Law Suit against TDS and Robert Olson

 

Once symptoms of a known disability became exacerbated due to a toxic work environment, a government employee (terminated after 3 years of exemplary reviews) followed due process to address her complaints. Marielle, whose disability was known, bears witness to the difficulties, bias, incompetence, perjury and flawed logic of government in the process. On April 17, 2012 a legal proceeding was commenced in the Court of Queen's Bench against the firm of Thompson Dorfman Sweatman and Robert William Olson.

This has evolved into something so much more than from where it all began, just a case of one employee getting a raw deal from the Manitoba Civil Service Commission when it outsourced unfair, uncorroborated and false information to an employment agency. As posted on November 13, 2011 in Law at Lunch -- More Cowbell:

 

From a Government's perspective, particularly at the onset of the complaint, Marielle could not have been viewed as much of a threat. She was out of work. Had no legal representation. And any mental acuity she had at the time of employment with OSD was pretty much fried at the point of termination. And yet Government still called out for "More Cowbell" and rounded up one of Winnipeg's largest firms, Thompson Dorfman Sweatman to join in and clearly made no bones about it.

Why would government direct or allow its lawyers to launch such an aggressive stance without at least one attempt to try to resolve the matter in a conciliatory manner? The plaintiff made several requests to resolve the matter 'peacefully, respectfully and amicably" from the start, but all attempts were ignored.
 

Evidence would show that Olson used hearsay and primarily fabricated evidence to delay, demoralize, annoy, injure, and harass a person known to have a protected disability under the Human Rights Code. Common sense will tell you that these intentional delays work quite well in compounding legal fees and disbursements. 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…
 

One of the objectives in pursuing this civil suit is to shed light on the lavish spending by Government, money taken from public funds: a practice that continually adds to the provincial deficit. It is no secret that private law firms charge hefty fees for its services. Just how much is yet to be known. Manitoba Ombudsman denied a FIPPA request as to what those legal fees and government costs actually were in pursuing this one complaint. See Legal Costs Laughing Matter to Ombudsman.
 

Perhaps one thing that should be learnt from all this is that if there is any outsourcing to be done, with the intention of achieving a fair resolution in a conflict situation, it would make more sense to go with an independent mediator rather than a private lawyer. An independent mediator would be more likely to strive to avoid conflict – rather than create it in order to pad their billable hours. Independent mediators are also more likely to focus on goodwill and respectful treatment of all persons and not discount someone who is seen to be vulnerable and dismissed as collateral damage.
 

I Marielle Rowan, am the creator of this blog and Plaintiff in this civil suit, representing herself; doing up all the pleadings, research, etc. as I have done for the last four years throughout this quasi-complaint process of Consumers Bureau, Manitoba Human Rights Commission, Manitoba Labour Board and Manitoba Ombudsman.
 

The call is out for a GOOD lawyer to take a stand against those lawyers who give the profession of 'lawyer' a bad name. Right now I stand alone but at least I'm standing on principle. I could use some company.
 

Please also see open letter to Premier Selinger below as to what YOU can do.
 

Thank you.

Marielle

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

Dear Reader,

 

Please do your part to remind Mr. Selinger that rights that are 'rights only on paper' are meaningless if they are not accessible to those who suffer from mental / intellectual illness who are denied access to the complaint process due to their disability or do not have the financial means to get legal representation. The original purpose of the tribunals were to provide access to the complaint process for those who were not able to because of their disability or did not have the financial means to hire a lawyer.
 

Imagine having a K-12 school that has built a play structure for the early years but allows the seniors to take it over and push out the little guys. Well, welcome to DISCOUNT JUSTICE (as it is known). As stated by a Winnipeg lawyer (someone on the Board of MHRC), who hissed out--the quasi-judicial system "... is not an investigation process. It's a trial by paper and you BLEW it by not hiring a lawyer."

As stated in the Manitoba Community Living report "When Bad Things Happen" most people found that the complaint process (such as Labour Board or Human Rights Commission) was more difficult than they could have possibly imagined and more damaging than what they had initially suffered as a result of the original complaint. The quasi-boards are NOT serving the purpose (or group) it was meant for. It is actually causing more damage, causing someone to expend all their energy on a mirage. Better that government come straight out and say, "We are NOT at your Service". At least then those most vulnerable to government's bullish ways can maintain some form of self-respect and dignity.
 

 

 

ASK QUESTIONS. GET INFORMED. BE PRO-ACTIVE.

 

 

Greg Selinger’s email address is premier@leg.gov.mb.ca.

 

“To improve is to change; to be perfect is to change often.” Winston S. Churchill (diagnosed bipolar disorder)

"… it is possible to recover from mental illness and overcome it and be successful - because Churchill is an example of someone who was able to do that …Had he been a stable and equable man, he could never have inspired the nation. In 1940, when all the odds were against Britain, a leader of sober judgment might well have concluded that we were finished.”  Anthony Storr, psychiatrist and historian



Monkey with Rules -- Get a Monkey on your Back

The focus will now shift from When Manitoba Justice becomes criminal to documenting the process of bringing forth a complaint against a lawyer(s). As previously discussed in "YES WE CAN" there are rules and consequences for  "lawyers that really go above and beyond sheer impertinence ... A Government cover up could never happen without the collaboration of all parties. It is therefore only fitting that all parties, including lawyers, be held accountable.

 

Thou shalt not be a victim. Thou shalt not be a perpetrator.

Above all, thou shalt not be a bystander.    

- Holocaust Museum, Washington, DC

 

October 2009 Anna Schmidt Beauchamp [as newly appointed Director of Civil Service Commission] signed a Solemn Declaration, prepared by Rob Olson of Thompson Dorfman Sweatman. It was a ten-page Reply to a Request for Review and Reconsideration with no attachments, but with one blatantly obvious screw-up on page 5 para. (x): sticking out as obvious as a "Kick Me I'm Stupid" post-it note, stupidly left in the document by Olson, and he then filed it with the Labour Board without reading it first.. The Registrar Janet Duff gave me a copy, no doubt, without reading it herself. [Another extra-wide sticky note for Duff, please.]

 

Paragraph (x) claimed that the Civil Service Commission always had an external Employee Assistance Program (EAP) provider in place for its employees (who felt confidentiality would be breached--EAP was, in fact, staff of CSC.) Olson provided no documentation to corroborate this alleged fact (as was the case with the majority of the hearsay testimony always gratuitously accepted by the tribunals), no doubt  confident that the matter would never proceed to hearing anyway.

