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.)

 

 

 

Distance negates responsibility.

MANITOBA INJUSTICE:  Democracy is eroding before our eyes as government authorities forego wisdom and compassion.

When government uses tactics that are threatening and frightening we refer to this as a totalitarian government. When our Province carries out these tactics behind closed doors, and honest public discussion and awareness is suppressed, we are only kidding ourselves that we live in a democracy -- a free world.

 In the past four years while trying to maintain and sustain recovery of a lifelong mental illness, I witnessed unfairness, hypocrisy, ignorance and a lack of humanity at the hands of government and its lawyers. Surprisingly, even after all I have been through, I am not angry or cynical.  As a person with bipolar I constantly search out meaning in all of life's experiences. Like the story of the optimistic child in a room full of manure, despite all odds I too can't help but believe that under all that shit there’s gotta be a pony in there somewhere.  I came to blogging as a form of therapy. I believe in the power of word. Writing has given me back my sense of identity, dignity, pride, humanity and even humour.

It is said distance negates responsibility. It would appear that the Court of Queen’s Bench has successfully completed more passes of my (April 17, 2012) action than our own Winnipeg Blue Bombers, ending my play with a dishonourable sack by the Province.

One would have to take a look at the Province's playbook to fully appreciate how both federally appointed judges and the province carried out such a masterfully-executed play. The hearing at the Law Courts on August 20, 2012 was attended by Aikins MacAulay Thorvaldson (the firm claims to be) counsel for defendants Thompson Dorfman Sweatman but the reality is that Aikins Law is retained by the Law Society of Manitoba. 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.

Two lawyers attended from Aikins, Ted E. Bock and Thomas K. Reimer. (See explanation on billing at posting Law at Lunch - More Cowbell). The hearing was presided over by newly- appointed master formerly of Filmore and Riley (which together with TDS and Aikins completes the trilogy of the largest and most powerful firms in Winnipeg).

Master Berthaudin (as would be the case with any provincially paid civil servant) should have recused himself given it was the Province that hired the defendants in the first instance that led to this action. A successful civil suit would most certainly reflect badly on the Province - his employer. A motion was raised to address the conflict but not acknowledged or addressed.

How does the courts distance itself from conflict?

At the first hearing on May 25, 2012 Justice Greenberg was asked to hear the motion regarding said conflict and for an injunction for the defence to 'play by the rules'.


QB Rules require only that notice of a hearing be given. The defendants had indeed been duly served and there were given the required time to file any argument to oppose the motion, but did not do so. Neither defendants, or counsel attended. But then attendance is not mandatory if you are not contesting the motion.


Despite evidence of foul play (abuse of power and influence over an unrepresented and vulnerable litigant), her Ladyship refused to hear the matter without first checking with the defendants and adjourned the motion.

On June 1, 2012 Justice Perlmutter presided at the adjournment but did not carry out his sworn duties. On the basis that years prior he had worked at TDS and 'knew the guys', and made the (unprecedented) decision to not hear the matter. His Lordship's actions were in conflict with the purpose of the Order requested and his actions had severe impact--to me.

Justice McKelvey presided on June 11, 2012 at the third adjournment, or more accurately advised she would not be hearing any issues that day. She adjourned the motion out of QB Court to a Master, a provincially paid civil servant--which takes the court procedures full circle: I did not believe a master should be deciding on such issues and Her Ladyship should have (would have) known an injunction can only be granted by a Judge. (See related posting Upscale Violence King of the Castle)




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

It is only on rare and extreme cases that a claim gets struck out and only then, is done if it passes the stringent test of 'plain and obvious' that there is no lawful cause. The master took an unprecedented 25 days to apply the 'test'. Even then his decision contained only bland statements that failed to recognize anything relevant I presented in support of the action. Causes that had been accepted in previous decisions.

MasterB's decision states he relied only on 'oral' testimony. A little hard to swallow, as he told me at the hearing I would not have to go over the issues. He claimed he had read all the documents including my Re-Amended Claim.



With the exception of my 18 year-old son, I stood alone on principle at this hearing. Advocacy groups advised me throughout that they were unwilling to chance a reduction in funding from the Province should they come forward and advocate on my behalf.

Upon entering the court room my son removed his cap, a polite gesture generally reserved for his grandmother. When I introduced him to both Aikins’ lawyers he stood up to shake their hands and exchanged social niceties, as is his nature. I believe my son exhibited instinctively the most effective way to promote social and economic justice. It starts with respect -- despite differences and despite conflict of the situation.

