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.)

 

 

 

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

Peace and Goodwill to all with Mental Illness



I recently watched the true story  of a Nobel Peace Prize recipient portrayed in the movie,  A Beautiful Mind, where the main character suffering from schizophrenia sees, and talks to people who are not there.  At one point the man (a doctor and professor) stops one of his students and (in regards to a second person he believes to be standing beside him) asks the student, “can you see this person too” to check that this new person is actually real before engaging in conversation in self-management of his illness.  
 

I often do similar tests of  'is this for real' when dealing with the labyrinth of political bureaucracy I find myself trapped in. It is important that my blog is not viewed as ramblings by some delusional person who has (as stated in the last posting) admitted to having gone off her prescribed meds, so I try my best to provide well-articulated arguments.
 

I am proud to boast close to 5000 views on my blog  A Bullish Government.  I often wonder if this truly reflects support or just curiosity, or are the numbers reflecting the number of times The Law Society monitors my blog in the hopes  I slip up, and they can either sue me for slander, or institutionalize me to undergo an involuntary psychiatric evaluation.  I hear Dr. Stanley Yaren is an expert on bipolar, regularly used by the courts [which brings to mind the show CSI Las Vegas that always seems to have the same detective on all the cases in Vegas.  But I digress...]  
 

I am not a doctor, but I am a person who has successfully lived for decades with bipolar disorder and have personal knowledge,  as well as professional experience working with organizations in the community dealing with intellectual disabilities. I am also a certified leader with Developing Capable People (Canada) a program that provides a profound understanding of why today's youth behave the way they do.
 

If we are to believe Winnipeg Free Press article, " Student found not criminally responsible for killing her grandmother" as true and factual (and that would be a big IF) I would say that  I find Dr. Yaren’s insight of bipolar disorder to be beyond offensive to the point of slanderous to people like me living with mental illness—not to mention completely inaccurate.  In any event, thank you Winnipeg Free Press for further adding to the lack of insight regarding mental health issues and adding to the ever-growing disinformation that is out there doing further harm to the most vulnerable in our society.  
 

It would seem that Dr. Yaren, in essence, has given the killer a hall pass from having to deal with the full consequences of her actions after only 15 months of committing murder. Madam Justice Joan McKelvey of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench accepted bipolar disorder as a criminal defence stating, "Clearly, at the time (of the killing) she  suffered a break from reality that has now been addressed through treatment" based on Dr. Yaren's expert medical opinion.
 

Manitoba Courts made quite an impact (on me anyway) in the way it handled this 2011 murder case whereby a 19 year old girl pushed her 84 year-old Muslim grandmother to the ground of their bathroom floor (where they lived together - three generations). The murder victim died from injuries as a result of the adult teen repeatedly stomping the head and upper body of this poor granny.
 

Let's be real, here --setting aside the 'killing part', could you not see a situation like this unfold in any household, on any given night -- where a confrontation with a teen explodes to the point there is a serious break from reality? I find the lack of insight and transparency of the facts in this case (not to mention baseless defence) more grotesque than any and all recent news involving mental illness to date.  Reason being -- What’s worse?  

1. Doing wrong, or
2. Knowing that you are doing wrong -- have full power and authority to do something about it -- and yet still choose to do nothing?

Bipolar Disorder has been found to NOT be accepted as a criminal defence. As quoted in Bipolar is not linked to Violent Crimes
 

In the wake of Edward Renehan's attempted use of his bipolar disorder as a defense for stealing multiple items at multiple times from the collections of the Theodore Roosevelt Association, the New York Sun's Jay Akasie examines the issues surrounding this particular legal strategy. He quotes defense attorney Murray Richman: "Using bipolar disorder as a defense in a case is just not viable. It's absolutely not a defense — it's an excuse. It has nothing to do with a person's ability to know right from wrong."

