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.

For Fear We May Forget the Cost Paid for our Constitution

This Remembrance Day, as we honour all those who gave their lives for others, and for those that came home to live out their lives to be strong leaders in our free world: free to grow old and teach their grandchildren the true meaning of honour, and integrity of character, I’d like to pay tribute to a living legend--Frank Rowan.

It wasn't until 1988 that my father-in-law, Frank Rowan, went to his first Veterans' reunion--fearing that talking about the war, too soon, would cause post-traumatic stress problems. Lately, however, the memories seem to haunt  him on a daily basis. 

My father-in-law was a navigator stationed in Lincoln, England with a Squadron of Lancasters with the RAF in WWII. On St. Patrick's Day 1945, after just dropping their load of bombs, his aircraft was hit. All crew bailed at 18,000 feet. (Qualifying him for the Caterpillar Club: people who have successfully used a parachute to bail out of a disabled aircraft.)

He always claimed it was the luck of the Irish (being of Irish descent) that he had the good fortune of landing on a German Air Base: It was their practice not only to take prisoners (as opposed to shooting them on the spot) but also to photograph each prisoner and mark their name and country of origin on the back of the photo.

Forty-five years later, an archivist, finding a number of these photos, contacted Ottawa, and forwarded several pictures taken of him in captivity and on the march. This is one of those photos.

Two days after his capture, he and approximately 150 others who were able to, began a gruelling 47-day march. It was very difficult for most of the older ones and many died along the way. For the wounded soldiers, their days were ended. My father-in-law was allowed to remove all dog tags from the cadavers so the families could be notified.

My father-in-law, P.O.W. Frank Rowan  is now 92 years-young. "When I think back over my life I count my blessings, not my birthdays, as they have been far greater"—as he always says.

I believe the point of continuing the tradition of observing Remembrance Day lies at the heart: What are we prepared to do to protect our democracy? 

Canada is a very different place from the democratic country we think we live in now. It's about The State of the Canadian Constitution, eh? (see editorial posted 20 Feb 2013.)

For Fear We May Forget, lest we remember the cost we paid for our democracy?

"Be the Change you wish to see in the World" is a Petition for support services when Rule of Law is not followed in our country's federal courts. Please sign our Petition:

Change.org Petition

Open letter to Winnipeg Police Chief Devon Clunis

sedition—white collar crimes alleged against The Law Society of Manitoba and the legal profession and the conflict of judiciary and politicians continuing on as members, self-administering its own reciprocal insurance plan as 1) investigator 2) insurer 3) insured and 4) signing decisions. 

 

Oh CANADA -Updated July 1, 2014 Winnipeg Police Chief Devon Clunis has ignored my right to a democratic process. I have yet to receive a response to my letter addressed to him, delivered  by FAX, mail, and posted online, as set out below over a year ago:

There can be no true response without responsibility; there can be no responsibility without response.

Arthur Vogel 

June 6, 2013

BY FAX AND MAIL

 

 

Chief Clunis,

I received a call June 5, 2013 from Sgt. Molloy advising that the Winnipeg Police Crime Unit would not investigate what I wholeheartedly believe to be indictable offences against society and the public interest.

While I understand it is within the Crime Unit’s discretion as to what cases it takes on, the fact still remains that certain individuals personally committed unlawful acts that are, at the very least, summary convictions. Am I to believe and gratuitously accept that violations such as perjury, obstruction of justice, extortion and criminal harassment will not be investigated or prosecuted at any level by police?

Consider the stark contrast of my real life experience —

In 2007 a police officer attended at my home to serve me (as registered owner) with a summons that my vehicle (as alleged by another driver) made an unlawful left hand turn from a major thoroughfare onto a side street.

There was no accident. No pedestrians harmed or involved. No obstruction or delay of traffic. No photo or video. There was no corroborating witness, and yet on the hearsay statement of one individual, Winnipeg Police acted on the complaint, and I was expected to address the allegation in a court of law.

How is it then that irrefutable evidence of many wrong turns by those entrusted to act professionally, (crimes against humanity causing harm and delays, disrupting the law and order of a respectful society) gets nothing more than a ‘wave-through pass’ by the same city police? 

It is said that the best index to a person's character is:

(a) how he treats people who can't do him any good, and

(b) how he treats people who can't fight back.   

Abigail Van Buren

When someone claims his or her civil rights have been violated, we need to feel assured that our policing authority will take those claims seriously no matter who the claim is against.

What good is Bill 18 (proposed anti-bullying law for our youth) if we see nothing wrong with members of the legal community openly, and without fear of retaliation, commit unlawful acts against those it deems to have little or no value?

When we allow a hole to be punched in the civil rights for some, it is not long before that protection has no value at all, and anyone's rights can be denied. 

I believe two solemn duties have been breached:

1. the duty to assiduously obey Manitoba law, and 
2. the duty to be vigilant in treating someone disadvantaged and vulnerable, in a humane and non-discriminatory manner.

