About this Blog

Once symptoms of her disability became exacerbated due to a toxic work environment, a government employee (terminated after 3 years of exemplary reviews) followed due process to address her complaints. Marielle, whose disability was known, bears witness to the difficulties, bias, incompetence, perjury, and flawed logic of government in the process. See posting, "Is Manitoba Government #WINNING"?

Government employees conduct all preliminary investigations. So, when Manitoba Labour Board stonewalled the preliminary process over 260 days [48 days is median which includes hearing] and Manitoba Human Rights Commission stalled two years to start the preliminary invesitgatoin [8-10 months is median for whole process], it is clear that the practice of government investigating government (as employer) is terribly flawed.

The most damaging for those who are vulnerable, however, is the government's practice of hiring private law firms, like Thompson Dorfman Sweatman (self-governing bodies accountable to no body) instead of using its own Manitoba Government Civil Legal Services, who would be required to 'follow the rules'. This is where the problem begins.  See posting Law at Lunch - More Cowbell).

No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we require him to obey it. Obedience to the law is demanded as a right; not as a favour.
December 7, 1903 Pres. Theodore Roosevelt

The situation began June 2008 revolving around an unfair and false employment reference by the Manitoba Government Civil Service Commission (who should have known better) that could have been easily, quickly, and respectfully resolved. (see #16 Consumers' Bureau). However, quick resolutions do not rack up many billable hours unlike the antics of lawyer, Rob W. Olson, of Thompson Dorfman Sweatman that creates conflict. No doubt, such conduct gave him enough Club TDS points that allowed him to make partner in 2012. 

What is truly amazing is that WHAT they did is not in dispute; they are going with a YEAH, SO WHAT defence.  Even as representatives of government, TDS  felt no need to follow the rules and procedures in a proper, legal, and civil manner.  (See #1 Overview of Claim to #5 Mitigating Damages - tabs above.)


Marielle is at a distinct disadvantage in Rowan v Thompson Dorfman Sweatman (aka Upscale Violence - King of the Castle); these white collar privileged abusers are skilled at playing the game. It is because of who they are that their questionable and illegal conduct is "'kept under wraps".  Even worse is that it is seemingly done under the very system that is enrusted to protect the rights of all people including those most vulnerable.


Marielle had asked for an injunction by way of motion to be heard at a hearing in front of a judge to ensure her rights would be properly considered in the QB pretrial and trial process. She lives in very real fear that her life, security, and freedom rights are threatened. She has good cause to be concerned; however, her request had been adjourned again and again, only then--months later, left as undecided (''sine die"). No referrals were made. Any and all assistance denied.

Without any intervention, the defendants, Thompson Dorfman Sweatman, together with Aikins Law (retained by the Law Society of Manitoba to defend and shield TDS of any accountability) will use their combined legal power, and it is not for the public good.  Law Society of Manitoba has clearly shown that its practice of self-government of rogue practices within the profession is flawed--as the infamous sex scandal of  TDS couple--Jack King and Lori Douglas has shown.
.
Without public interest and intervention those in power will continue to establish dominance, control, and intimidation over those it views as unimportant due to the fact that:

 1) vulnerable people can't to do them any good, and
 2) vulnerable people can't fight back

              **********************************************************************************

When something doesn't make sense to a child, the child always asks "Why?" And if the answer doesn't make sense, the child asks again, "Why?" And yet again, and again, and again.  Somewhere along the way that stopped. Why is that? When did that change to "that's just the way things are."

• Look around you and be distressed;
• Look within you and be depressed;
• Look up and be at rest.

 What do I hope to get out of all this?  

1. To get feedback from people that may have found themselves in a similar situation. I think that would be very interesting and valuable information to learn from.
2. To provide a resource from that combined knowledge in order to know what's really working and what's not.
3. To form relationships (free and/or inexpensive) within our community with professionals i.e., mental health, legal, community, and government.
4. To bring out the 'inner child' in all of us back to a time when we never would have considered taking 'no' for an answer or look away from a friend being bullied. And "MAKE SOME NOISE".
5. To get a real movement going for real change.

It is not your ability or your inability -- just your availabilty that matters. Just remember nobody has the right to make you feel inferior -- unless that is, you have given them your consent.

Like a postage stamp - this blog will continue to keep on posting - sticking to one thing until the message gets through!