How is it possible for lawyers to smile, shake hands, connect, inquire about plans for summer and college etc., and then erase from all consciousness, any awareness that their inhumane acts would have hurtful consequences to actual people and their families? The problem is growing to epidemic proportions.

 

Diagnosing the Failure of Professionalism among Lawyers and Finding a Cure. It is an imperfect justice system that allows, and perhaps even encourages lawyers to manipulate the system. Yet, because prosecutors, judges and many politicians are also lawyers, they say that lawyers benefit from the very system they create..."

http://www.lsuc.on.ca/media/tenth_colloquium_furlong.pdf

 

 

Support is needed for those who can't stand up for their rights. There is NO advocacy for people with mental illness, particularly if their complaint is against the Province or its government services. Not until we allow and encourage civil behaviour of politicians and provincial gatekeepers, will we be able to ensure civil rights for everyone.

More than ever Manitobans are in need of a new perspective. Time for action.

 

• Time to rethink mental illness and connect in a more humane way.
• Time to break through a new path. If not you, than who?

More than at any time in history mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness and the other to total extinction. Let us pray we will have the wisdom to choose correctly.

Woody Allen

 

Sources:

Community Living - Manitoba: When Bad Things Happen. Manitoba Women with Intellectual Disabilities... a study

 

"Plain and Obvious" it's about Discrimination

An "Invisible Disability" with a "HEARING" Problem
Hearing scheduled May 25th; adjourned to June 1st adjourned again
Judge Wanted who has no connections with TDS or Aikins Law.

The Simple Facts of the Case: 

TDS prepared one Reply for Government's signature as filed with Labour Board  (before it knew about the Human Rights Complaint).

Olson (TDS lawyer) then prepared a drastically different version which he himself signed. It should be 'plain and obvious' why a lawyer is not supposed to be signing as witness.

Frustrated with the total departure from the truth, Marielle then commenced filing (many) requests under the information Act with Government.  It is this new evidence which is not in dispute, along with the previous pleadings (which is not in dispute that TDS drew up) would support a claim that there was false, misleading information, including perjury and/or at the very least made no attempt to actually do a proper investigation as to what the actual facts were. So this is not a "he said - she said."

Disability only plays a part in relation to how much harm did the lying and stonewalling (etc.) cause? Was discrimination a factor - because they thought they could?

For educational purposes, I have included the claim... 

Rowan vs Thompson Dorfman Sweatman and Olson

excerpts of AMENDED STATEMENT OF CLAIM 
(Re-Amended Statement of Claim Aug 15, 2012 posted see tabs Parts 1-4 above)

Claims payment of lost wages; Damages for mental and emotional distress; Damages for quality of life for her and family

Punitive and Aggravated Damages: punitive damages and aggravated damages as compensation due to the egregious nature of this complaint and injury to feelings, dignity, pride, and self-respect resulting from the manner in which the injury was inflicted i.e. intentional infliction of mental suffering despite knowledge and reasonable foreseeability that such conduct would acutely heighten the plaintiff's sensitivity or susceptibility to mania. Plus Punitive damages for egregious conduct that must be deterred. ...

Background

The plaintiff is diagnosed as bipolar, a chronic lifelong disease. Being employed is a very important part of her life. To a great extent her self-worth and mental well being is wrapped up in her work.

January 2005 the plaintiff accepted concurrent positions with MB Justice, first at Judicial Services as an Executive Assistant, and at QB Chambers as a Judicial Assistant working five days a week. As a result of having flex hours in place, the plaintiff had a perfect work attendance.

With the stability and security of upheld policies and procedures under doctor supervision, her medication was reduced to one drug, and a smaller dosage thus minimizing the effects of tremors and feeling out of sorts. She was regarded by supervisors, judiciary, and senior management as an exemplary employee. Even after termination her three supervisors continued to provide very positive feedback in employment references which led to her present employment.

The plaintiff states that during her employment at OSD special ops of Gov't of MB (March 2007 to June 30, 2008) her health suffered and believed this to be due to the department's failure to follow set procedures, different than what she had experienced at MB Justice.

