Ignoring Rule of Law: Clearly Not to Code

Judging the Manitoba Federal Court Judges

The Code of Judicial Conduct requires 100% compliance with Rule of Law. Every person (Self-Rep Litigant or party's lawyer) is guaranteed the right to be heard, and the right to have decisions made in accordance with Rule of Law– to Code.

A judge cannot act in bad faith, nor can a judge go against a party based on discrimination (violation of Constitutional rights), personal interests (even if a Member or Co-Member happens to be CJ and BFF with one of the parties).

It is in the public interest to be aware, judges remain (certainly in Manitoba) a paying Member of  Law Society. The Members manage, investigate, and theoretically pay out from their own insurance plan, defending its Members in court, in front of a Member - a judge.  How is that not a conflict of interest? 

From the onset of filing with Court of QB Winnipeg Division, I believe my divorce proceeded in a manner that departed completely from the usual procedure of Rule of Law as required by Provincial Family Law (Property) and absolutely contrary to Federal Law (spousal) -- no due process, no applying Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines. and in the end, no record as to the Legal Authorities being relied on to strike out the 4-day Spousal Trial by a judge whose jurisdiction was only to determine property assets - generally a trial by paper.

NOTE: As the Reference Order to determine the property assets (from Dec 2018 Case Conference), had yet to be complied with by my Ex, Rule of Law would support that not only was the Property Trial Judge not up at 'bat' he wasn't even the batters box -was not entered in QB Registry. Yet another 'foul' of Rule of Law.

Actually, so many Rule of Law violations that without an actual review and investigation of the evidence I have, it is not worth posting at this time because it would simply be beyond belief. I've been getting feedback from various judges and law enforcement officers from other provinces, and the response has always been one of disbelief, as I was told, this could never have happened -- but I am saying it did and clearly not to Code. 

You can't control every situation and outcome but you can control how to deal with what you learnt

The system behind the scenes.

If you go against the law of Cause and Effect --the Law of All Laws will overrule the Rule of Law.

Whistle blowers, rape victims, human rights, SRLs who come forward often get taken in by the promise of fair and equal access to justice. But make no mistake, the Cosmic forces are always prevalent. "They' may let you 'do the dance’—but there has likely already been a predetermined outcome from the start. 

Like the foxes guarding the hen house.

Take the Law Society (please) who play double duty in encouraging the public to come forward with their complaints, and then failing resolution (or even any investigation), you’ll find that same firm (as insurer for the Law Society) will be the firm defending that Member against your complaint in court. Can you see the conflict here?


See Related post on Regulating Civility of Lawyers

Cause I spoke out in a truthful, respectful and factual account in this blog, the extreme Cost of Freedom of Speech (the Effect) came a decade later after my last posting. I do know what the Members of the Society are capable of, and still I am prepared to speak out.

There’s a whole system at play within our government that most people aren't even aware of. This "Group-think" where each branch of government is cut from the same cloth, is already a big problem and it's a danger to our democracy.

The only way to get reform is by exposing the injustices. 

Every Story Has An End But In Life Every End Is A New Beginning

Day 984 - Divorce Wars End

On May 7 2020 my brother signed on as Power of Attorney. Judge had determined bipolar as mentally incompetent despite a position in violation of the Constitution. I had lived and worked successfully with bipolar for 3 decades. Also after consultation with my lawyer, we had agreed to accept an offer of settlement from my Ex November 2019 (prior to the judge's Jan 24 2020 Order). The courts had its own agenda, and clearly not in my best interests.

The first priority for the newly retained lawyer through my POA, was for me to get my voice back in divorce. A Motion was set for June 3 2020 to remove the Appointment (signed without notice to me or following Rule of Law 4+ violations) pointed to the fact that this breach was to oppress not assist. 

It was not until June 3 (by teleconference due to COVID) that my POA discovered that our lawyer (unbeknownst to us) had been working on a new strategy with the Province. On June 3 2020 at 10:00 am the Judge pushed through the Province’s settlement (QB Registry allowed on June 1st a 2nd Motion for June 3rd Hearing that had the effect of replacing our Motion). 

I found 2-3 weeks is norm to get anything signed, so for the Province to push through a Motion in ONE day -- for Judge to cover 3 years of pleadings and evidence, and waive the requirement of ONE week service of documents to the parties prior to day of Motion, does not happen nor is it reasonable.

As the intent for the Province to 'assist me' to protect my best interests, would the Province not be required to provide an actual breakdown as to what evidence was used? There was no agreement provided or filed. And more incredibly, no accounting (Comparative Family Property Statement) which is required by law in every divorce. So how is it “best interests” falls so far off the mark and significantly less than what we (the parties) had agreed to back in November 2019. And why did the Judge feel it was his position to assist my Ex -- "'the proof is in the pudding' or as in future postings.

What was thrown together (only Motion, Bill of Costs and Affidavit) contradicts several regulated laws, nor reflects evidence on record (from 3 years), even fabricating claims (pure conjecture beyond belief) that include assets in excess of $500,000 was gifted from his dead mother -- quite surprising, given the woman's not dead yet. And in the end, the Province made no mention of my having a disability or of being mentally incompetent. The ease of which this miscarriage of justice was carried out begs to be made public.