 

I immediately responded that the Reply should not be allowed as Olson was clearly the author of paragraph (x) and undoubtedly the whole document. Furthermore, it should be obvious Beauchamp Schmidt did not read the document before signing it, and therefore could not possibly have knowledge of the facts deposed to which is a criminal offence: punishable under Section 17 of the Act.

 

Government--who only speaks through its lawyer, Olson--dismissed the seriousness of the matter as being just a ‘typo.’ (A whole paragraph?) A seemingly biased Chair of the Labour Board, W.D. Hamilton, accepted the explanation as reasonable but failed to be reasonable with me. Numerous letters went unacknowledged: October 12th, 20th and 28th. A final letter sent on November 4th stated:

"… an offence under The Manitoba Evidence Act should be regarded as an offence against the public…If this is not properly addressed the message the Board is sending out is that we, as a province have set a lower standard for government bodies such as the CSC when it comes to making a false declaration under oath..."

The Board through its Chair, W.K. Hamilton, then decided to abuse his power and authority by retaliating against me by dismissing my Request for Review without hearing. Hamilton then haughtily stated that seeing as the matter is dismissed, he saw no need to respond to any of my four letters. The Labour Board's Decision stated as follows:

Page 5 para. 15 “…the Respondent addressed a typographical error that certain information had inadvertently been left on a document filed as an attachment in its Reply.”

Page 7 para. 17(d) “…As to the Applicant’s request in the letter of October 12, 2009 to the Board [See para. 14, supra] that the Board ought to disregard the Respondent’s Reply, the Board notes that, following an extension of time to the Respondent, the Reply was properly filed in a timely manner by the Respondent in accordance with the Board’s Rules. The Board affirms that the Reply is properly before it." 

If we are to believe that there was no attachment to the Respondent’s Reply then either the Labour Board Chair (Hamilton) screwed up when he stated that the “’typo was in an attachment”; or at the time he dismissed my complaint,  there was a bait-and-switch for the benefit of the Ombudsman's pseudo-investigation, and a revised one was filed in a  cover up--based on the Labour Board Decision, “…following an extension of time…Reply was properly filed…” 

 

Even with all the monkey business going on, Manitoba Ombudsman Irene Hamilton could not see the forest for the trees: it's all relative when dealing with Government's monkey business.

 

*NOTE: The blog, Black Rod, indicated in one of its past postings that a conflict existed due to the fact Ombudsman Irene Hamilton is related to Chair, W.K. (Bill) Hamilton. Accordingly, the complainant felt Irene should have recused herself, but she did not. The Ombudsman's decision was viewed by the complainant as unfair and biased.  I can neither confirm or verify how they are related, or whether it is true. But it would explain a lot. (See Manitoba Ombudsman buries report that Manitoba Labour Board Violated Privacy Laws.)



IT'S NOT THE LAW YOU KNOW, IT'S WHO YOU KNOW



Thompson Dorfman Sweatman (TDS) 0 Degrees of Separation

Manitoba Labour Board Chair: William (Bill) D. Hamilton (TDS Alumni)

Manitoba Labour Board Vice-Chair: Blair Graham Q.C. (TDS Lawyer)

Manitoba Labour Board Vice-Chair:  M. Lynn Harrison (TDS Lawyer) 

MB Justice Attorney General/Minister of Justice: Andrew Swan (TDS Star Alumni)

 

 

 

"At Your Service" is our motto.
Step this way out the EXIT...
I mean, ah Complaint Department.

When MLB dismissed my complaint in its entirety, without hearing, I then filed a formal complaint December 3, 2009 regarding the criminal violation under Manitoba Evidence Act to Deputy Minister Jeffrey Schnoor  As I had previously worked with Schnoor at Justice during 2006-2007, I expected, at the very least, the courtesy of a response. Clearly, my expectations were set too high: having received no response, I escalated the matter on January 25, 2010 to Attorney General Andrew Swan.

 

Only in government can one 'escalate' an issue and in return, get a 'Swan Dive': my complaint was delegated down the food chain to a Manager in Human Resources who responded in part as follows:

 

"Manitoba Justice does not have the authority to review or investigate this matter. The Manitoba Evidence Act provides the statutory foundation for the way information and documentation is to be handled. It does not provide the Deputy Minister or employees of Manitoba Justice with the authority to investigate ...you may want to contact the Manitoba Labour Board for advice... You may also consider consulting a lawyer."    

ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED??!!!

 

 

CSC doggedly responded to a FIPPA request for all information in existence regarding the alleged external EAP [as sworn to in the Reply -para. (x)]

 

Upon order from the MB Ombudsman (after 2nd complaint) CSC, on January, 2011 responded with the only information they had -- an email from the EAP Director dated June 19, 2009 that the program would be implemented that fall. One year after termination from employment which spells out perjury by government and its lawyer, Robert Olson: "Marielle was well aware of an external EAP existed".

 

Everyone has a right to their own opinion, but when government lawyers are paid over $200 an hour to do government's bidding -- there must never be a time when we fail to protest when counsel (with purpose and malice) is wrong with the facts and the law.

REASON III: Why smart people lie

Politics without Principles - Even dead fish can go with the flow.

 

 

Throughout history, government has been the authority and final word on law and order. Decisions from those holding positions of authority were rarely ever challenged. In light of having no other information, the general public merely accepted what it was told.

The ground rules have changed. Anyone who has access to a computer, a phone line, and an Internet connection can have access to knowledge and information. As a result of media, television and technology, we are now an informed public. We are no longer forced into submissive. blind obedience, nor do we have to accept 'because I said so' as an explanation.

 

 

 

The Government institution is no longer held up as some sacred cow. There have been enough chinks in the armour of our judges, lawyers, mayors, and politicians brought to the public's attention to substantiate the need for real transparency and accountability from everyone and by anyone who has reason to question it.

Smart people believe others are too stupid to know any different.

 

Trust me. I know more than you.

MHRC Intake Investigator Pat Daniels in a telephone conversation suggested I should drop my MHRC complaint because the matter was already being investigated by the Government's Respectful Workplace Policy and the "RWP is the same as Human Rights Code."

 

• If you ask an authority to document what they have just said to you, and they display signs of annoyance, or become irritated, or worried and/or appear guilty and refuse to put it in writing; you then need to recap what was said in a letter to them. Be forewarned, they REALLY hate that, and will likely treat you with contempt and disgust. My response to Daniels:

As I understand it, the Respectful Workplace Policy, is just that--'a policy'; a policy implemented as a result of our laws… I do not agree with you that the parties commissioned to hear matters pertaining to policy would, or should be dealing with matters of law pertaining to the Human Rights Code…I would like to confirm (as per our telephone conversation) it is my intention to proceed with the Human Rights complaint.

