Monday, March 20, 2006

"Dancing with Murray and the plaintiffs!" - An intimate, fascinating behind the scenes look!

Tansi/Good Day Folks:

As you can see, we're starting a new series. It is our belief you have every expectation and right to know how the MMF Leadership, Plaintiffs and their Counsel are spending OUR public money to sue www.CyberSmokeSignals.com. Much like Nancy Grace on CNN, I'll be your regular courtroom reporter for this case.

Sincerely,
Clare L. Pieuk
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: Murray Trachtenberg
To: Clare Pieuk
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 8:12 AM
Subject: Re: Your March 30, 2006 Motion Hearing

My instructions are to oppose any request for an adjournment.

MNT//

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: Clare Pieuk
To: Murray Trachtenberg
Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2006 12:26 PM
Subject: Your March 30, 2006 Motion Hearing
Friday March 17, 2006

Mr. Murray N. Trachtenberg
Posner & Trachtenberg
Barristers, Solicitors & Notaries Public
710-491 Portage Avenue
Winnipeg, MB
Fax: (204) 944-8878
Direct Line: (204) 940-9602
E-mail: mtrachtenberg@ptlaw.mb.ca

Dear Mr. Trachtenberg:

Please be advised on the morning of March 30, 2006 I will attend the Hearing you scheduled before a Master to debate your Motion all Manitoba Metis Federation documents allegedly in my possession be turned over to the Courts.

However, I fully intend to vehemently argue the Master rule I be given a minimum of one month to research and prepare my Motion Brief in response to your document. As you are well aware, Sir, Mr. Niederhoffer has agreed to join Winnipeg law firm Campbell, Marr. Unfortunately, he is not prepared to assist in drafting my Motion Brief. Therefore, I will require an adjournment to:

(1) Research applicable Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench Rules at the University of Manitoba's Faculty of Law Library

(2) Identify relevant case law precedent I can cite in my Motion Brief

(3) Organize and write the final detailed document

As a true gentleman, Sir, given your deep respect for our judicial system and its procedures, coupled with the profound sense of fair play, equity and honour you obviously possess, I'm sure you will agree with my request for an adjournment. However, should you still insist on moving forward on March 30, 2006 I fully intend to press my case for a postponement before the presiding Master. I feel most confident they will see the reasonableness of my request.

I would also point out Mr. Trachtenberg, your Motion was filed approximately five months ago. For reasons known only to you, now you are insisting it be heard yesterday. If it is so critical to your case why have you delayed so long?

Please understand Mr. Trachtenberg while you are paid at least $250/hour by the MMF and can, therefore, devote unlimited time and resources to the file, I must work to earn a living while taking on this added responsibility.

Please govern yourself accordingly.

Respectfully,
Clare L. Pieuk
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exhibit A
----- Original Message -----
From: Murray Trachtenberg
To: CLARE PIEUK
Cc: Jeffrey J. Niederhoffer
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 6:05 AM
Subject: MMF et al v. Belhumeur et al
Attention: Clare L. Pieuk
cc. J. Neiderhoffer

This is in response to your email sent to me yesterday evening.

I have today sent you a copy of my email to Mr. Niederhoffer dealing with the form of your Notice of Intention to Act in Person. It does not comply with the requirements of the Queen's Bench Rules and I ask that you serve me with a proper Notice of Intention to Act in Person forthwith.

With regard to your adjournment request, I am not prepared to agree.

While it is not my position to give you any advice in this matter, I do draw to both your attention and that of Mr. Niederhoffer the provision of the Law Society of Manitoba Practice Direction 88 - 02 entitled "Enforcement of Solicitors' Liens." That Practice Direction makes reference in turn to the Code of Professional Conduct. In part, it states -

"The Code of Professional Conduct places an ethical limitation on this right (solicitor lien) ... which provides that generally speaking a lawyer should not enforce his lien if the result would be to materially prejudice the client's position in any uncompleted matter."

The present action is uncompleted and a motion is pending to be heard on March 30, 2006. Mr. Niederhoffer may wish to consider whether in fact he is in a position to enforce his lien and you may wish to take advice as you see fit.

You are contesting the motion. To date, you have filed no material in opposition. My clients have had to wait over a month just to get the March 30, 2006 date. They are not prepared to grant you an adjournment of "a minimum of at least one month" or any other amount of time.