Other lawyers told Akasie that "bipolar disorder can have so-called jury appeal if the sufferer has a long and well-documented history of aberrant behavior coupled with requests for institutional help," and that documented cases of bipolar disorder can be used to achieve more favorable plea deals. Most often, however, because bipolar disorder primarily "affects mood rather than cognition," it is not considered a valid insanity defense.

First of all, would you not say that the majority of criminals in the justice system today must have some form of mental illness to commit the crime they were found guilty of in the first place? Why the special provision for this young beauty that had no history of mental illness prior to the murder; bearing in mind violence is not characteristic of bipolar disorder (except of course when the inflictions are turned inwards).


The behaviour described in earlier news reports does not even remotely resemble that as being characteristic of the disorder. What is found, however, is that when a person (with bipolar disorder) breaks the law, the disorder is only a mitigating factor; the motivating cause resulting in the crime is generally linked to illegal drugs and/or alcohol.
 

Regardless -- plain and simple:  whenever laws are broken, there must always be accountability and transparency to ensure that consequences openly and properly reflect that of all parties including public interest.
 

It would seem that the pendulum has swung too far away from timeless values and principles. Our first response when dealing with youth seems to be to cover up for their misdeeds, thinking we are somehow helping them. And, if as a parent, you happen to be affluent, and have access to, and can do the appropriate hobnobbing to enlist all resources at your disposal -- mental illness can be created to get your kid (in this case, an adult) off the hook.

 

 

I don't think it is a coincidence that Dr. Yaren did not diagnose schizophrenia (synonymous with the infamous Vince Li Greyhound Bus beheading) in this young girl's case as the "S-word" conjures up all kinds of bad images and public outrage. This would then tie in to my earlier posting,  Uncivil Behaviour and Civil Liberties where I described how society pre-determines who we favour in any conflict situation based on who has the higher 'social ranking'. 
 

Coming back full circle to my case, Rowan v Thompson Dorfman Sweatman,  I broke no laws and followed all processes to legally address what I believed to be wrongdoings against me. Professional and society's dissent of the difficulties I face as a woman with an "invisible disability" is evident given the manner I was treated regarding my request for an injunction order, in an attempt to stop the ongoing abuses of power, as duly documented and filed with the Court.
 

Requests for help at all levels went unacknowledged. Power handed off like schoolyard bullies keeping things from my grasp amongst three judges (under Chief Justice Joyal's supervision) ending with (yes...) Justice Joan McKelvey. Disability, in this case, did not pass GO with her and the play was taken out of jurisdiction for a Master to 'bench' it. Clearly a violation of my equality rights under Section 15 that is supposed to guarantee equal benefit and protection of the law to groups known to be historically discriminated against. 

"When we allow this to happen, we minimize the potential for dangerous consequences. Someone lost their head here, and Marielle isn't the one to blame for this one."

It is not an accident that Manitoba Justice did not factor mental illness when it was called to act on my behalf. This was an attack, not on some old person but friends with benefits. When I tried to broach the subject of violence within the legal system, I found no one willing to break the sacred code of silence to 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.  

 

See related postings:

 Distance Negates Responsibility

 Upscale Violence: King of the Castle
 

A CALL TO ACTION IS NEEDED 

• We need to re-think mental illness and disarm the real problem at its root.

• Time to hold government ACCOUNTABLE to practice what it preaches.

• Time to STOP the harm that is knowingly being inflicted on those most vulnerable.

• Time to GIVE HELP when asked and be careful of what works -- like revolving doors at health care institutions that result in long-term pain.

• Time to STOP with the EXCUSES.

• TIME TO TAKE A STAND AND SPEAK OUT. 

• TIME TO CONTACT YOUR MLA TODAY!!

 

DEC 21, 2012 IS NOT THE LAST DAY OF THE WORLD

BUT IT CAN BE THE START OF A WHOLE NEW WORLD

TO SOMEONE WHO HAS NEVER FELT OF THIS WORLD

Marielle "Marie" Rowan

To those suffering from mental illness ... always remember
 Don't give up because you are loved. (YouTube link - Josh Grobin)

"When you are at the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."

Thomas Jefferson