The claim is to see if the defendant Olson personally, or as a lawyer carrying on business under the firm name of Thompson Dorfman Sweatman LLB...

i)    acted in an unprofessional manner contrary to law;
i)    acted in an oppressive manner;
ii)   acted unreasonably, or unjust;
iii)  failed to act in a conciliatory manner;
iv)  the strategy undertaken was improper or discriminatory to a person with a disability;
v)   fabricated a defence based wholly or partly on a mistake of the facts;
vi)  acted in a manner contrary to government's stated objectives in accommodating and employing persons with disabilities;
vii)  was morally wrong.

Employment was terminated at a time when she was experiencing and exhibiting signs of distress and advised top management that she perceived the situation had risen to a "crisis situation" to her employer a few weeks prior to termination.

General Damages

The claim states that these remaining unresolved issues continue to exacerbate her medical condition resulting in constant cycling of mania and depression affecting her relationship with her husband, her children and community. The hardship of the complaint process far greater than any setbacks experienced due to her disability or the termination of employment itself. The strain has turned her into somewhat of a recluse. Every waking moment is consumed with research, writing letters and recently blogging in pursuit of accountability and justice. She has lived these past four years of her life a shadow of her former self, alienated from her extended family, friends and community; involvement which she used to partake. Her concentration, memory, and ability to make decisions have also been adversely affected.

The Defendants are experts in the area of labour law and would know the rules for employers regarding accommodation.

The plaintiff claims the defendants acted in an unprofessional manner and showed a lack of integrity in pursuing an unlawful defence. As a deterrent to others in the profession, the defendants must assume responsibility for the plaintiffs deteriorated mental state and overall health condition. ...

Overview:

The plaintiff claims the defendants:

• pursued and fabricated a defence where there was no basis for a defence by using tactics that are unbecoming a member of the law profession and failed to advise its client properly, or at all of its obligations and fiduciary duty to act in a conciliatory manner towards a person with a disability.
• knowingly offered false evidence and maintained false pretences to mislead investigations. The defendants suborned perjury, persuaded witnesses to avoid appearing and/or obstructed access to witnesses. In so doing, they not only were in violation of its duty to the quasi courts, but also did harm to the provincial government and its stakeholders in that it put its client in breach of the representations and warranties of the Government of Manitoba  made publicly regarding the quality of service, duty; and care for its employees particularly those most vulnerable.
• have compromised set proresstonal standards in order to please certain civil servants holding positions of significant authority. However as the standards are set out in A Lawyer's Duty to the Court "a lawyer may not be able to act in a way that serves the client's best interests, if doing so would put the administration of justice and the community's confidence in the profession at risk."
• that documented evidence will support a claim of contempt criminal involving both, a public and private injury.3. The plaintiff claims that the breach and conduct has risen to the level of fraud or a serious and intentional ethical breach, and is therefore believed to be outside the scope of the immunity of soliCitor privilege. In that event, the defendants are liable.

The first affront to the plaintiff was when she discovered that a negative employment reference had been outsourced to an employment agency. Although the plaintiff claims that initially the  Consumer's Bureau supported her complaint, once the full weight of the defendants came down on the Bureau, they were no longer able to assist and then advised to retain legal counsel.

Despite the anxiety and difficulty the plaintiff was experiencing, she made every effort to maintain control and present herself in a professional manner. Numerous attempts for a peaceful resolution yielded no response. Letter dated November 24, 2008 to the MLB from the plaintiff stated in part:

The information is provided in good faith and with respect for the Government of Manitoba, as it is my genuine desire to resolve the conflictpeacefully. Mediation cannot begin until a meaningful exchange of perceptions is conducted. I believe the Respondents are in agreement with me that there can only be a win/win resolution and that can only be done in a climate of mutual support and respect.

The defendants failed to certify that the deponent's knowledge, information, and belief were formed after reasonable inquiry, and well grounded in fact. The defendants failed to go over the document it created with the deponent. This is most obvious in the LRA Reply subpara. (x).

The defendants have a duty to ensure sworn documents are not attested to lightly. Undertaken only after reasonable investigation or inquiry has been made that the information submitted is well grounded in fact, compliance with existing laws and undertaken in good faith. The plaintiff claims the defendants induced a witness to swear to an affidavit that contained a different version of events from the facts at issue and of record. Information that has since been refuted.

