Age of Information...Yet Wisdom in Short Supply

 

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

 

Imagine if government blamed you for having cancer?

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


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


It is no accident that Justice did not factor mental illness in its call for action from the beginning going back all the way to 2008. It obviously did not want the rules for civilized and decent behaviour to get in the way. Although disability was always known and confirmed, there is only a nuance as to a 'claim' of mental illness as mentioned in Master Berthaudin's decision.

 

The moral test of Government is how that Government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped. - Hubert H. Humphrey

 

As indicated in the Canadian Lawyers Insurance Association "Safe and Effective Practice" (aka "How to Screw the Public out of their Rights: Law 101) the following excerpt is quite telling:

 

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

 

To that end The Law Society hired Aikins MacAulay Thorvaldson's, Ted E. Bock and Thomas K. Reimer. And then there are the defendants themselves, the law firm of Thompson Dorfman Sweatman who as recently as September 5, 2012 continued to play hard ball... having no interest to discuss, or inquire as to what a 'mutually satisfactory / reasonable resolution' was in my mind.

 



 

 

You will find no mention in the Master's decision, Rowan v. Thompson Dorfman Sweatman that on March 15, 2012 paramedics were called and hospital attention was required. That it was stated in the Claim that I found 'dealing with the defendants "too much" and wanted to die.

 

Common sense would tell you that a pendulum swings just as far to the left, as it does to the right. And what goes down must come UP. Considering all the odds were against me, a person of sober judgment would have concluded that going up against the likes of the powers that be, would be insane but instead, much like Daniel in the Lion's Den I threw all caution to the wind and put my faith in God.

Too bad one has to die before someone cares.

 

 

How low can lawyers get? Along with a sympathy card from a senior lawyer at Aikins Law on the occasion of my father's death from cancer, on that same day I received from Aikins Law, a Bill of Costs claiming I owed them $3500. It is hard to tell whether the cost of the sympathy card and postage was included in the Bill of Costs but I would certainly not put that past them. In any event $3500 to not be allowed a trial is ludicrous!!

 

 

Costs are not meant to be punitive, nor should it be used as a deterrent from keeping people like me, with a valid complaint from coming forward. And then, for whatever trumped up reason, particularly in my case where I am unrepresented and vulnerable due to a mental disability, gets 'out-played' by having a provincial civil servant strike out a claim that could and would make the Province come across as looking bullish.

 

 

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

 

 

Distance negates responsibility.

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

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

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

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

One would have to take a look at the Province's playbook to fully appreciate how both federally appointed judges and the province carried out such a masterfully-executed play. The hearing at the Law Courts on August 20, 2012 was attended by Aikins MacAulay Thorvaldson (the firm claims to be) counsel for defendants Thompson Dorfman Sweatman but the reality is that Aikins Law is retained by the Law Society of Manitoba. It is understandable the Law Society doesn't want that on record given its position as insurer defending against insurance claims and then on its other face claims to act on behalf of the public's interest. I give you "Oxymoron" the Trojan horse placed to win.

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

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

How does the courts distance itself from conflict?

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


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


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

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

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




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

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

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



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

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

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

 

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

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

 

 

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

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

 

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

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

Woody Allen

 

Sources:

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

 

Upscale Violence: King of the Castle

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

Oppression in an otherwise free world.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Plain and Obvious" it's about Discrimination

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

The Simple Facts of the Case: 

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

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

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

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

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

Rowan vs Thompson Dorfman Sweatman and Olson

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

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

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

Background

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

General Damages

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

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

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

Overview:

The plaintiff claims the defendants:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prostitution of the Law for the Sake of Harmony

 

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

 

Aikins MacAulay Thorvaldson as counsel for the defendants, TDS and Olson, as provided by the Law Society of Manitoba, made a motion to be heard before a Court of Queen's Bench Master (an administrative-type civil servant of the Province of Manitoba), to kill my claim, apparently for no other reason than a clichéd 'who you gonna believe'-- a nobody from nowhere, with an intellectual disability- - or the combined legal power of two of the city's largest, oldest, and most powerful law firms with the added backing of The Law Society of Manitoba?