The ‘nice guy’ who does nothing but keep YOU busy.

The first formal complaint to the Ombudsman was July 15, 2009 and assigned to Investigator Bob Baker who advised me, over the phone that the complaint was not accepted for investigation. When asked for the reasons--in writing--he then did, well, 'sort of'' changed his mind, and then asked for more information. For close to a year, he kept me busy asking for more clarification and more information--well into 2010.

• If you notice that almost a year has gone by and at NO time is your case ever assigned a file number, and then the matter is closed a year later without a formal Ombudsman’s report but rather just an informal letter with nothing more than bland content -- you know you have been taken for a moron. In contrast to the Ombudsman's pseudo-investigation, my own investigation (through access of information in 2011) provided concrete evidence that the allegations against the Government of Manitoba were valid.

• If you are feeling hurt, disappointed, disbelieving, and/or disgusted that your crusader of justice is dropping you like last night's date -- an abrupt sudden dismissal of you and your complaint, more than likely he was never that nice guy but rather just a player: consider yourself 'played'.

 

 Forms, forms and more forms - bureaucratic red tape.

There are many instances that I was asked to re-submit the same form, as was the case with a complaint filed with the Manitoba Ombudsman regarding the Labour Board’s violation of FIPPA laws which I was asked to resubmit on three separate occasions (no doubt to re-start the clock, and not show that the complaint had been initially submitted to Bob Baker in July 2009.) Each time I  would provide copies of the original complaint, always insistent that the date submitted remain as July 2009.

• see Manitoba Ombudsman buries report that Manitoba Labour Board violated Privacy Laws.

Defiant compliance

If the authority goes with the authoritarian position: “I’m in control and you’re not telling me what to do” -- consider yourself to be in a power struggle: fight all instincts to meekly bow down to your self-appointed God or Goddess, and then go over their head to their superior and force them to abide by the rules. Some applies if you are feeling challenged, threatened, defeated--you have likely encountered a wall of defiant compliance.

• Although a complainant may worry that being "too pushy" may harm their position, the reality is, if you are encountering nothing but resistance, chances are your complaint isn't going anywhere anyway. The last thing you should do in the case of stonewalling is nothing.

That had been my mistake (first) with The Labour Board. There was no one assigned, so any attempts to speak to a Board member or Chairperson was stopped dead by its formidable gatekeeper, Registrar Janet Duff. As stated earlier, Labour Board stonewalled for 260 days (median time is 48 days) and when they felt safe enough to do so (assured of no intervention), simply dismissed the complaint. You need to keep 'poking the bear', and in this case that means taking it to a higher authority.

 

Passive Aggressive Behaviour

In response to FIPPA request for information made on MHRC after the dismissal, the Commission eventually released (after the due date) a large bundle of loose paper (nothing stapled and in no particular order). Think of the card game 52 Pick Up with five decks of cards thrown down on the floor. After 14 hours of compiling the documents, first by assessing and separating from the pile my documents, I was then able to determine which were the Government's and which documents were missing (the ones Government did not want me to have.)

 

In the end, through repeated requests more documents were eventually provided but many are still missing. This was brought forward to the Ombudsman's office. Investigator, Kris Ramchandar has yet to complete (or more than likely even start) his investigation from the complaint personally delivered to Manitoba Ombudsman, Irene Hamilton October 2010 and in the presence of Liberal Leader Dr. Jon Gerrard.

• See related posting:  When Manitoba Justice becomes criminal

 

Stonewalling

Initially MHRC said it would allow Government all the time they needed (stating there were no time restrictions) to file its Reply to the complaint I initiated back in June 2008. It is quite likely, that had I not persisted, it would never had happened. In reality, the law only says the employer has an option to reply, there is nothing that states that the Commission needs to wait for a reply to start its investigation. No doubt because I pressured the Commission on this point, voila, the very next day--Dec 10, 2008--Government had allegedly submitted its Reply.

 

The fact that the MHRC refused to provide me with a copy, and gave really feeble and contradicting excuses as to why they would not provide me with a copy (they had no one to make copies was one excuse), led me to believe that there likely was no Reply on file--just said so to stall. I did offer to come to the office just to review the Reply,  to avoid the need for photocopying at that time (and to confirm it actually was there). But MHRC 'flipped out' and told me not to come to their office in a very stern letter stating, "seeing you have to have everything in writing....We will do our best to disclose it (Gov't Reply) as soon as we can, but it is not expected to be before January."

Question: If Government's rule is document, document, document; why is it viewed as rude and disrespectful on my part to request information be in writing?

  

No response?

If you have done everything by the books, and believe you have proven your case fairly and honestly and yet --

• nothing happens
• there is no longer any promise as to when a response can be expected
• there is no longer any communication or response for updates; and
• years have gone by and still NO final response has been provided as that authority is legislated to do...

and you have had no group, or someone of importance advocate on your behalf...

and you are experiencing symptoms of severe, traumatic mental abuse: feeling despair, hopeless, helpless and/or inadequate...

It is obvious that authorities have now grown quite tired of you. Based on Government's expert legal resources it has concluded that no one would even notice, let alone care, if it just told you to "F--K Off already!"

Can Government do this?  "Yes We Can" says Manitoba Government.

 

Formal complaint proceedings are similar to any court proceeding. Each party must comply with specific procedural rules, appear before the investigative authority, and file documents that address legal issues of that court or tribunal. Parties are usually represented by lawyers, however, those most vulnerable usually do not have access to legal representation. I went forward with my complaint on my own trusting that if I follow the rules and the law, a fair investigation would be conducted on the matter. The regulations governing the procedures are government. There are legal ramifications if the rules are not followed. 

 

An inspirational quote from the Movie "Taken":

 

I do not have money. But what I do have is a particular set of skills. Skills that I have acquired over a very long career. Skills that make me a nightmare for people like you.

 

REASON II: Why Smart People Lie

Why would someone so prominent and respected in the community lie and chance a character assassination? 

See no evil. Hear no evil.
But then there's ... EVIL.

The Online Journal of Issues in Nursing article published September 30, 2010 (Andrew Jameton (1984) defined moral distress as “a phenomenon in which one knows the right action to take, but is constrained from taking it.” Moral distress can occur in any situation or workplace environment. It occurs when one is forced to put aside values and principles and carry out an action against their own better judgment.


