Participation in its self-administered protection policy is mandatory.
Master* A provincial civil servant, duties are administrative in nature:
~ensures there is at least one point of law (cause) that can be tried;
A Master cannot strike out a claim on bias of ability or likelihood of success at trial.
If 'no cause' is plain and obvious then goes to judge for dismissal.
A civil action was commenced April 17, 2012 under CI 12-01-77387 based on evidence obtained from earlier proceedings in which the defendants, Thompson Dorfman Sweatman et al acted as legal counsel in defence of an action brought against the provincial government under the Personal Information Act, Labour Relations Act and Human Rights Code. It is the actions of the defendants (legal counsel for government) that I believe to be actionable but members have done everything they can to kill this thing.
See related postings:Feb 20, 2012: The State of the Canadian Constitution eh?The judge made the following comment... in response to the disciplinary action against Schmidt in court: the day after filing of the statement (by Mr. Schmidt) bang, you're suspended. It's unbelievable. Your client (Federal Government) has done everything it can to kill this thing...The court doesn't like that...We see that in different countries that we don't like...Canada is still a democracy.Sep 19, 2012: Distance negates responsibiltyIt is understandable the Law Society doesn't want that on record given its position as insurer defending against insurance claims and then on its other face claims to act on behalf of the public's interest. I give you "Oxymoron" the Trojan horse placed to win.Aug 22, 2012: Upscale Violence: King of the CastleMarielle had asked for an injunction by way of motion to be heard at a hearing in front of a judge. She lives in very real fear that her life, security and freedom rights are threatened. Professional and society's dissent of the difficulties she faces as a woman with an "invisible disability" is made even worst when her request for an injunction is unacknowledged, no referrals are made, and assistance is denied.
All men make mistakes, but a good man yields when he knows his course is wrong, and repairs the evil. The only crime is pride.
A letter of intent to file a complaint against Master Berthaudin (conduct unbecoming and neglect of duty) was sent to Chief Justice Joyal on January 22, 2013. Assistance as provided under section 11.18(3) of the Act to formulate a proper formal complaint was also requested.
The letter indicated that the master found no cause of action, and took it upon himself to usurp his jurisdiction and judge the case as dismissed in one steamroller move. One example provided to Chief Justice Joyal as to bias against an self-represented and vulnerable person is as follows:
Excerpt from Master Berthaudin's decision dated September 14, 2012 as to the August 20, 2012 Hearing, “BACKGROUND FACTS”:
 According to the re-amended statement of claim (filed subsequent to the defendants' motion to strike, three business days prior to the contested hearing of these motions), the plaintiff was employed in various departments by Manitoba between January, 2005 and June, 2008. She claims to have been diagnosed with bipolar disorder ... (emphasis added).
**2012 Annual Report of The Law Society of Manitoba shows Bencher, Ted E. Bock sitting on the following committees:
- Chair, Admissions and Education Committee
- Chair, Admissions and Education Appeals Sub-Committee
- Practice and Ethics Committee
- Professional Liability Claims Fund Committee
- Investment Committee
The master's comment as to “claims to have been diagnosed with bipolar disorder” is defamatory in nature, posted online for an intended response. A well-documented history was filed with the court as evidence of an ongoing disorder spanning over 20 years, further supported by the (stonewalled for 2.5 years) MB Human Rights Commission investigative findings.
The master's stricture as to filing a re-amended claim just "three business days prior' is interpreted as high-handed personal displeasure towards a 'non-member'' (disdain for any self-represented wanna-be-lawyer type) as told by a member, she is "way over her head delving in a lawyer's world".
Is the intended objective not pursuit of truth and justice--or this akin to some Gladiator sport? Mighty Berthaudin holding high court in his splendid robe, responding to the members' cries for a 'thumbs down' KILL! KILL! KILL! Or in this case strike strike strike all three claims with one motion.
On February 15, 2013 I received a response to my letter of January 22, 2013 from Chief Justice Joyal. He advised that the complaint had already moved to investigation and, “You will no doubt be hearing from Justice Everett in the near future.”
Bipolar 101: Under what conditions can accelerating be helpful?
When a member blocks you, accelerate to avoid being cut off.
See related posting on Why Smart People Lie that defined “moral distress” as a phenomenon in which one knows the right action to take, but is constrained from taking it...can occur in any situation or workplace...It occurs when one is forced to put aside values and principles and carry out an action against their better judgement.
DENIED (Heck! - Not even acknowledged as having been received. See no evil; hear no evil, then there's EVIL!)
This needs to be documented.
- the duty to assiduously obey Manitoba law, and
- the duty to be vigilant in treating a self-represented litigant (and in my case, one who requested accommodation) in a humane and non-discriminatory manner.