I respectfully request, Chief Clunis, that you affirm your commitment to serve and protect the whole of the community, including those that are vulnerable and disadvantaged.

I pray you will conduct a proper investigation of the issues raised. I believe it is imperative that justice (equal for all) not only be done, but be seen to be done--as entrusted to you to protect public interest.
 
I look forward to your response.

Respectfully yours, and God bless,

M. Rowan

Don't pay the Ferryman (the hooded man at the rudder) 'til the ship gets right-side-up again

 

SELF-REGULATING CIVILITY OF LAWYERS

Proposed amendment: simply remove SELF



Legislation that allowed the legal profession to be self-governing (decades ago) was on the condition that lawyers conduct themselves in a professional manner. The Code of Professional Conduct (“the Code”) is not enforceable by law, but rather a recommendation by The Law Society of Manitoba (the "Society") as a self-governing body. The problem with that concept is that law firms are not regulated.

The ship has long since sailed from whence this ship was launched. It should be apparent the Society has clearly lost its way, somewhere along the shores of a rock and a hard place. We are seeing practices that are in clear violation of its governing authority and criminal. In Manitoba, these include:

• unreported criminal behaviour i.e.,
  - (Jack King's actions required police investigation);
  - knowledge of perjury, obstruction of justice, (many references throughout this blog);
  - price fixing - collusion (Law Society Member-Benched!);
• members starting up a side business of insurance of by and for its members;
• members administering and investigating its own claims;
• members* (judges and masters) judging in court as to whether a claim has any merit;
• members in conflict of interest situations.
• But  WAIT! There's more .... like female lawyers interviewed by The FIRM (as stated in the Society newsletter and posted online) whereby candidates (redundant to say young and female)

1. have been asked whether they intend on having a family then
2. directs those women to go article for the government if they do!  

When a watchdog is on a master’s lap, only justice is kept at bay.

 

The Society’s effectiveness is further weakened with the enactment of the Limited Partnership Act (“LLP”) which allows law firms to distance itself even further  -- and not to CODE.

Note: Firms have become such BIG business that changes are presently under review to allow non-members (as in, people who are not lawyers) to purchase and own law firms. I can just see the lawyer in the not so distant future--looking up the status of a court case online at QB Registry and having an online link to the NASDAQ exchange for quick reference as to who's ahead.

Enough is enough.

 

The time has come for the Government of Manitoba to step in, remove the right to self-govern away from the Society, and let lawyers return back to the practice of law and the novel notion of being a profession. Let's NOT allow big business to further threaten the administration of justice even further than it has--where the greatest impact is on those most vulnerable (that now includes anyone whose personal income is below 6 figures.)

 

When a young man with great potential (LCS Grad of 2012) told me he wanted to be a lawyer, I was very concerned for him and worried whether he could survive The FIRM of 2017--you see, he's never had to experience bullying or forced to do anything he had to lie about. I simply refuse to live life in a doom and gloom world and tell him to abandon his values and principles in order to "go along to get along" in the world of legal society because...

I HAVE HOPE FOR THE FUTURE that we can fix this by then.  I don't think it's too late to turn things around. That's what I believe. That's what I'm fighting for. What -- like it's hard?

I was proud to be a Legal Assistant in the 80's, in the good old days of great legal legends like DeGraves, Mackay, Settle, Buchwald, Sarchuk--a time when even a legend like Richard Shead could fall (charged for fraud 1995, investigated and went to prison). Those were the days when it truly was a profession, and lawyers were the heart of the firm, and an office manager -- an employee. Now The FIRM has a lawyer's heart and soul under contract in exchange for a priviliged life of riches and protection.


The time has come and the time is NOW for an independent (non-member) Lawyer Enforcement Review Agency ( LERA-II). If we can expect this type of an independent review of our police force then certainly we can hold the business of law accountable as well.

Policing is first and foremost a service to the public, the more it is at odds with the composition and values of that public, the less well it works.   

Max Yalden, Chief Commissioner
of the Canadian Human Rights Commission

Do it for the class of 2012 and those graduating thereafter.

This unpaid political message is brought to you by:

M.A.M.A. 

A Bullish Government
Home of:  Mothers Against Members* Association
 

YUGO Wheels of Justice

Law 4X4:   YUGO Dummy!

Whether Conflict of Interest, Bill 18 or Bill 22 (judges' wage freeze see below) the problem stems from half-cocked bills coming off our elected Legislative Assembly with this disclaimer:  you have an issue with it -- YUGO Law (challenge it in court yourself). 

 

If you're self-represented, you're the only one who does not 'confer a benefit' in this (quasi) ponzi scheme. You're responsible for your own out of pocket costs and can't claim back lost wages due to court attendances. Only lawyer's time is valued.
 