A certain amount of submission is expected when you work in a hierarchy (government, or otherwise), but there are times when what you are expected to do for the privilege of keeping your job: prostration, literal groveling, sucking up to and kissing body parts crosses over to a "hazing" mentality which is totally unacceptable. We often think of hazing in terms of fraternities and with team sports but I witnessed it first-hand at the Civil Service Commission and in my department, Organization Staff Development (OSD). Hazing was allowed to go on, albeit in somewhat secrecy, despite being totally contrary to the Respectful Workplace Policy. No doubt, it was able to do so, due to the fact it made sure it had no union interference.


Although my clerk position was open to be filled on a permanent basis, I was offered 'terms' at OSD. Three terms in fact, despite the fact that my work was said to be exemplary, and it was stated that I excelled in taking initiative of taking on projects: described as an "asset to the organization."


I made several requests under the Access of Information Act for copies of Staffing Requests and CSC postings for various 'term' and suspiciously filled positions. CSC ignored, refused and even pleaded ignorance: what I don't recall. Eventually, CSC just "denied" access to the majority of the requests, alleging that the document requested either "does not exist or cannot be located."

 

It is in the lack of documentation that supports my case that claims were being made to the tribunals without any documents in evidence to corroborate said testimony. The lack of documentation is also in violation of 'abuse of term positions' as regulated by Government's own Principles and Policies for Human Resource Management Staffing 2.1.5.

See other related postings:

Reason I: Why Smart People Lie - Smart people follow their anger into some pretty stupid places.

Mean Girls vs Civil Subservient - termination meeting held on June 4th following the RWP Investigation meeting. Beauchamp Schmidt was told to proceed to accommodation but instead carried out an attack in violation of HRC. 

RWP(2) - Beauchamp Schmidt provided an unfair uncorroborated employment reference to employment agency.

In the same (behind-closed-door) fashion, Anna Beauchamp Schmidt was given a one-year term position in an Acting Status as Chief Operating Officer of OSD even though there was no reason not to fill the position as a permanent position. There was no incumbent holding that position, as the former COO had left government altogether to work in the private sector.

 

It should be evident that the Civil Service Commission filled its positions by hand-picking the woman they wanted: rather than posting it in accordance with policy, and in compliance with employment equity. CSC would place the chosen woman, first, in a temporary position then later, after the woman had proved her solidarity, would then unceremoniously transition the 'Acting'  into a permanent status, without competition, and without any questions asked. The end result was then a perfectly homogeneous group of scary think-like mid-life white women.

 

Anna Beauchamp Schmidt’s one-year initiation came to a successful conclusion after only four months coinciding with the successful execution of the dirty deed in terminating my employment as ordered by the Commissioner.

 

This then leads us to Reason II: Why Smart People Lie. Smart people will stupidly follow leaders to gain a position, promotion or for continued employment.

 

Remember The Patriot (the movie)? 

"I'm a parent I haven't got the luxury of principles."

 

It is easy to understand how a vulnerable person (like newly divorced Beauchamp Schmidt) can become morally upended when she finds herself in a most precarious situation: paying maintenance to an ex husband, as well as primary caregiver to two teenaged daughters--one of which was going through more than just the usual teen angst.

 

Unlike the former COO, "Anna" (as referred to in this section only) brown-bagged it for lunch. The small dinette table provided an opportunity get close to Anna. I found Anna to be "real," kind and approachable. There were many discussions regarding the difficulties she faced, and given I also had teens and had experienced a year-long separation in my marriage, a friendship developed. 

 

When Anna invited me for a meeting to discuss ways to improve processes at OSD, I was hopeful of positive change for the future. [Anna's notes, later accessed through FIPPA, stated she found something ‘off’ with me at this point and that I had “approached the meeting different that anyone else." The following day Anna sent me an email and asked for medical emergency phone numbers. I accepted that she was likely concerned because, no doubt, I must have seemed a little accelerated. I also gathered that my supervisor had likely informed her about my mental illness history: I responded to the email request by providing four emergency numbers.

 

I viewed the request for medical information as a positive sign of Anna's caring. There were a number of other telltale signs of care and concern from Anna. Most compelling was when Anna responded to my lengthy manic email that I had sent from home at the start of her 3.5 weeks stress leave. It was indicated in the email that the harassment I endured at the hands of my supervisor had grown to a crisis level. Accordingly, I advised that I would be filing a formal RWP complaint. Anna had immediately responded with what seemed to be genuine concern by email, in addition to emailing me a  personal Get Well card and then sent a follow up email giving her assurance that the “matter outlined in this email will be appropriately addressed... your return to health is of primary importance.”

 

Upon returning to work, the Anna I knew was transformed into a cold and distant COO. There were no meetings. No girl chit chat about family and life. No casual inquiries about my health or whether any accommodation was needed. There was no re-entry to work process: I felt 'frozen out'.

 

In addition to gaining a permanent status as Chief Operating Officer, Beauchamp Schmidt was also made a Director at CSC. No doubt she had favourably ingratiated herself within the cluster of the CSC Executive Society and the full physical transformation into a 'mean girl' occurred.

 

Although it is not likely that it was Beauchamp Schmidt's intent from the onset to cause me harm--that had collaterally occurred. The change in Anna's attitude and the actions taken against me could only have occurred on order by her supervisor, Civil Service Commissioner Debra Woodgate: alternatively, if the Commissioner had no clue what was going on--she should have. There is no other plausible explanation as to why someone with Beauchamp Schmidt's solid background in education: Director of Manitoba Adult Learning & Literacy, (Supporting Lifelong Learning program), transitioning into a completely new position as COO at OSD in an "Acting Status" would, on her own, launch an attack on a person known to have a mood disorder: disability was known, procedures and policy were not followed, and conflicting testimony supports the claim of perjury.

 

Beauchamp Schmidt's testimony in the MHRC investigation as to why support was not given, "I am not a psychiatrist." And that was good enough for MHRC Investigator Nancy Flintoft. Her assessment report stated: "employers are not psychiatrists" which defies all sane and reasonable logic of what accommodation is all about.

 

When you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance baffle 'em with bullshit.

What is even more incredible is that someone would commit an illegal act seemingly without conscience by lying under oath in violation of the Manitoba Evidence Act to tribunals: Labour Board, Human Rights Commission and their oversight body--Provincial Ombudsman. No one would dare do that unless that person had some assurances (friends in high places) that would guarantee to them that there would be no retaliation.