In 256/09/LRA Request for Review and Reconsideration page 5 para. 7 subpara. (x) a whole paragraph was added by the defendants without due diligence and without corroboration. The document contained an errant notation left behind for the deponent. In response, the defendants offered more lies to cover up the mistake by claiming it was just a ‘typo’. A reasonable person would never accept a whole paragraph as a typo, but the Board did.

The rules of professional conduct states that a lawyer must not compromise professional standards in order to please a client. A lawyer must at all times act in a manner consistent with the goals of the judicial system. To do otherwise would constitute misconduct.

Civil Legal Services (CSL) is the Government of Manitoba’s in-house legal counsel. According to its annual reports the CSL has a high performance rating in the areas of providing prompt, efficient resolution of all legal matters, and without excessive delays. Pursuant to a request under FIPPA it was disclosed that a file pertaining to the plaintiff existed.

On the balance of probabilities, it is likely that the defendants were retained after Civil Legal Services refused to take the lead. In light of the fact that the plaintiff was unrepresented and in a fragile state, resources would likely have been better allocated enlisting the aid of professionals in the area of intellectual disabilities (rather than a “Spin Doctor,”) in line with government’s stated policies in accommodating persons with disabilities in the workplace.

The defendants fabricated evidence of a ‘workplace reorganization’ and then gave false testimony advancing this evidence ten (10) times in the LRA complaint and then twelve (12) more times in the HRC complaint. There was no probable cause or any credible basis to support this claim and believe this formed part of its unfair practices with the intent to delay, demoralize, annoy, injure, or harass the plaintiff; all the while padding the defendants’ fees; negatively impacting the plaintiff and adding to the already overburdened provincial deficit. Information accessed in 2011 stated there was no workplace reorganization at any time. Accordingly, the plaintiff claims that the wrongful acts of the defendants justify an award of aggravated, punitive and exemplary damages.

The Plaintiff further claims that the Defendants encouraged civil servants to engage in the conduct outlined herein and/or allowed such conduct and/or failed to properly give instruction, supervision or control to ensure that such conduct was avoided.

The defendants utilized its full influence to manipulate, control and stonewall the various processes, all of which were intended to wear down the Plaintiff into a position of vulnerability for manipulative purposes. As a result the plaintiff suffered financial setbacks, disadvantaged due to the protracted time and energy expended in pursuing justice.

The plaintiff has endured emotional distress and social embarrassment due to being unemployable due to her pre-manic state and due to the barriers to gain new employment and due to the manner it was done. Duty to accommodate is intended to give peace of mind to protected groups in employment and in the delivery of government services. The plaintiff claims that the defendants failed to treat her fairly, reasonably and humanely at a time when she was most vulnerable and would have known the plaintiff (or even a person without a disability) to suffer the toll of extreme trauma and stress.

The plaintiff believes the defendants took advantage of their status in this city as pillars of the community; members of the finest clubs and golf courses, sure to always be seen at all the finest fundraising events. By all accounts and popular standards the defendants are leaders in this community intimately connected to politics, government, boards and tribunals.

The plaintiff was reasonably entitled to expect the defendants would not abuse the power imbalance. Where is it written that outside the walls of Camelot lives the lives of lesser men (or women)?  To investigative authorities the defendants responded in a dismissive high-handed, contumacious and arrogant fashion regarding this in a  much ado about nothing fashion, without any corroborated evidence to support the belittling.

The plaintiff claims that the defendants have failed to be candid, reasonable, honest, and forthright in its dealings with the plaintiff or with any investigative authority, purposely providing false misinformation in a misleading and insensitive manner. When caught in a lie, the defendants would revert to an more lies to cover up. However, the explanations failed to hold water given procedures are in place which were knowingly not followed and circumvented.

This mental warfare to date continues to cause the plaintiff profound mental and emotional distress aggravating the plaintiff’s trauma and stress beyond belief. Such treatment is in direct violation of her equality and legal rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom. The plaintiff claims damages for the defendants’ negligent infliction of mental and emotional distress.

Despite the fact that this proceeding will no doubt add additional stress, even though no lawyer (including Legal Aid) will represent her, she feels even more compelled to deal with these outstanding issues in a court of law. The plaintiff has accumulated thousands of hours of time in research and documenting the process over the years. Hours and hours of sifting through and dissecting all the details. Details that she reviews over and over in her mind. She has extensive knowledge of   the facts and how all the pieces fit (or in the case of the defendants) don’t fit, with the hope that her ordeal will pave the way for those most vulnerable dealing with the same fate.