See related Feb 20 2013 posting: The State of the Canadian Constitution eh?

A century that began with children having virtually no rights will likely end with children having its most powerful legal instrument--our Constitution, have virtually no effect at all as our Charter regulators are outsourced. Equality before the law will now cost you a pretty penny (oops), or should we equate that to--pretty loonie? click link to posting 

If you decide you can't afford, or don't want to hire a lawyer, you are restricted from hiring absolutely anyone to help you with any research, organization, preparation, formatting, editing and proofing or even filing your documents at the Law Courts. The Legal Profession Act (to the tune of  Forget You!  aka YUGO Law-- as in, you go to court on your own -- you be on ya own dummy) can charge first time offenders $8000 for violating this law enacted by members. So who are members of this priviliged Society?

See Mar 7 2013: Manitoba Courts Chief Justice Glenn Joyal Don't Stand for No Bullying

"I am still a member of the Law Society of Manitoba," former white collar criminal prosecutor and defence lawyer, Raymond Flett writes after retirement. "Becoming a lawyer, as least in Manitoba, is like joining the mafia; you're in until you're on the other side of the grass." ....  *Masters, judges, government lawyers and BS* politicians continue as members of the law society. (click for * definitions)

Imagine the legal profession in terms of an automotive industry, allowed to run as a monopoly. Your only choice of vehicle is a Yugo (commonly accepted as being #1 worst car in history) and sold 'as is' without warranty. You get no 30 day return policy. When there’s a problem (which members count on) well YUGO back for service, and you need to pay to fix what was broken in the first place. And oh, you need to pay a lot.

Saturday April 6, 2013 WFP article  “Nobody Can Stop the Mayor" reports on a conflict of interest case against Winnipeg Mayor Sam Katz. Katz (either personally or through his staff) made arrangements to host a dinner for city councillors and department heads at a restaurant he owned. The bill was paid with taxpayer funds. Justice Keyser ruling was that “... the provincial conflict rules would not apply to a Christmas party."

Where's the media -- missing out on not just one, but two obvious blunders?

1. a guy, written up in Wikipedia as "the first Jewish mayor of Winnipeg" hosting a Christmas party, and
2. it's a well-known fact government cancelled Christmas years ago.

See Nov 28 2011 posting:  MB Gov't OK with flipping 'the Bird flips off Jesus

Employees are to refrain from wishing one another a "Merry Christmas" for fear of offending non-Christian believers. However, there are no restrictions on religious cursing which may in all likelihood offend all Christians....(click to read more)

I can understand why the Judge opted out of making the hard decision and applied YUGO Law, as in you go to the polls next year and make your own damn judgment. But I cannot excuse the judge for charging the business owner $10,000 for exercising his constitutional rights. Costs are not automatic to the #WINNING party. Justice Keyser herself stated, "Mr. Katz has exhibited bad political and ethical behaviour," and because you acted so badly, I'm going to award you the most costs ever in a civil case to be paid by the losing party. Katz's lawyer, Robert Tapper claims, "It's a real message to this guy." It certainly is, as Tapper is tapping his heels all the way to the bank with his $25,000 legal fees plus disbursements.

For similar related story see Nov 13 2011 posting:  Law at Lunch -- More Cowbell

Why go for a quickie resolution when you can be Thompson Dorfman Sweatman, creator of a Seinfeld case where top level execs make a lot of money protracting a complaint based on a defence of nothing.

It would seem that Justice Keyser (having drawn the short straw for bench duty that day) reacted in anger against the plaintiff for putting her in that precarious position,

 “Keyser also had strong words Friday for restaurateur Joe Chan, who brought the case to court by filing a declaration last year that Katz was in conflict … essentially saying he had wasted everyone’s time by filing the legal motion."
 

Bill 22 revisited [Explanation to Media: this is called investigative reporting.]

 

Is this a case of the pot calling the kettle black? Not many people (other than the lawyers still returning from the bank) remember the raucous Bill 22 caused (Nov 1994 to Nov 1997) where a civil action CI94-01-81773 was launched, JUDGES vs. THE QUEEN.

 

The Manitoba provincial judges took over three years in meeting, planning, (probably ordered in lunch) and took up valuable court time to launch a complaint about a wage freeze that affected them temporarily. The law was passed as a temporary measure, permitted "in cases of economic emergency" and in the public interest. Once the Bill expired, wages would be paid out on a retroactive basis.

The judges lost their case and then dug in their heels further, racked up more costs with an appeal to the Supreme Court. The judges sure showed those guys over at the Leg' (pronounced 'ledge' to anyone that matters). Any advantage government sought in enacting Bill 22 was clearly offset due to dis-Honourable self-interests.