 

Heck, Government will likely even create a new job for you. Right Irene? (see Ombudsman moves to Government Job Winnipeg Free Press January 5, 2012)

 

Sources:

 

Why Smart People Defend Bad Ideas http://www.scottberkun.com/essays/40-why-smart-people-defend-bad-ideas/

Hazing is the US English term used to describe various ritual and other activities involving harassment, abuse or humiliation used as a way of initiating a person into a group. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazing

 

 

Epstein, E.G., Delgado, S., (Sept 30, 2010) "Understanding and Addressing Moral Distress" OJIN: The Online Journal of Issues in Nursing Vol. 15, No. 3, Manuscript 1.

 

The Movie Mean Girls (2004) Synopsis (self-explanatory)

The Patriot - a widowed father of seven children, does what he can to avoid fighting in the Revolutionary War knowing the implications surrounding it.

ABCs of MOBBING brought 2U by CSC, OSD, TBS, MLB, MHRC, OMB, JUS

The Civil Service Commission failed to address a request for
an appeal dated June 25, 2008 (included below). There was
 never any request for details--irrefutable evidence that the matter had not been accepted or processed in accordance with the law.

 

 

CSC's failure to act on the appeal was submitted as evidence but the Manitoba Labour Board refused to admit that CSC was anything BUT accommodating to a person with a known disability. Even the Manitoba Ombudsman failed to consider that CSC's inaction was done with intent and malice against a vulnerable employee. 

See also related posting: A Biased MLB Decision Contrary to Evidence

What is the difference between a conflict and mobbing (bullying)?

One difference is that a conflict occurs between equally strong people. In a mobbing/bullying situation, the hostility is directed by one or more strong people towards a weaker individual who has become the underdog. This person is further weakened because of the immense pressure caused by the frequency and the duration of the attacks.           

  FAIR   (Federal Accountability Initiative for Reform)

The Ombudsman failed to acknowledge my numerous complaints of government bodies' acts of impropriety, perjury, violations of statutes, laws, and Human Rights Code, even though indisputable evidence of wrongdoing was provided, preferring to adopt a "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" stance--stepping aside to not interfere with the mobbing in progress.

The Ombudsman's office  adopted the Government's preferred practice of 'no reply is a reply' all parties knowing full well that approach would result in added stress and anxiety to me and putting my overall (mental) health in jeopardy.

The appeal letter in its entirety is as follows:

June 25, 2008

TO: Sylvie Lavergne

Director, Human Resources Programs

Civil Service Commission

935-155 Carlton Street

Winnipeg MB R3C 3H8

 

Dear Ms. Lavergne,

 

RE: Appeal 

I wish to appeal to the CSC for a review as follows:

1. for a review of the events and actions directed at, or against me upon my return to work from 3 1/2 weeks of stress leave, specifically from May 5, 2008 up to and including June 5, 2008; 


2. for a review of the procedures taken with regard to the investigative process of my complaint against  (supervisor) Jackie Desrochers dated April 30, 2008 which I feel did not adhere to the procedures as outlined for a Level 4 complaint in relation to the Respectful Workplace Policy;


3. for a review with regards to Anna Schmidt Beauchamp’s involvement in the investigative process dealing with my complaint against Jackie Desrochers. At the June 2, 2008 meeting where I was asked to provide my account of the situation, Ginette (Ginette Grimard, Human Resource Consultant, MB Finance, Admin & Financial Division assigned as investigator of RWP complaint) told me that Anna was there merely to observe. However, at this meeting:
   
   a. Anna did involve herself by interrupting me in mid-sentence at various times providing her information as she said, “in an attempt to clarify”. I felt she should not have been there to discount and dismiss what I felt was pertinent and needed to be considered; and
   
   b. At one point when I presented an email (sent May 30, 2008 4:20 pm and received by me the morning of June 2, 2008) to the investigator for her review, I began to explain that I believed Jackie was continuing her harassment through her replacement, Charlotte (Elson never assumed role as supervisor of Marie) A/Manager of Training Operations. Jackie had been in the OSD office regularly training Charlotte and it was during this period that I received this unfair and inappropriate email. I could only surmise that Jackie was behind it.


4. for a review of the actions taken by Anna Schmidt Beauchamp at a meeting resulting from the email as discussed in para. 3(b) held June 4, 2008, 1:00 p.m. together with Charlotte Elson. I believe that the manner in which senior management conducted this meeting and the things said directly to me are contrary to the Respectful Workplace Policy and in addition, in violation of The Human Rights Code;


5. for a review of the actions of Ginette Ricard (sic Grimard) for a breach in confidentiality. On June 11th I advised Ginette that I would be providing more information for review and that “I wish to keep my intent to provide further information to you confidential until my term with OSD expires on June 30th.” 

On June 20th, Ginette Ricard (sic Grimard) replied to my email saying “I have not discussed your intent to provide further information with anybody other than Anna” and that “Anna and I (Ginette) are working together on this complaint”.

I believe that Anna’s involvement jeopardizes the objectivity and confidentiality of the investigation. I should have been advised that Anna was taking an active role in the investigation from the beginning of the investigation.

Specific details pertaining to this matter will be made available upon request should you decide to investigate this matter further.

Yours truly,
Marielle Rowan

 

cc Anna Schmidt Beauchamp (CSC Director / OSD COO)

 

cc The Manitoba Human Rights Commission

DISCREPANCIES

Meeting notes of Grimard from the June 2, 2008 RWP (accessed through FIPPA in 2011) albeit choppy, still clearly reflect that I was having a difficult time coping. There was no back to work re-entry on return from 3 1/2 weeks of stress leave (CSC testified that the stress leave was likely due to the extra work, and yet, did nothing about it); there had been no new hires and I was still expected to do my full duties as well as those of three vacant positions.

Flintoft in her MHRC Assessment Report stated there was "no evidence of harassment" on record which is false. CSC was aware that there had been multiple complaints of harassment against Desrochers - now totalling a minimum of 4 complaints. The names of the other complainants, as subordinates under Desrochers, were provided to MHRC as witnesses but were not interviewed. Other documents on record included but not limited to:

1. Level 4 RWP Complaint dated April 30, 2008 (done at home while on 3.5 weeks stress leave); 
2. Level 4 RWP Complaint dated July 15 2008 forming part of April 30th complaint.
3. Grimard's handwritten notes of June 2, 2008 interview with me (see excerpts below**)  It is very suspicious that no transcribed report was ever provided of Marie's testimony yet notes were transcribed into a proper report for all other witnesses that Grimard interviewed.
4. Memorandum of the June 4, 2008 termination meeting (See Mean Girls vs. Civil Subservient employee) created by my computer at home on July 2, 2008. The June 4th termination meeting was conducted by Beauchamp Schmidt in retaliation to my manic email sent from home wherein I signed off in exasperation as Marielle, "Civil Subservient"  (See Human Rights Complaint in full). 

