 |
| "I
am still a member of the Law Society of Manitoba," former
white collar criminal prosecutor and defence lawyer, Raymond
Flett writes after retirement. "Becoming a lawyer, at least in
Manitoba, is like joining the mafia; you’re in until you’re on the other side
of the grass." |
Masters*, judges, government lawyers and BS** politicians continue as members of the law society. Participation in its self-administered protection policy is mandatory.
Master* A provincial civil servant, duties are administrative in nature:
~can strike out improper documents or paragraph(s) from a claim;
~ensures there is at least one point of law (cause) that can be tried;
A Master cannot strike out a claim on bias of ability or likelihood of success at trial.
If 'no cause' is plain and obvious then goes to judge for dismissal.
~ensures there is at least one point of law (cause) that can be tried;
A Master cannot strike out a claim on bias of ability or likelihood of success at trial.
If 'no cause' is plain and obvious then goes to judge for dismissal.
BS** politicians passed the bar as barrister and solicitor.
BACKGROUND:
A civil action was commenced April 17, 2012 under CI 12-01-77387 based on evidence obtained from earlier proceedings in which the defendants, Thompson Dorfman Sweatman et al acted as legal counsel in defence of an action brought against the provincial government under the Personal Information Act, Labour Relations Act and Human Rights Code. It is the actions of the defendants (legal counsel for government) that I believe to be actionable but members have done everything they can to kill this thing.
See related postings:
Feb 20, 2012: The State of the Canadian Constitution eh?The judge made the following comment... in response to the disciplinary action against Schmidt in court: the day after filing of the statement (by Mr. Schmidt) bang, you're suspended. It's unbelievable. Your client (Federal Government) has done everything it can to kill this thing...The court doesn't like that...We see that in different countries that we don't like...Canada is still a democracy.Sep 19, 2012: Distance negates responsibiltyIt is understandable the Law Society doesn't want that on record given its position as insurer defending against insurance claims and then on its other face claims to act on behalf of the public's interest. I give you "Oxymoron" the Trojan horse placed to win.Aug 22, 2012: Upscale Violence: King of the CastleMarielle had asked for an injunction by way of motion to be heard at a hearing in front of a judge. She lives in very real fear that her life, security and freedom rights are threatened. Professional and society's dissent of the difficulties she faces as a woman with an "invisible disability" is made even worst when her request for an injunction is unacknowledged, no referrals are made, and assistance is denied.
All men make mistakes, but a good man yields when he knows his course is wrong, and repairs the evil. The only crime is pride.
Sophocles, Antigone
A letter of intent to file a complaint against Master Berthaudin (conduct unbecoming and neglect of duty) was sent to Chief Justice Joyal on January 22, 2013. Assistance as provided under section 11.18(3) of the Act to formulate a proper formal complaint was also requested.
The letter indicated that the master found no cause of action, and took it upon himself to usurp his jurisdiction and judge the case as dismissed in one steamroller move. One example provided to Chief Justice Joyal as to bias against an self-represented and vulnerable person is as follows:
Excerpt from Master Berthaudin's decision dated September 14, 2012 as to the August 20, 2012 Hearing, “BACKGROUND FACTS”:
[5] According to the re-amended statement of claim (filed subsequent to the defendants' motion to strike, three business days prior to the contested hearing of these motions), the plaintiff was employed in various departments by Manitoba between January, 2005 and June, 2008. She claims to have been diagnosed with bipolar disorder ... (emphasis added).
An insurer is required by law to defend an insured against any claims filed against it. The Law Society of Manitoba (in meeting its duty as insurer--arms length or not) violated its self-governing mandate to protect the public interest in defending (burying) a serious and valid complaint against one of its own. Can one serve two masters?
**2012 Annual Report of The Law Society of Manitoba shows Bencher, Ted E. Bock sitting on the following committees:
- Chair, Admissions and Education Committee
- Chair, Admissions and Education Appeals Sub-Committee
- Practice and Ethics Committee
- Professional Liability Claims Fund Committee
- Investment Committee
Ted E. Bock filed a motion on May 14, 2012 to strike out only the original April 17 claim Rowan vs Rob Olson et al ignoring the amended April 25 claim Rowan vs Thompson Dorfman Sweatman et al (filed and served). As the motion to strike was based on the fact the original claim was said to be lacking (as a good will gesture to clarify any of the shortcomings and confirm points of issue), a re-amended claim was filed on August 9, 2012.