How is this not viewed as a waste of everyone’s time and taxpayers' money? QB Registry (accessible online)  shows the losers (the judges) were not made to pay back costs to the government. There were also additional legal fees incurred as the judges felt they needed legal advice from a lawyer and hired ROBB D. TONN (only the following is made up):

• "What were his fees?"
• "Who's fees?"
• "Ah...TONN."
• "No -- a ton was the lawyer's fees; what was the lawyer's name?"
• "They got ROBB D"
• "Yeah, but who was the lawyer?"

Want to know who paid for all the costs and legal bills?  You go mortgage your home, get stonewalled for months at the Law Courts and pay out all the court costs. Let me know how that works out for you. But I can tell you first-hand what that experience is like. Imagine being in a giant YUGO heading towards a brick wall and OnStar (operated by yes--a member) is only interested in telling you where you should sit. If you don't see any of this as affecting you now, I guarantee you, there will come a time that it does. By then, it might just be too late. 

Access to information is a journalist's reward for promoting stupidity. Despite my best efforts I find myself blocked by mainstream media. But there's more than one way to get the word out. With your help, together we can make a difference.  Please help me in starting a movement for real change. Be aware. Be informed and pass the information forward. If not you -- then who?

To summarize today's lesson:

1. It isn't considered a crime if they don't charge you for it, and
2. If viewed a SUCCESS in a government pre-packaged media release, bear in mind the far side of FAILURE does not transcend to SUCCESS (unless pre-approved by a member) 

As I've said before -- Schmidt happens!
 

Journalism lost its guts?


Defending against aggression by blogging-- because I can.

 

If this is happening to me
surely I am not the only one.

Another year gone by, and
in many ways the pursuit of truth
and justice seem more distant
than ever as journalists stand by
merely as observers,
unwilling to pick up the story.

 

When a public authority does not
act in a lawful manner,
void of all integrity such conduct
must bear the consequence of
having that aggression made public.

 

As Manitoba Premier Greg Selinger described it, (Jan 12, 2013, FINANCIAL AID FOR POOR POLITICIANS? ) justice "has really become a club for millionaires and, in some cases, billionaires… and democracy needs to function in a way that average people have a chance to participate in it...” No truer words spoken by a politician.

 

 

A FAX was sent to the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench in response to a notice I received by regular mail of a court date scheduled for Wednesday, March 13, 2013 before Master Berthaudin. When I checked the Manitoba Courts Queen's Bench Registry Saturday, March 9, 2013 the Registry showed as follows:

 

Court Date Mar 13, 2013 Status: DELETE Notes: RE: ORDER Deleted

 

 

FAX dated March 10, 2013, requested assistance and written confirmation that the court date was in fact, not happening stated as follows:

 

 

 

TO: Court of Queen’s Bench,

QB Chief Justice Glenn Joyal,

Judicial Services, Executive Director Karen Fulham

 

DATE: March 10, 2013

 

I received notice after work on Friday (March 8, 2013) that Master Berthaudin was signing off on Order and Bill of Costs on Wednesday, March 13th. I checked QB Registry that states “Deleted”... Please clarify that the master is not dealing with either Order or Bill of Costs due to 1) insufficient 4 business days’ notice to me and 2) Complaint pending against Master Berthaudin. (correction: 7 days' notice required according to QB Rules) 

 

 

Please be advised that if Mr. Bock’s ongoing assault does not stop, I will be seeking a restraining order against him and any member of his firm.* As partner of Aikins Law, Bock knowingly acted in a conflict situation. I first consulted with Aikins Law partner Brent Ross August 30, 2009 providing documents for his review, specifics relating to this action.

 

 

And again, on April 17, 2012 I emailed Brent Ross Subject: “Statement of Claim Rowan vs TDS (Thompson Dorfman Sweatman)” attaching a copy of the claim asking if he’d take on the case. His response by email, “I opened it up and realized it’s against another firm/lawyer …. Our firm is regularly retained by the law society to defend these cases…”  

 

 

Mr. Bock cannot claim ignorance that a conflict existed especially given at the August 20, 2012 hearing I repeatedly referenced communications with Mr. Ross: Brent Ross a senior partner of your firm--Aikins Law before you were even retained, and his professional opinion even then was, “Yeah, they certainly could have handled that better…” 

 

 

No call on that from the referee, Master Berthaudin—only my delay in not knowing the law is excusable.

 

  

M Rowan

 

 

 

* Note: Requests for help were ongoing to Manitoba Courts as to civil and criminal contempt behaviour by (or directed by) Ted E. Bock, a head Kahuna of The Law Society of Manitoba and senior partner of Aikins, MacAulay Thorvaldson.

 

 

Direct requests were made to Bock to stop the ongoing harassment over several months, described as an ongoing assault and perceived to be pressure (extortion) to sign a false document 'as is' or suffer the consequences of appearing before Master Berthaudin. The same master who is really ticked off about the pending complaint filed by me against him. 