 

Of course they believed that I would be sacrificed in order that there could be harmony in the legal and government community -- so much so that Aikins Law didn't even bother to file an Affidavit as to the reasons my claim should be struck out. They likely thought all they needed to do was show up.
 

We like to think that we have made great strides in how we treat women: as Canadians we like to think we have distanced ourselves from the atrocities that happen a world away, but have we really?

 

Excerpt from the National Best Seller, Half the Sky – Turning Oppression into Opportunity for Women Worldwide by Nicholas D. Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn:

 

A reporter was at a border crossing in which thousands of Nepali girls are trafficked into India on their way to the brothels of Kolkata. While at the border post, he began talking with one Indian officer who said he had been dispatched by the intelligence bureau to monitor the bureau to keep an eye on DVDs that were being pirated.

“What about trafficked girls?” the reporter asked. “Are you keeping an eye out for them? There must be a lot.”

"Oh, a lot. But we don’t worry about them. There’s nothing you can do about them.”

"Well, you could arrest the traffickers. Isn’t trafficking girls as important as pirating DVDs?”

The intelligence officer laughed and threw up his hands. “Prostitution is inevitable.” He chucked. “There has always been prostitution in every country. And what’s a young man going to do from the time when he turns eighteen until when he gets married at thirty?”

"Well, is the best solution really to kidnap Nepali girls and imprison them in Indian brothels?”

The officer shrugged, unperturbed. “It’s unfortunate,” he agreed, “These girls are sacrificed so that we can have harmony in society. So that good girls can be safe.”

"But many of the Nepali girls being trafficked are good girls, too.”

"Oh yes, but those are peasant girls. They can’t even read. They’re from the countryside. The good Indian middle-class girls are safe.”

 The best index to a person's character is  

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

- Abigail Van Buren

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.

When the only Defence left is Trickery & Intimidation

 

A Human Rights Complaint alleging violations of discrimination was first initiated June 2008 based on racial (Métis), religious (Christian), disability (bipolar disorder), and refusal of access to the Civil Service Commission's Employee Assistance Program. The Government's Reply was allegedly filed December 8, 2008.

After several attempts to obtain a copy of the December 2008 Reply went ignored, I was then forced to escalate my concerns to MHRC Executive Director Dianna Scarth. Letter dated February 19, 2009 stated that  my right to obtain a copy of the Government's Reply was being ignored: contrary to law, and against rules and procedures of the Manitoba Human Rights Commission.

There are two ways of exerting one's strength: one is pushing down, the other is pulling up. -

Booker T. Washington

 

Scarth never responded to my letter, but would seem that she directed MHRC Investigator Nancy Flintoft to courier a copy of the Reply to me but without any attachments. There was no cover letter to explain why only part of the document was being provided. Also contrary to procedures, and law, the Government's Reply was signed by "Robert W. Olson". He did not identify himself as 'legal counsel' nor did he identify he was acting as a representative of his firm, Thompson Dorfman Sweatman. Olson was then a third party with no direct knowledge that the statements he had deposed to were true. Olson had received a substantial fee for his services and that speaks to a credibility issue. Any $250 an hour 'pro' is known to do just about anything to get their client off--right?

 

These concerns were immediately addressed to MHRC in writing and Flintoft opted to respond by phone that she "… hadn't noticed." When I reiterated my objections, Flintoft stated that "anyone could sign on behalf of the Government, and it's normal for different people in government to sign." But Olson was not Government, and it is not true that anyone can sign on Government's behalf. Specific people are designated to sign specific documents such as cheques: Olson had no such signing authority.

 

 "As legal counsel to Government…” Flintoft then stated in exasperation “…Olson could sign." Even less credible given she knew Olson had not signed as legal counsel.

 

Olson (and his firm TDS), are identified as counsel of record regarding the complaints under the Labour Relations Act (unfair labour practices and unfair union exclusion). Olson would then have had first-hand and thorough knowledge of the evidence its client submitted to the Labour Board: statements made prior to Government being served with the MHRC complaint. Documented evidence now on record that support my allegations against it that the Government of Manitoba, as an employer, violated the Human Rights Code in acting in a criminal manner. Olson would also then have known that in complying with Government's instruction to provide false testimony in the quasi-judicial process--personally signing the MHRC Reply--he would have known the legal ramifications and consequences of doing so, and yet, did it anyway.