The master's comment as to “claims to have been diagnosed with bipolar disorder” is defamatory in nature, posted online for an intended response. A well-documented history was filed with the court as evidence of an ongoing disorder spanning over 20 years, further supported by the (stonewalled for 2.5 years) MB Human Rights Commission investigative findings.
The master's stricture as to filing a re-amended claim just "three business days prior' is interpreted as high-handed personal displeasure towards a 'non-member'' (disdain for any self-represented wanna-be-lawyer type) as told by a member, she is "way over her head delving in a lawyer's world".
Is the intended objective not pursuit of truth and justice--or this akin to some Gladiator sport? Mighty Berthaudin holding high court in his splendid robe, responding to the members' cries for a 'thumbs down' KILL! KILL! KILL! Or in this case strike strike strike all three claims with one motion.
On February 15, 2013 I received a response to my letter of January 22, 2013 from Chief Justice Joyal. He advised that the complaint had already moved to investigation and, “You will no doubt be hearing from Justice Everett in the near future.”
No doubt indeed as the file would have been quite
thin given there was no complaint on file, as there was no offer of assistance, or, opportunity to provide a complaint (period).
February 15, 2013 FAX to Court Att'n C.J. Joyal :
Stated, "Please clarify that you are not limiting my complaint to that ... I intend to file a complaint."
The next communication came on Monday,
March 4, 2013. I received a phone call from the Executive Director
Judicial Services, Karen Fulham who advised she would be assisting me, and wanted to know what other issues
I had—over the phone.
I have a unique advantage (as former Executive Assistant to two Judicial Services Executive Directors and to Ms Fulham as in-house counsel) of a good understanding of mandated procedure in terms of responding to a complaint, particularly against one of the judiciary.
My question then to Ms Fulham was why had she not responded to my request for help in June 2012 that was sent to both her and the Chief Justice wherein I was frantically asking for help, advising that I was being totally railroaded? Given no response then was her response (See 911 Complaint June 4, 2012 HELP!!) how could she expect that I would see her offer of assistance now as credible? It became quite apparent early on in the conversation as to what form 'assistance' would take shape.
Bipolar 101: Under what conditions can accelerating be helpful?
When a member blocks you, accelerate to avoid being cut off.
Mood elevated, grandiose racing thoughts; like being in a room
and not only hearing every conversation in the room
but mentally engaged in the thought process of each line
of thought, and racing to keep up with all communication.
In an elevated state, the drive, the courage, the intensity
of feeling is common ...I have learned to view it as a gift
see full posting:
I threw out one point after another as to blatant disregard of statutes and procedures. Normally when someone is providing assistance, there is some feedback as to whether the issues raised, fall within the scope of what would be accepted. There was no response.
Once again I could see this to be yet another futile expenditure of my time and resources, without any expectation whatsoever that anything I presented would be heard or acted upon.
Ms Fulham (redundant to say--a member) was clearly not free to provide the level of assistance I know her to be capable of.
See related posting on Why Smart People Lie that defined “moral distress” as a phenomenon in which one knows the right action to take, but is constrained from taking it...can occur in any situation or workplace...It occurs when one is forced to put aside values and principles and carry out an action against their better judgement.
I also have the unique experience after going through the members' tribunal complaint process (four years of my life I'll never get back) that when a member with any authority goes 'off the rails' of procedures, such occurrences occur only over
the phone--never intended to be documented.
Aug 15, 2013:
DENIED (Heck! - Not even acknowledged as having been received. See no evil; hear no evil, then there's EVIL!)
This needs to be documented.
Chief Justice Joyal,
I believe it is only due to my dogged determination and power of blogging that we can now be an informed public, and have any hope of a proper investigation of these, and other matters yet to be disclosed.
Integrity by compulsion is not an acceptable standard of professional conduct.
I believe two solemn duties have been breached:
- the duty to assiduously obey Manitoba law, and
- the duty to be vigilant in treating a self-represented litigant (and in my case, one who requested accommodation) in a humane and non-discriminatory manner.
These are personal duties entrusted to you to protect public interest that cannot be delegated, deflected, or denied.
These are duties that come with the privilege of being Chief Justice.
I am not concerned about the members' readiness for change nor am I concerned about your comfort zone. I’m concerned about preserving whatever is left of our Constitution for my sons who are now entering the workforce.
Respectfully yours,
Marielle Rowan
No comments:
Post a Comment