 

If it was really about the money, the Order and Bill of Costs would have been signed off (last year) at the August 20, 2012 kangaroo court hearing. This now brings clarity as to what the members really wanted; a signed Release by me, full of legalese and goobly-gook (that could only be interpreted by a member) to mean that I (unknowingly) signed off on my right to freedom of speech.

 

 

The next move no doubt would have been a cease and desist order against me to stop maintaining and publishing my blog, A bullish government. 

 

 

---------------------------------------- 

 

ANYONE should be able to question, or have explained to them the meaning behind such actions; particularly when they involve court procedures and one is unrepresented and has requested protection by way of accommodation under The Human Rights Code.

 

 

In what can only be seen as an underhanded move, Master Berthaudin and Bock met to sign off on the Order and Bill of Costs anyways on Wednesday, March 13, 2013 which seemed to be of little (or no interest) to Chief Justice Joyal or Executive Director of Judicial Services Karen Fulham.

 

The total of $3,657.50 is said to be owing by me to The Law Society of Manitoba (as insurer and 'muscle') contrary to all past decisions that does not provide costs when a lawyer is acting on his own behalf. As stated in posting, Manitoba Courts Chief Justice Glenn Joyal Don't Stand for No Bullying "Becoming a lawyer, at least in Manitoba, is like joining the mafia..." especially if you run your own insurance protection plan (see Law Society Member Benched!) :

 

Excerpt from the members' insurance manual, "Safe and Effective Practice", 

"The lawyer who has been negligent should not try to be the one who repairs the situation....But it is important to realize that if the Law Society makes use of able and imaginative lawyers from the earliest possible moment ... the number of ways in which this may be done are infinite... It is very instructive to see what can sometimes be done in what is usually assumed to be the most hopeless of cases..." (Underline emphasis added)

 

  

In surreal moments such as this, favorite movie quotes come to mind, and in this case I have adapted from the movie, The American President (scene where actor, played by Michael J Fox confronts his Chief in Command):

G Joyal: The Chief Justice doesn't answer to you, Rowan!

M Rowan: Oh, yes he does C.J. I'm a citizen, this is my Province. And in this country it is not only permissible to question our leaders, it's our responsibility. 

 You hit me WE hit you!  

And apparently much harder when done against a member(s) of the Society then if you were to say -- file a claim against a (non-member) like our City Mayor. See QB Registry CI12-01-75787 CHAN, JOE vs. KATZ, SAMUEL M. where costs were fixed at only $750 against a self-represented litigant whose claim was struck out.

Strike One - $750.

Strike Two - see YUGO Wheels of Justice where Chan was penalized $10,000 for exercising his right to clarify The Conflict of Interest Act -- just to ensure there's no Strike Three

 

 

In both cases (mine and Strike One against the mayor) the Registry noted all parties as self-represented which would explain why the mayor was not given solicitor client costs. What is not public knowledge (or lawful) is that in my case, the defendants were given solicitor client costs (and a lot -- $3.657.50) without actually having retained legal counsel. As insurer, The Law Society of Manitoba would be a third party- and by law, you can't claim legal fees when you are defending yourself. (See QB Registry Rowan vs Thompson Dorfman Sweatman -- no legal representation noted).

  

This is clearly abuse; a show of power in retaliation against a self-represented party who dared to file a claim against one of its own (a member of the Society). From the non-existent news coverage on this story (despite the media's noted regular visits to my blog) it would appear the members of the Society do not have to answer to media either.

  

Fortunately in cases like this (much like what occurred with the football players caught online in the Steubenville rape case), the Internet provides an alternative means to inform the public of shameless behaviour and misconduct by upscale boys' club mentality-types that brings to bear (at least in Manitoba's case--poetic) justice, that the crap on their hands gets rubbed in their faces.

  

From the movie: The Scent of a Woman (likely--not soon to be forgotten):

 "Hoo-hah!"

   

To The Law Society of Manitoba and ALL its members --

The "jig is up" -- you have been 'outed'. The forces of law and order WILL prevail.  

NOVEMBER 8, 2013 UPDATE:

Complaint against Master Berthaudin to Chief Justice Glenn Joyal dated and delivered Friday April 19, 2013  STILL DENIED.  Joyal has yet to decide on whether it exists (which says a lot about other cases pending before him.)

 

 

 

Law Society Member --Benched!

A puzzling quote from The
Law Society of Manitoba

A complaint under The Competition Act was filed online with the Government of Canada, Competition Bureau on January 31, 2013. Provided to the Bureau was a link to The Law Society of Manitoba's newsletter entitled, Communiqué.

The Bureau responded leaving only a name and phone number on voice mail. I chose to follow up by email requesting a written response to my inquiry but to date no response.

The complaint: collusion* / price fixing – monopoly of a self-regulating body under The Legal Profession Act (Manitoba).

