Showing posts with label Aikins Law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Aikins Law. Show all posts

Thursday, March 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, 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:

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.
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.
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: 

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

Sunday, October 14, 2012

Age of Information...Yet Wisdom in Short Supply

 

In protest to Manitoba Government's lack of support for persons with mental illness, I have decided to stop taking my medication for bipolar disorder which to date has enabled me to maintain and sustain recovery (give or take a few slips) for the past 21 years.

 

Imagine if government blamed you for having cancer?


Growing up on a farm outside of Winnipeg, life was simple: If you wanted cookies – you baked them--you planted grain and had a garden for vegetables. On Sundays everyone went to church and prayed. When there was a threat of tornado or flood–we prayed. When we were grateful for what we had... we prayed. Even when things happened that couldn't be fixed, prayers helped because those things were just part of God's plan--as much comfort as that can bring when you see your dad take the rifle behind the barn with your sick pet--but for the most part, there were civilized codes of conduct--rules.


I used to believe that bullies and thugs were not of my world. However, the sad reality is--it is the bullies and thugs that rule the world. Through no fault of my own, I feel I am trapped in some biblical crisis of God vs. the devil. Power is distributed according to wealth, not wisdom or compassion. Manitoba Justice has weaponized language and its bullet is its slanted "decisions", aimed to objectify, de-personalize and de-humanize those who can't fight back.


It is no accident that Justice did not factor mental illness in its call for action from the beginning going back all the way to 2008. It obviously did not want the rules for civilized and decent behaviour to get in the way. Although disability was always known and confirmed, there is only a nuance as to a 'claim' of mental illness as mentioned in Master Berthaudin's decision.
 
The moral test of Government is how that Government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped. - Hubert H. Humphrey
 
As indicated in the Canadian Lawyers Insurance Association "Safe and Effective Practice" (aka "How to Screw the Public out of their Rights: Law 101) the following excerpt is quite telling:
 
"The lawyer who has been negligent (emphasis added) 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..."
 
To that end The Law Society hired Aikins MacAulay Thorvaldson's, Ted E. Bock and Thomas K. Reimer. And then there are the defendants themselves, the law firm of Thompson Dorfman Sweatman who as recently as September 5, 2012 continued to play hard ball... having no interest to discuss, or inquire as to what a 'mutually satisfactory / reasonable resolution' was in my mind.
 

 
 
You will find no mention in the Master's decision, Rowan v. Thompson Dorfman Sweatman that on March 15, 2012 paramedics were called and hospital attention was required. That it was stated in the Claim that I found 'dealing with the defendants "too much" and wanted to die.
 
Common sense would tell you that a pendulum swings just as far to the left, as it does to the right. And what goes down must come UP. Considering all the odds were against me, a person of sober judgment would have concluded that going up against the likes of the powers that be, would be insane but instead, much like Daniel in the Lion's Den I threw all caution to the wind and put my faith in God.
Too bad one has to die before someone cares.
 
 
How low can lawyers get? Along with a sympathy card from a senior lawyer at Aikins Law on the occasion of my father's death from cancer, on that same day I received from Aikins Law, a Bill of Costs claiming I owed them $3500. It is hard to tell whether the cost of the sympathy card and postage was included in the Bill of Costs but I would certainly not put that past them. In any event $3500 to not be allowed a trial is ludicrous!!
 
 
Costs are not meant to be punitive, nor should it be used as a deterrent from keeping people like me, with a valid complaint from coming forward. And then, for whatever trumped up reason, particularly in my case where I am unrepresented and vulnerable due to a mental disability, gets 'out-played' by having a provincial civil servant strike out a claim that could and would make the Province come across as looking bullish.
 
 

Justice was not done --- nor was it seen to be done.

 
 

Wednesday, August 22, 2012

Upscale Violence: King of the Castle


Sine die is legal-speak for the court really doesn't want to deal with an issue. The reality is a sine die adjournment is worse than a dismissal because there is no finality. A dismissal would at least provide the reasons of a decision. Here the issue (and you) are basically  ignored — and it is well --  insulting.



Oppression in an otherwise free world.

I had asked for an injunction by way of motion to be heard at a hearing in front of a judge. I live in very real fear that my life, security and freedom rights are threatened. Professional and society's dissent of the difficulties I face as a woman with an "invisible disability" is made even worse when my request for an injunction is unacknowledged, no referrals are made,  and assistance is denied. It's literally every man for himself.

When we think of a vulnerable woman, we don't think of an educated woman with a strong employment history, working husband, private Christian schooling for her children, cottage and two cars.  Women like me are never seen as victims, or having a 'real disability'.