 Excerpts of Grimard's RWP notes from the June 2, 2008 investigative meeting accessed in 2011 are as follows:  

**  “...unhealthy & hostile work enviro” Person A (Supervisor) “totally stripped me of that…my work is inferior…not quite doing as well as you think – 2 mos prob…did not recognize pos things…poorly act with trainers/participants, thrown out there to be mean…no written doc…unhealthy work envir …“no attempt to make sure I was doing well…she called mtgs and mtgs, tone was condescending…she was picking at every little thing…need affirmation…micro manage… 

“ind is strong minded – has something to say; needed to do this to make sense of it… affected my health – have med cond 20 yrs –made healthy life choices –nothing needed – accomd – only need – resp WP… toxic/unfair enviro …provide report stay up to do 11 p.m. to show I did not do what they said I did.

Dr. said was harassment; got other bad health chest x-rays can get hospitalized; he suggested take time off…. doesn't make sense… always pick/pick … unrealistic expect – workload/dist. of work, knowledge expected, not in pos desc. Supervisor said it was my fault, was no need for ‘blame”… not once said good job organizing… no apology – always a smile – not really meant is sarcastic” OPCP mtg unfairly & vehemently … you did on purpose to be away… she was being hostile… can you not take proper notes … didn’t say let’s talk about … humiliated… got yelling email…

Expectation – work is recognized – should I need a ref – is fair eval - not about what perceived – did I meet it or excel. Don’t harbour resentment to Supervisor - don’t see as a (ends at the bottom of page in an incomplete thought -- red bold emphasis added)

In addition to the peculiarity of these notes not being properly transcribed into a report, it would appear that pages are missing from the handwritten notes as required under access for information. The notes provided do not include any reference from Grimard to Beauchamp Schmidt directing her to proceed with duty to accommodation as testified by Grimard.  As the matter had occurred two years prior, Grimard stated that she had to refer to her notes in order to recall the details of the RWP complaint.  The MHRC assessment includes that Grimard had directed the COO to proceed to duty. It would then appear that any likely ensuing pages were surreptitiously removed.

Beauchamp Schmidt had testified under the Labour Relations Act that I was "screaming and yelling" throughout the June 2nd, 2008 RWP meeting. Grimard refuted this allegation to MHRC stating that if I had acted that way she would have written that up in a report. She knew that was not true. Grimard's notes also reveal that I was, in fact, extremely reasonable in not "harbouring resentment to Supervisor". This should have alerted investigative authorities to a conflict of interest in the COO responding on the Government's behalf with hearsay statements. Any proper investigative authority would have known uncorroborated evidence is not admissible or relevant.

The issue of the workplace reorganization had never been discussed with any staff, to my knowledge. It was never even mentioned in the RWP investigation - or in its annual reports for that matter. Although I challenged this alleged workplace reorganization as challenged the Labour Board from the beginning (2008) as a total fabrication by TDS lawyer, Rob Olson, my testimony fell on deaf ears and I was denied an opportunity to cross this lie at a hearing. 

According to a FIPPA request in 2011, CSC acknowledged in a letter that "there was no workplace reorganization of any kind at any time" no doubt, without fear that there would be any retaliation for lying --especially given both Labour Relations and Human Rights complaint had been dismissed without hearing.

 

How biased is the Manitoba Human Rights Commission?

The MHRC states it does not take on  an investigation until a determination has been made that a protected disability, as designated by the Human Rights Code, has been confirmed. This initial step, in my case, took two years and even then, did so in a biased manner.

Flintoft knowingly outsourced false and slanderous information to my doctor (February 2010), most likely in an attempt to garner sympathy for the poor government (paraphrased)

" ...for having to deal with this screaming and yelling employee; referring to herself totally unprovoked, as a 'civil subservient'. How very difficult indeed, given the poor poor government was experiencing so much difficulties due to a huge 'workplace re-organization' and had absolutely NO knowledge at any time that Marielle suffered from a disability and couldn't have possibly have known...'

Given the nature and quality of the questions asked, and seeing as Flintoff was now in a hurry to get rid of this complaint offered to my doctor, "you could give me the report over the phone."  Unbelievable! It is not surprising that MHRC was not eager to release the letter to the doctor (through FIPPA) as it clearly shows MHRC partnering in the smear campaign, but I eventually did manage to get it after multiple attempts which letter provides indisputable evidence that MHRC acted in an unprofessional, unethical and unlawful manner, in violation of my rights. (The Manitoba Ombudsman -- consistent as always -- ignored the violation.)

 

How Bad (or Stupid) Can a MHRC Assessment Report Get?

Ultimately, MHRC's assessment report failed to include that government's testimony to one--Labour Board--directly contradicted what was testified to another--Human Rights Commission. Perjury clearly having no effect on one's credibility when done by  government.

 

This speaks to the integrity of the Human Rights Commission: it knowingly ignored the fact that false information was provided to a tribunal, that it was criminal to do so, and then MHRC purposely and willingly sabotaged the process in order to delegate the matter out of this province's jurisdiction all the way out to the Yukon. Then the Yukon rubber stamped it over the August long weekend (See Electronic Signatures Rubber Stamping --Good Grief!) -- truly beyond belief!! Or, more sadly, is it? 

Flintoft knowingly involved herself and the MHRC (likely acted on the direction of the Executive Director) to conspire with the government in a smear campaign against me.

 

How Does MB Government deal with charges against heads of institutions?

When the head of Canada's premier human rights adjudication agency is accused of "creating a workplace that had deteriorated to the point of toxicity" Government took quick affirmative action as reported in the Ottawa Citizen "Harassment complaints upheld against human rights tribunal head" as follows:

"...Harassment complaints are typically directed to the heads of ministries or agencies, but given the unusual — likely unique — situation of the head of the tribunal being the subject of the complaint, an independent outsider had to be found to adjudicate..."