 

* Collusion (as defined by Fed Gov’t)  

Restrictions may increase the likelihood that members of the profession can successfully collude to raise prices above the competitive level and lower output below it. Such collusion may be explicit, as is the case when the profession sets minimum or mandatory prices, or tacit, which could result from the profession issuing suggested price lists. Because collusive prices are higher than competitive ones (or quality is lower), collusion results in substantial harm to consumers.

 

LSM Communiqué:  January 2012 as quoted from "Benched" CEO Allan Finebilt, Q.C. 

...  Our Benchers are mostly elected by their peers to govern the legal profession in the public interest. They do that by making policy decisions that shape the future of legal practice in Manitoba. In the last while they have decided:  

         ... 

- That occasionally (in really bad years) fees need to go up a lot; (bold emphasis added)

 

This new policy as presented by the CEO (as stated as approved by the Benchers* in 2012) would appear to be directing and controlling its members to collectively increase legal fees.

* Bencher:  think benchwarmer --
                   a team member on reserve waiting to get on court 

  

I would like to know where in The Legal Profession Act of Manitoba does it include that a Bencher's duty includes determining fees (of any kind) against the controlling criteria:  really bad years? 

 

As all members are subject to purchasing a $1M mandatory insurance policy through The Law Society of Manitoba (called reciprocal insurance**) it would appear the Society has all bases covered. See posting defining who are members in:  Manitoba Courts Chief Justice Don't Stand for No Bullying.

 

** Reciprocal Insurance: everyone in the CLIA*** plan pays into the fund. If there is insufficient funds to cover a successful claim against a member, all members must make up the difference. Manitoba manages its own investigations, and processing of claims. And the Manitoba courts provide its decisions.

***CLIA:  Canadian Lawyers Insurance Association-- a bit of a misnomer in that not all provinces are included. The larger provinces: British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec are not subscribers.

The decision as to whether or not CLIA pays out a claim (if a subscriber should be found guilty of wrongdoing -- good luck) the decision is decided by the members who have paid into the compensation fund, and also the ones on the hook if the monies fall short; members would have to make up the difference.

 

If the quote is to mean in times of low volume of work resulting in less billable hours and less revenue for firms (all occurring simultaneously throughout the whole province) in really bad years -then it's OK to increase fees -- and oh, a lot?

Still not right and against the public interest given the public does not see an increase in value of the work that is being done at a lot higher rate?

 

Let's say, for the sake of argument, the quote was taken out of context and it was not meant in relation to collusion of legal fees, or to cover the rising cost of insurance, or to make up for volatile and flailing markets that provide monies for compensation fund payouts, or people are just plain too civil to one another -- that there actually is some logical reason. Should that not then be disclosed in the public interest? 

 

As someone who falls somewhere close to the $ personal median for income in Manitoba, I am curious and would like to ask:

What colour is the sky

in a lawyer's world...                 

                  ... in really bad years? 

 

 

If Noah had to build an ark today...

This -- whatever this is -- started off as really just something that could have been cleared up at no cost or cause for any embarrassment to government. But you know what happens when lawyers get involved, "Why go for a quickie resolution when you can be Thompson Dorfman Sweatman, creator of a Seinfeld case where top level execs make a lot of money protracting a complaint based on a defence of nothing, now held over for its 8th season.” See posting: Law at Lunch -- More Cowbell

 

#1 QUESTION ASKED -- WHY BOTHER?

Don't ever question the value of unpaid work by a Whistleblower.
Noah's Ark was built by a volunteer -- the Titanic was built by professionals. 

From the time my sons were able to sit up at the dinner table we have had family meetings. ‘No bullying' as agreed, went both ways -- and double for authorities like teachers and parents --  so, whenever the boys did something wrong--and they often did (they're kids right?) -- the experience was always used as an opportunity to teach; oftentimes the student becoming the teacher.

  

In their teen years it became even more important to check out how my sons' own personal mission statements were developing in place of the family one. Talk is cheap, and often has little impact, which is why I made the decision to use my experience of taking each step of the complaint process as an opportunity to teach. For the plethora of lessons that were derived from my experiences, I guess I should say -- thanks...?

Secondary Education Lessons such as:   

1. the importance of protecting your name 
2. the importance of protecting your reputation (how people see you) 
3. the importance of protecting your character (how you see yourself)
4. the importance of sound work ethics
5. it’s easier to remember ONE truth than MANY lies
6. if suspect someone is cheating -- call out 'bullshit' to see their hand
7. feelings of anger are OK, re-acting in anger is NOT
8. 100% compliance with work computer usage i.e., no texting, surfing, Facebooking
9. information by phone must always be followed up in writing, and
10. document everything, don't leave important details to memory.

The Government Bipolar Dance

 

Life lessons to live by --  so when government (through privately hired lawyers with our public funds) went to great lengths to fabricate an unbelievable smear campaign,  I would take it to the next level and challenge them on it to show just how unbelievable it actually was. For years, the boys and I would do The Government Bipolar Dance, celebrating when we thought we were "UP," and then get crushed with the toll of the "LOW".