When we try to broach the subject of violence within the legal system, well that's a very controversial subject. It's unlikely anyone would break the sacred code of silence and expose abuse of someone vulnerable at the hands of one, or a group that belongs to the most educated and upper-income segments of our privileged society. That would threaten the status quo and certainly the comfort zone many within the legal society live in.

Where does that leave women like me? Sadly, more than likely in a worse position than I was in at the start. My experience has been that authorities have actually contributed to the problem by dealing this blow, and I am bracing myself for what is likely yet to come.

Injunction orders are there for protection, and there is generally a call to action. In taking my motion (May 25th) and playing a game of  'which shell is your motion in now -- in four more motions?) and then sine die-ing it away until August 20th (nope-wrong shell again) is indicative that the court takes the issue of a woman's abuse lightly. When we allow this to happen, we minimize the potential for dangerous consequences. Someone lost their head here, and I am not to blame for this one.

I realize I am at a distinct disadvantage in Rowan v Thompson Dorfman Sweatman to these white collar privileged abusers who are skilled at playing the game. It is because of who they are that their conduct perceived as questionable is 'kept under wraps'  -- worse yet, is that it is seemingly done under the very noses (system) that is supposed to be entrusted to protect the rights of all people, including those most vulnerable. Without any intervention, the defendants, together with Aikins Law (retained by the Law Society) will continue to impose their power, and use any and all (shielded) weapons for the purpose of intimidation, domination and control.

Where does that leave me?  Well, we have not come a long way baby.

It seems that this is similar to the posting about the border patrol officer who was there to ensure traffickers weren't pirating DVDs (see earlier posting, Prostitution of Law for Sake of Harmony ). Nepali girls were, and likely still are being kidnapped and imprisoned for the brothels in Kolkata, but this was of no interest to the officer.

 The officer stated, It’s unfortunate,” he agreed, “These girls are sacrificed so that we can have harmony in society."*

*from Nicholas D. Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn novel, Half the Sky:  Turning Oppression into Opportunity for Women Worldwide

Monday, May 21, 2012

Prostitution of the Law for the Sake of Harmony

 

A Motion will be heard Friday, May 25th, 2012 at 10:00 at the Law Courts Building asking for an opportunity to allow my proceeding to be heard in a court room against the defendants, Thompson Dorfman Sweatman and Robert William Olson. To do so, I have to ask that the defendants' motion be struck out.

 
Aikins MacAulay Thorvaldson as counsel for the defendants, TDS and Olson, as provided by the Law Society of Manitoba, made a motion to be heard before a Court of Queen's Bench Master (an administrative-type civil servant of the Province of Manitoba), to kill my claim, apparently for no other reason than a clichéd 'who you gonna believe'-- a nobody from nowhere, with an intellectual disability- - or the combined legal power of two of the city's largest, oldest, and most powerful law firms with the added backing of The Law Society of Manitoba?
 
Of course they believed that I would be sacrificed in order that there could be harmony in the legal and government community -- so much so that Aikins Law didn't even bother to file an Affidavit as to the reasons my claim should be struck out. They likely thought all they needed to do was show up.
 

We like to think that we have made great strides in how we treat women: as Canadians we like to think we have distanced ourselves from the atrocities that happen a world away, but have we really?
 
Excerpt from the National Best Seller, Half the Sky – Turning Oppression into Opportunity for Women Worldwide by Nicholas D. Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn:
 
A reporter was at a border crossing in which thousands of Nepali girls are trafficked into India on their way to the brothels of Kolkata. While at the border post, he began talking with one Indian officer who said he had been dispatched by the intelligence bureau to monitor the bureau to keep an eye on DVDs that were being pirated.
“What about trafficked girls?” the reporter asked. “Are you keeping an eye out for them? There must be a lot.”
"Oh, a lot. But we don’t worry about them. There’s nothing you can do about them.”
"Well, you could arrest the traffickers. Isn’t trafficking girls as important as pirating DVDs?”
The intelligence officer laughed and threw up his hands. “Prostitution is inevitable.” He chucked. “There has always been prostitution in every country. And what’s a young man going to do from the time when he turns eighteen until when he gets married at thirty?”
"Well, is the best solution really to kidnap Nepali girls and imprison them in Indian brothels?”
The officer shrugged, unperturbed. “It’s unfortunate,” he agreed, “These girls are sacrificed so that we can have harmony in society. So that good girls can be safe.”
"But many of the Nepali girls being trafficked are good girls, too.”
"Oh yes, but those are peasant girls. They can’t even read. They’re from the countryside. The good Indian middle-class girls are safe.”

 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