Why wasn't this process followed by the Government of Manitoba regarding complaints, first against CSC Commissioner and its Director, and then the heads of MLB and MHRC, and subsequently with the Ombudsman's Office? It really is sad when leaders get caught up in a series of events where one inappropriate and criminal act leads to another, and another, in a domino effect. Even sadder is that at any time the Ombudsman could have stopped the madness by doing her job and advising all parties to accept the consequences of his or her prior mistakes; to learn from it and then move on and be better for it. "A public office is a public trust." When someone breaks that trust, there needs to be accountability. 

"Character is much easier kept than recovered." Thomas Paine

MB Government did not take the higher road and has responded by covering for its heads of institutions in ways far greater than the original wrongdoing. The cost in defending its actions (legal costs denied by Ombudsman), the amount of work and stress by all parties including private counsel Thompson Dorfman Sweatman (see Law at Lunch - More Cowbell) in fabricating and maintaining a lie, is rarely ever easier than accepting the consequences of the truth. The Provincial Government has had a tremendously ridiculous time in keeping its story straight, to the point of embarrassment. Government could have nipped it in the bud at the source where it all began at the Civil Service Commission (CSC) with an apology.

"... If this was a lower level manager, the head of the institution would have the authority to take specific measures: That person could be sent for sensitivity training or moved to a different position or fired. But how do you appropriately deal with harassment charges against heads of institutions?”

Bravo for the Conservative Federal Government, perhaps after learning from past mistakes of trying to cover up for bad behaviour. (See Whistleblower Rulings Hurt Canada's Reputation.)

 

In answer to the question: How do you appropriately deal with harassment charges against heads of institutions? In the end it would seem that the Manitoba Government is rewarding Ombudsman Irene Hamilton by creating a new position for her. Her newly created high-paying position is to focus on helping Manitoba Justice speed up its court processes. Quite ironic based on her past record of procrastination in violation of legislated time limits to address issues brought before her. Complaints before the Ombudsman are to be responded to in writing, and when accepted for investigation, addressed within 90 days.

 

Complaints against the MHRC--much more serious than what occurred at the Federal level (referred to herein)--was filed on  and accepted for investigation on October 2010,. No response (by phone or in writing) has been the response from the Ombudsman and in violation of her mandate--there has been no final report or recommendation. See related posting: MB Ombudsman buries report...)

In fact, many matters filed with the Ombudsman's office have been stonewalled indefinitely without a letter of explanation. Much of what goes on with politics occurs behind the scenes. What we get to see is only the affirmation of what has occurred in secret: this we get delivered to us in a prepackaged media release.

 

There ought to be a note of caution with these articles i.e.

"Has been in contact with Government and may not contain adequate amounts of truth: accountability and transparency".

 

As long as Manitobans do not speak out, what we are essentially saying is that we have different standards set for our leaders in government, or worst yet, no expectations. Given the lack of voter turnout at the last provincial election, it would seem that through nature or nurture, we have become quite an apathetic group.

When Manitoba Justice becomes criminal

Once symptoms of a known disability became exacerbated due to a toxic work environment, a government employee (terminated June 2008 after five years of exemplary reviews) followed due process to address her complaints of unfair labour practices. ‘Marielle’ bears witness to the difficulties, bias, incompetence, perjury and flawed logic of government that was allowed to go unchecked to the point of a criminal act. Government employees conduct all preliminary investigations so when Labour Board admin staff stonewalled the process 260 days (average is 48 days) it is clear that the practice of government investigating government is terribly flawed, unlawful and even unconstitutional.

Other Related Posts: 

• Manitoba Ombudsman buries report that Manitoba Labour Board violated Privacy Laws.
• MHRC complaint takes 2 years to start the investigation then ends up being dismissed by the Yukon over the August long weekend in Electronic signatures, rubber stamping - "Good Grief"  
• Abuse of government resources Law at Lunch -- More Cowbell
• Did  not accommodate a person based on religious beliefs and mental disability; both of which are categories protected under the Code in MB Gov't OK with flipping ‘the Bird’ -- flips off Jesus

Even throughout the excessive delays, I was never given a contact name as to who would be conducting the Manitoba Labour Board investigation; given no reason for the excessive delays; there was no phone call or meeting to clarify or confirm information; and written requests for a response went unanswered for months, or never answered at all. The Board defended itself by stating that it did not talk to a single person in Government or union either. One would then question what was the Board doing all that time?

Given the complexities and ever-changing misinformation by Government, as opposed to my evidence that has never changed, standard procedure would then be to proceed to hearing by an independent panel, to not only ensure that there is a fair and impartial hearing, but it also needs to be perceived as such. Instead, in a show of power, the Board dismissed the complaint in a closed door decision and further elevated the situation to a ‘quasi-justice turned criminal act’ as follows:

Subsequent to the Board refusing to provide written reasons for dismissal, I filed for an Appeal (Request for Review and Reconsideration) citing numerous grounds why the matter ought to have, and should still proceed to hearing. In a response refuting the Appeal prepared by government's (paid-for-hire) counsel, Thompson Dorfman Sweatman, lawyer Rob Olson mistakenly left a notation for the deponent, the Chief Operating Officer Beauchamp Schmidt. in the document.  Besides the obvious implications of a deliberate attempt to introduce fabricated evidence contrary to that previously deposed to, the fact that the notation was left in the document is proof that the COO did not read the document, or alternatively did not read it in its entirety before swearing to it. The notation (and highlighted note to COO) is as follows:

 

(x) ... CSC employees have the option to request that they be referred to an external EAP provider, which option was always in place during the Applicant's employment with the CSC/OSD.

[ON: Anna Schmidt-Beauchamp to confirm this fact]
 

 

For the COO to sign a sworn declaration to be true without reading it is not only in violation of Manitoba Evidence Act but shows misplaced trust in counsel who likely had been given so much creative freedom in fabricating the defence that the COO likely viewed proofing said document for accuracy superfluous especially given the complexity and confusion in keeping the different versions of the mounds of disinformation straight.  
 

Through information accessed in 2011, an email dated June 19, 2009 from the Director of the (CSC) Employee Assistance Program states that the external EAP, falsely claimed to be in existence in 2008, did not become available until the following year--contrary to that claimed by the COO. This further speaks to the COO’s lack of credibility, and therefore, any and all uncorroborated evidence previously accepted as evidence is then highly suspect. Furthermore, as the COO was a named Respondent in this and other complaints including The Human Rights Code, under MEA the COO should have been regarded as ‘hostile’ and this witness should have been made available at a hearing for cross-examination.