Re-defining 'Closure' 

 

Wednesday, March 13, 2013,  I received the most moving email from my oldest son which he sent after reading my latest posting, It's about having the courage to pursue truth wherein he wrote,

 “… I take pride in the Rowan name and take pride in that we are not quitters...”

 

There's no greater feeling for a parent than knowing you've done something right. I now have great inner peace knowing (however this ends) that I have left my sons with what matters most and it's reassuring to see I am not alone as covered in a USA News.com article: "Parents Say Money Isn't the Most Valuable Inheritance".

To my family (and friends from too many years gone by)  I apologize that I have been so distant for so long – to the point of being a hermit. I ask for your understanding. The challenge I had undertaken is tantamount to someone today accepting the mission to build The Great Ark: Some things are best kept under wraps while still in development -- if you know what I mean.

 

As Edgar Schmidt (lawyer who spoke out against Canada putting through laws that violate the Constitution) stated in an interview on CBC Radio: It took a trip to Egypt for him to truly realize "how fragile democracy is and how much it needs care and tending." As I put it in my earlier posting, it’s about The State of the Canadian Constitution eh?

 

 

News flash: Youth at Risk!

 

7 Deadliest Words as a community and a parent, we don't want to rely on:

 

I'm the government--I'm here to help.

 

 

Definition of Insane is doing the same thing, over and over again, and expecting different results. In my opinion, adding another Bill (like Bill 18) -- to our other 'rights-only-on- paper' benched Constitution and Charter Rights, is just another case of our upscale legal community's way of making a lot of money without any expectation of getting any results.

 

But what can you ONE person do? 

1. feedback is needed from people that have found themselves in a similar situation
2. provide resources from that combined knowledge: what's working and what's not 
3. form relationships within our community to include professionals ie., mental health, legal, community, and government (free and/or inexpensive)
4. get a real movement going for real change; and
5. bring out the 'inner child' in all of us when we never would have considered taking 'no' for an answer or look away from a friend being bullied.

"MAKE SOME NOISE" cause I'm pretty sure we can do better.

Resource:

Highly recommended and living testament for 15+ years by this DCP family:  Developing Capable People for Educators and Parents: Classes may be offered at University of Winnipeg, or check online or at your library for more info.

 

It's about having the courage to pursue truth



During the Great Provincial Deficit, a common hero, Marielle Rowan a.k.a. the Cinderella Woman* -- vied for a position among other greats in Canadian history like Viola Desmond**.

July 2008 a Civil Service Commission clerk was terminated from employment as a result of a mental illness break down due to a toxic work environment. Beaten-up and out-of-luck -- seemingly having hit rock bottom;  her career appeared to be finished as an unfair negative employment reference removed all chances to gain new employment.

Rowan was concerned about being able to pay tuition at Linden Christian School which she believed to be essential in raising her two sons. The school provides a pro-active learning environment that complements family values and principles.

Rowan Family Mission Statement 

1. God is #1,
2. Don't do anything you have to lie about,
3. Make faith a priority,
4. No bullying,
5. Watch your language,
6. Respect others,
7. Increase peace,
8. Be positive, true and kind,
9. Be accountable,
10. The things that matter are not even "things' at all.

The only thing that mattered to her--her family--was in danger.

She was forced to go on (un)Employment Insurance and every second cheque went to the school. Although the school would have reduced the tuition under the circumstances, a family decision was made prioritizing and separating 'needs' and 'wants'. The school definitely fell under the "needs" category and reducing funding to essential services did not align with the family's mission statement.

Deep inside, Rowan never relinquished her determination.

Driven by love, honor and an incredible dose of grit, she willed an impossible dream to come true. In a last-chance bid to help her preserve her family, her rights and the Constitution for those who could not speak out for themselves--Rowan never quit.

No one thought she had a shot. However Rowan, fueled by something beyond mere competition, kept winning unbeknownst to her opponents. By letting authorities continually beat on her in repeating rounds, she kept enduring, researching and documenting it all.

Suddenly, the victim became the mythic litigant. Carrying the hopes and dreams of the disenfranchised, the vulnerable, the invisible, on her shoulders, Rowan rocketed through the ranks of government authority, until this underdog chose to do the unthinkable: take on the heavyweight champ of the province, the unstoppable Law Society of Manitoba, renowned for killing many a just cause -- denying access to justice.

It's about having the courage to pursue truth: 
A fact-based story as depicted in the blog, A Bullish Government. Read it.
*Adapted from Sujit R. Varma version of the movie "Cinderella Man " on IMDbPro.]

With God all things are possible.