 

There were no further discussions or clarification on the issue of a lawyer testifying as a witness and, although there were many promises, the attachments to the Government’s Reply were never provided to me. What does the law say?

 

THE CANADIAN BAR ASSOCIATION'S CODE OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT RULE

The Lawyer as Witness -

The lawyer who appears as an advocate should not submit the lawyer's own affidavit to or testify before a tribunal save as permitted by local rule or practice, or as to purely formal or uncontroverted matters... generally speaking, they should not testify in such proceedings except as to merely formal matters. The lawyer should not express personal opinions or beliefs, or assert as fact anything that is properly subject to legal proof, cross-examination or challenge. The lawyer must not in effect become an unsworn witness or put the lawyer's own credibility in issue. The lawyer who is a necessary witness should testify and entrust the conduct of the case to someone else.

See Related Posts:

• A Bullish Government: Law at Lunch -- More Cowbell -- questioning the inappropriateness of Government, thinking so little of a HRC complaint that it would just 'farm out' that responsibility to Olson. But MHRC just brushed me off stating "any government authority could sign ...
• A Bullish Government: Is MB Gov't #WINNING? --instead of dealing with a situation in accordance with its own stated policies on accommodating employees with disabilities, Government opted to dodge the bullet and hired Rob Olson, of Thompson Dorfman Sweatman to ...
• A Bullish Government: Electronic signatures, rubber stamping ... -- a hearing was clearly needed to cross-examine the evidence and witnesses, including but not limited to deponent, Olson, who personally signed off on the MHRC Reply in the complaint against the Government but NOT as ...
• A Bullish Government: "YES WE CAN" says Manitoba Government -- my blog, A Bullish Government has shed light on a number of instances where provincial government authorities and its defence counsel, Rob Olson of Thompson Dorfman Sweatman, have broken the law. Small fish, by global ...
• A Bullish Government: A Biased MLB Decision, Contrary to Facts ... -- Government made full use of all its legal resources including that of Rob Olson, of Thompson Dorfman Sweatman, specializing in labour law to launch an attack that can only be described as ''mobbing'. The Labour Board...
• A Bullish Government: ABCs of MOBBING brought 2U by CSC, OSD ... -- By way of FIPPA request in 2011 CSC acknowledged in a letter that "there was no workplace reorganization of any kind at any time" but rather a fabrication by counsel, Rob Olson of TDS, to baffle the issues with bullshit.

How are Today's Lawyers Perceived?



The following quote speaks volumes: Jordan. Furlong is a lawyer and legal journalist specializing in law practice innovation, legal business trends, and the changing landscape of the legal profession; formerly Editor-in-Chief of the Canadian Bar Association’s magazine National and blogs on the profession’s rapid evolution at http://law21.ca.

 

Justice Abella is correct to express concerns that if lawyers are seen to be motivated first and foremost by self-interest, then we will lose respect, business, and support for our independent governance. I submit, however, that that ship has already sailed. That is exactly how lawyers are now perceived – acting in our own interests first, in clients’ interests second, and in the interests of the public, the justice system, and doing the right thing much farther down the list, if at all. Accordingly, it should be no surprise that we have lost much of the public’s respect, we are losing their business to non-lawyer legal service providers, and we are hearing the first grumblings about why lawyers should merit special treatment in their governance. It bears repeating that lawyers, like the laws that enable our livelihoods, exist for the purposes of clients, not the other way around. Our profession, unfortunately, too often sees that in reverse, viewing clients primarily as a means to our own ends rather than as ends in themselves.

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

There have always been lawyer jokes, but the consensus of  public opinion, that as a group, they have dropped down considerably over the years as not being very 'professional'. Stop me if you've heard this one.: How does a lawyer sleep at night?

First he lies on one side, and then on the other.

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.