The Board refused to respond to several ongoing letters I sent requesting it take appropriate action regarding the MEA violation. Instead the Board dismissed me, revoked my Charter Rights and abruptly rejected my right to Appeal. The Board’s decision (in a 'if you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance -- baffle 'em with BS move) shifted the focus from a criminal act to that of a “typo” (234 characters would never constitute a 'typo' to a reasonable person) and falsely stated the typo was in an attachment despite the fact that the nine-page Reply contained NO attachments.  

Although obstruction to justice and perjury is a criminal violation, the issue of the Government as Respondent, and as investigative tribunal collaborating together in this criminal act has yet to be addressed.

After the Manitoba Ombudsman failed to act, repeated requests in writing and by phone were then made to Manitoba Justice Minister Andrew Swan's office (through the DM Jeffrey Schnoor) who did not respond but deferred the matter out to Human Resource Services. A manager of HR then attempted to do a side-step of the allegation on misconduct and abuse of power and authority by both the senior government officers at CSC as well at the Labour Board stating the matter "was under the purview of the Manitoba Labour Board" and therefore I should take it up with them. 

 

I had to clarify the law with HR that it was not a Labour Board complaint under the Labour Relations Act but a complaint under MEA and therefore a criminal matter (summary conviction at the very least) and of public interest and ought to be treated like any crime.  Government is not (supposed to be) above the law.

The HR Manager then responded,

"The Manitoba Evidence Act provides the statutory foundation for the way information and documentation is to be handled.  It does not provide the Deputy Minister or employees of Manitoba Justice with the authority to investigate. …Investigation of an allegation of a crime would be in the purview of the relevant policing authority.  You may also consider consulting a lawyer.” 

 

How can this be interpreted as justice when a victim of a crime is not advised as to who is proper policing authority, information only a lawyer (capped at--if by the book--at $250 an hour) could give? How is this justice?

What is most frightening is that the provincial government would view brute force as an effective, and even desired means of achieving its goals of effectively dealing with issues involving mental illness, rather than mediating and showing compassion and empathy.

 

Government is well aware those most vulnerable afflicted with mental illness could never afford a lawyer or gain access to the courts. Without transparency and accountability from Government, without consequence to those that have crossed the line, one can only expect that this sort of thing will lead to an increased reliance on brute force as an instrument that works;  ‘#WINNING’  at all costs when there is no intervention or fear of retaliation, in order to preserve and promote the shameless glorification of government prowess.

EDITORIAL: Uncivil Behaviour and Civil Liberties

By the time you finish reading the following sentence you will already have pre-determined in your mind what happened and who you will favour, based on who you view as having the higher ‘social ranking’.

A woman with a mental disability filed a complaint against her employer Government of Manitoba with the Labour Board and MHRC, and claims she has been treated unfairly and denied due process of her complaints.

CAUTION:

May appear further from the truth than the way things actually are.

The family watched a documentary of a City of Victoria police officer using excessive force. The 57-second video clip showed a man being kneed and kicked while being handcuffed by another officer. The armchair quarterbacks in my house were totally horrified and stated, “Well, that’s way worse than what happened to you, Mom! I mean, they got it on video and everything.”

The discussion followed as to whether a person getting kicked in the back by a likely  'jacked up' street cop caught up in the moment was worse than someone who was psychologically and mentally abused in a calculated and ongoing basis by various government bodies and authorities over a number of years. 

At first glance, yes the guy was kicked in the back, which is instinctively wrong on many levels. However, on the plus side, the guy was not charged with any crime--nor did the police try to plant evidence on him so they could save face--to support the police acting with brutal force.

The guy has likely gone on with his life. He likely didn't have to explain over and over again to friends, family and acquaintances, "honestly, I did nothing wrong!!" Any physical bruises have likely long since healed, and as to any mental scarring – well that does heal quickly when you are given a tremendous show of support for your pain and suffering by the community overall. He also likely didn't lose his job over it. There is no black smudge on his permanent employment record.

Other positive action in favour of this 'guy': There actually was an investigation of the officer's conduct. The decision to not lay charges on the officer was made in light of the fact that witnesses (not fellow police officers) did support the police's claim that the man did resist efforts to be handcuffed.  There was an acknowledgement from the Criminal Justice Branch that the amount of force used by the officer did call “for close scrutiny" so there is admission of questionable conduct which would likely be reviewed. 

 

In my case I was repeatedly, mentally, 'kicked like a dog' over a number of years by a front line supervisor and then the attacks continued on with high level government authorities entrusted to protect those most vulnerable.  At no time, had I ever been advised that my record of employment was anything but exemplary; and never given an opportunity to correct the misinformation from a smear campaign carried out after I was terminated from employment; there was never a proper (or any) investigation, or hearing, and the online reference of personal information in violation of personal information by the Manitoba Labour Board, as reported in the Ombudsman report, after having it online for 1.5 years, only to then be re-posted by the Labour Board on a different webpage on its website.

This evidence certainly is stronger than a 57-second clip. There is solid evidence spanning over three years of well documented wrongdoing and criminal behaviour. In Canada (where Manitoba is a province of) perjury and obstruction to justice are criminal offences and Government authorities are not (supposed to be) above the law. 

Society does tend to judge without having all the facts based on pre-determined beliefs. Our sense of fair play is based on social norms much like that of the game, Rock-Paper-Scissors. In a conflict situation between a police officer versus a punker with spiked pink hair wearing metal and leather; or a police officer vs. an Aboriginal homeless man, society tends to instinctively side with the police officer. But when society sees a regular-Joe type guy being kicked by a police officer on the news, in the papers and on YouTube, the world reacts on a Paper Rock Scissors mentality and the 'regular guy' is favoured. 

Whereas my story has yet to raise an eyebrow, compassion or show of any support for those most vulnerable to Manitoba Government's undue hardship as evidenced by a petition of 21 signatures (as of the date of posting to over 180,000 YouTube viewers of the guy being kicked): deemed a 'person of inconvenience' by mental association. The invisible-ness of it all even further reinforced when my story is passed over for stories such as   "lies, damned lies and ..."  in Winnipeg Free Press   Driving them crazy  about EGAD!  "...parking spots" A conspiracy going on at the Winnipeg International Airport on the basis that someone had to spend 10 minutes before actually finding a parking spot.

Scissors beats paper – paper beats rock – Rock beats scissors - and Government beats on those most vulnerable with its bullish ways. Is MB Government #WINNING?!!