** Viola Desmond -- Leaving a legacy of inspiration.
Nine years before Rosa Parks' historical stand for civil rights, a quiet Canadian by the name of Viola Desmond made an equally bold stand against discrimination. It took the Canadian and Nova Scotia government 65 years to admit to its egregious mistake and make things right. Rowan is in year 5. She's not #WINNING by government standards but never let it be said  that what she is building--a legacy of inspiration is not worth the struggle.  Click link for story and video: Viola Desmond - The Canadian Encyclopedia.

Manitoba Courts Chief Justice Glenn Joyal Don't Stand for No Bullying

"I am still a member of the Law Society of Manitoba," former white collar criminal prosecutor and defence lawyer, Raymond Flett writes after retirement.  "Becoming a lawyer, at least in Manitoba, is like joining the mafia; you’re in until you’re on the other side of the grass."
 

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:

~can strike out improper documents or paragraph(s) from a claim;
~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. 

BS** politicians passed the bar as barrister and solicitor.

BACKGROUND:
 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 responsibilty

It 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 Castle

Marielle 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.                      

Sophocles, Antigone

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”:

[5] 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). 

An insurer is required by law to defend an insured against any claims filed against it. The Law Society of Manitoba (in meeting its duty as insurer--arms length or not) violated its self-governing mandate to protect the public interest in defending (burying) a serious and valid complaint against one of its own. Can one serve two masters?

**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

Ted E. Bock filed a motion on May 14, 2012 to strike out only the original April 17 claim Rowan vs Rob Olson et al ignoring the amended April 25 claim Rowan vs Thompson Dorfman Sweatman et al (filed and served). As the motion to strike was based on the fact the original claim was said to be lacking (as a good will gesture to clarify any of the shortcomings and confirm points of issue), a re-amended claim was filed on August 9, 2012.  

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.” 

No doubt indeed as the file would have been quite thin given there was no complaint on file, as there was no offer of assistance, or, opportunity to provide a complaint (period). 

February 15, 2013 FAX to Court Att'n C.J. Joyal : 

Stated, "Please clarify that you are not limiting my complaint to that ... I intend to file a complaint."

 

The next communication came on Monday, March 4, 2013. I received a phone call from the Executive Director Judicial Services, Karen Fulham who advised she would be assisting me, and wanted to know what other issues I had—over the phone. 

I have a unique advantage (as former Executive Assistant to two Judicial Services Executive Directors and to Ms Fulham as in-house counsel) of a good understanding of mandated procedure in terms of responding to a complaint, particularly against one of the judiciary.

My question then to Ms Fulham was why had she not responded to my request for help in June 2012 that was sent to both her and the Chief Justice wherein I was frantically asking for help, advising that I was being totally railroaded?  Given no response then was her response (See 911 Complaint June 4, 2012 HELP!!) how could she expect that I would see her offer of assistance now as credible? It became quite apparent early on in the conversation as to what form 'assistance' would take shape.

Bipolar 101: Under what conditions can accelerating be helpful?

When a member blocks you, accelerate to avoid being cut off. 

Mood elevated, grandiose racing thoughts; like being in a room

and not only hearing every conversation in the room

but mentally engaged  in the thought process of each line

 of thought, and racing to keep up with all communication.  

In an elevated state, the drive, the courage, the intensity

 of feeling  is common ...I have learned to view it as a gift

see full posting: A Bi-polar Life 

I threw out one point after another as to blatant disregard of statutes and procedures. Normally when someone is providing assistance, there is some feedback as to whether the issues raised, fall within the scope of what would be accepted. There was no response.  

Once again I could see this to be yet another futile expenditure of my time and resources, without any expectation whatsoever that anything I presented would be heard or acted upon.

Ms Fulham (redundant to say--a member) was clearly not free to provide the level of assistance I know her to be capable of.

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.

I also have the unique experience after going through the members' tribunal complaint process (four years of my life I'll never get back) that when a member with any authority goes 'off the rails' of procedures, such occurrences occur only over the phone--never intended to be documented. 

   

Aug 15, 2013: 

 click on Complaint against Master Berthaudin to Chief Justice Glenn Joyal 

DENIED (Heck! - Not even acknowledged as having been received. See no evil; hear no evil, then there's EVIL!) 

This needs to be documented.

 

Chief Justice Joyal,  

 

I believe it is only due to my dogged determination and power of blogging that we can now be an informed public, and have any hope of a proper investigation of these, and other matters yet to be disclosed. 

Integrity by compulsion is not an acceptable standard of professional conduct.

 

I believe two solemn duties have been breached: 

1. the duty to assiduously obey Manitoba law, and 
2. 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.

These are personal duties entrusted to you to protect public interest that cannot be delegated, deflected, or denied.

These are duties that come with the privilege of being Chief Justice.  

I am not concerned about the members' readiness for change nor am I concerned about your comfort zone. I’m concerned about preserving whatever is left of our Constitution for my sons who are now entering the workforce.

Respectfully yours,

Marielle Rowan