Finally, Mr. Niederhoffer has agreed to the form of the Orders to be issued by Master Lee. Whether you have served a Notice of Intention to Act in Person or not, those Orders were sent to him for signature prior to you dropping the document off yesterday and I fully expect that he will sign same and submit them to the Court forthwith.

Yours truly,
MNT/
-----------------------------------
Exhibit B
----- Original Message -----
From: Murray Trachtenberg
To: Jeffrey J. Niederhoffer
Cc: CLARE PIEUK
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 9:01 AM
Subject: Fw:MMF et al v. Belhumeur
Subject: MMF et al v. Belhumeur et al
Attention: Jeffrey J. Niederhoffer
Attention: Clare L. Pieuk

Mr. Pieuk attended at my office on March 14, 2006 and left a Notice of Intention to Act in Person with my assistant.

I draw your attention to Queen's Bench Rule 15.02(3). A Notice of Intention to Act in Person must provide the address for service and telephone number of the party acting in person.

The document prepared and served by Mr. Pieuk does not satisfy this requirement.

I am requesting that Mr.Pieuk himself serve an appropriate Notice of Intention to Act in Person forthwith.

Yours truly,
MNT/
-----------------------------------
Exhibit C
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeffrey J. Niederhoffer" <jjn@luk-law.com>
To: "Murray Trachtenberg" <mtrachtenberg@ptlaw.mb.ca>; "Clare L. Pieuk" <pieuk@shaw.ca>
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 5:39 PM
Subject: Re: MMF et al. v. Belhumeur et al./Adjournment Request

March 16, 2006
Posner & TrachtenbergBarristers, Solicitors & Notaries Public
710-491 Portage AvenueWinnipeg, MB
R3B 2E4

Attention: Murray N. Trachtenberg
VIA EMAIL

Dear Sirs: Re: MMF et al v. Belhumeur et al / CI 05-01-41955

Further to the above-captioned matter, to your two emails to the writer of March 15, 2006, and to the email of March 14, 2006 sent by Mr. Pieuk to you, which was forwarded to me by you in an email of even date, the writer is in a position to confirm that he has spoken with Mr. Pieuk to clarify certain matters, among them:

(1) Mr. Pieuk has advised the writer that he has hand-delivered to your office an amended Notice of Intention to Act in Person, which he has served on the writer and further advises that, on even date, he has filed same with the court and served same on Mr. Belhumeur via postal delivery

(2) The writer has no comment in terms of the request made of you by Mr. Pieuk in relation to an adjournment of the motion hearing currently set for March 30, 2005. In the writer's view, given the uniqueness of the circumstances, the request made by Mr. Pieuk is reasonable and there is little to be lost from the standpoint of the plaintiffs in terms of consenting to an adjournment of said hearing. Nevertheless, said matter is now solely a concern between the plaintiffs and Mr. Pieuk acting on his own behalf

(3) The decision of Mr. Pieuk to act in person for the remainder of the above-captioned action will not affect the willingness of the writer to sign the three orders yet to be filed with the court

(4) Mr. Pieuk has requested that the writer not directly address the content of his aforementioned email to you, but suffice it to say the writer has confirmed with Mr. Pieuk that he has no intention of enforcing a solicitor's lien, ie. withholding from him the writer's file, in relation to those portions of said file which directly relate to the motion of the plaintiffs currently set for March 30, 2006. To both you and to Mr. Pieuk, the writer apologizes if he was initially unclear as to his intentions in his conversations with Mr. Pieuk. It is the understanding of the writer that, even though the file will be turned over to Mr. Pieuk in a timely fashion, Mr. Pieuk has unresolved concerns involving the amount of time that will be available for him to prepare a motion brief for the hearing of the plaintiffs' motion as aforesaid. The writer will leave it to Mr. Pieuk to communicate with you regarding said concerns

(5) Further to the email to Mr. Pieuk to you as aforesaid, it is true that the writer has been offered and has accepted a position with the firm of Campbell Marr, which arrangement will be effective as of March 20, 2006.

At your request, the writer is willing to provide you his contact information at Campbell Marr should you feel the need to contact him for any reason. Although it is premature to provide a definitive confirmation, it appears the writer's email address at Campbell Marr will be jjni@campbellmarr.com.

Yours truly,
Jeffrey J. Niederhoffer
cc: Clare L. Pieuk

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home