Courtroom 214: Provincial Law Courts Building, March 30, 2006 10:00 a.m. - Winnipeg, Manitoba Canada. The Honourable Justice McCawley presiding!
Her Honour began by noting she had read the case file and had some concerns all the while directly addressing Mr. Trachtenberg. As she outlined them I stood transfixed not believing what I was hearing. Suffice it to say I observed an expression come over Counsel's face the likes of which I had not previosly seen.
Justice McCawley then commented there would be an adjournment granted the length of which the Court would decide. My first thoughts were Thank You! Thank You! Thank You! Mr. Trachtenberg had arrived earlier with a very large black brief case (the kind airline pilots use) on a hand drawn trolley - not a good sign for me! One visitor attended the Gallery - Winnipeg Metis lawyer Mr. Lionel R.R. Chartrand.
Mr. Trachtenberg immediately began by suggesting the Defence was responsible for delays thus far in the case citing two incidents involving Co-Defendant Terry Belhumeur - he has previously raised these the last time being before Senior Master Lee on February 13, 2006. Counsel noted the Defence had indicated a desire on the part of Mr. Belhumeur to cross-examine one (sworn October 19, 2005 filed October 20, 2005) of many Affidavits registered to date by MMF Executive Director Oliver Boulette. At the time my lawyer (Jeff Niederhoffer now with Campbell Marr LLP) and I felt there were several statements which could and should be challenged. We encouraged Mr. Belhumeur to conduct a cross-examination - I even offered to help him draft questions which Mr. Niederhoffer was prepared to review. In an e-mail to me Mr. Belhumeur subsequently outlined his reason for not proceeding.
My second argument cited a November 9, 2005 Hearing before Master Ring which was adjourned because six court documents relative to the case has temporarily been misplaced. After the session, Mr. Trachtenberg indicated he would contact Mr. Niederhoffer to re-schedule a future mutually acceptable date. Slightly more than three weeks passed before there was any contact from Counsel for the Plaintiffs. Justice Crawley pointed out Mr. Belhumeur would have his day in court to explain these and other actions.
In requesting a delay, I explained Mr. Niederhoffer was no longer my attorney of record effective March 14, 2006. When Her Honour inquired as to why I was not ready to proceed, I pointed out there had been a disagreement about my legal bill which hadn't been resolved until four to five days before the end of March 2006. Further, my file was returned late during the morning of March 29, 2006 adding it was very thick indeed. Justice McCawley then ordered Mr. Trachtenberg to telephone Mr. Niederhoffer to verify these facts recessing Court for ten minutes. Counselor Trachtenberg returned to state he had confirmed my version of events with Mr. Niederhoffer.
Earlier Mr. Trachtenberg told the Court he had filed a sealed affidavit. My understanding is the Defendants will not be able to view it's contents until the trial begins. Further, Counsel had previously made reference to only two Defendants in the case. I asked to question him on this point which was graciously granted. The Defence noted as recently as March 21, 2006 it had received yet another Oliver Boulette affidavit in which three Defendants were listed. Was there a discrepancy? Without making eye contact, Mr. Trachtenberg commented he would leave it for me to draw my own conclusions stating anything he said would be reported on my blogsite - he got that part right!
Justice McCawley affirmed she is very mindful of deadlines so I must have my Motion Brief registered with the Courts on or before April 13, 2006. I commented I had a profound respect for the law and would submit on time to her my best effort. Additionally, I noted this case has shaken me to the core because of the way the system can be abused/misused to legally harass individuals noting she would know a lot more about that than I. And finally, once the trial got underway there would be some shocking revelations. However, I stopped short of revealing I plan to subpoena each active Plaintiff, the two who removed themselves plus a Winnipeg Metis lawyer so I can cross-examine each at trial under oath. Their testimony will be reported on the internet.
The next hearing is re-scheduled to May 1, 2006 for 10:00 a.m. - half a day has been set aside. Two previous dates were available but Counselor Trachenberg had court appearances one being a full day session in Selkirk, Manitoba. The Motion to be debated will be whether the Plaintiffs can force me to reveal internal MMF documents allegedly in my possession and their source(s).
Note: I've been spending time at the University of Manitoba's Law Library researching precedent case law since so much Canadian jurisprudence is based on it. Have also been studying Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench Rules - not an easy read!
Justice McCawley then commented there would be an adjournment granted the length of which the Court would decide. My first thoughts were Thank You! Thank You! Thank You! Mr. Trachtenberg had arrived earlier with a very large black brief case (the kind airline pilots use) on a hand drawn trolley - not a good sign for me! One visitor attended the Gallery - Winnipeg Metis lawyer Mr. Lionel R.R. Chartrand.
Mr. Trachtenberg immediately began by suggesting the Defence was responsible for delays thus far in the case citing two incidents involving Co-Defendant Terry Belhumeur - he has previously raised these the last time being before Senior Master Lee on February 13, 2006. Counsel noted the Defence had indicated a desire on the part of Mr. Belhumeur to cross-examine one (sworn October 19, 2005 filed October 20, 2005) of many Affidavits registered to date by MMF Executive Director Oliver Boulette. At the time my lawyer (Jeff Niederhoffer now with Campbell Marr LLP) and I felt there were several statements which could and should be challenged. We encouraged Mr. Belhumeur to conduct a cross-examination - I even offered to help him draft questions which Mr. Niederhoffer was prepared to review. In an e-mail to me Mr. Belhumeur subsequently outlined his reason for not proceeding.
My second argument cited a November 9, 2005 Hearing before Master Ring which was adjourned because six court documents relative to the case has temporarily been misplaced. After the session, Mr. Trachtenberg indicated he would contact Mr. Niederhoffer to re-schedule a future mutually acceptable date. Slightly more than three weeks passed before there was any contact from Counsel for the Plaintiffs. Justice Crawley pointed out Mr. Belhumeur would have his day in court to explain these and other actions.
In requesting a delay, I explained Mr. Niederhoffer was no longer my attorney of record effective March 14, 2006. When Her Honour inquired as to why I was not ready to proceed, I pointed out there had been a disagreement about my legal bill which hadn't been resolved until four to five days before the end of March 2006. Further, my file was returned late during the morning of March 29, 2006 adding it was very thick indeed. Justice McCawley then ordered Mr. Trachtenberg to telephone Mr. Niederhoffer to verify these facts recessing Court for ten minutes. Counselor Trachtenberg returned to state he had confirmed my version of events with Mr. Niederhoffer.
Earlier Mr. Trachtenberg told the Court he had filed a sealed affidavit. My understanding is the Defendants will not be able to view it's contents until the trial begins. Further, Counsel had previously made reference to only two Defendants in the case. I asked to question him on this point which was graciously granted. The Defence noted as recently as March 21, 2006 it had received yet another Oliver Boulette affidavit in which three Defendants were listed. Was there a discrepancy? Without making eye contact, Mr. Trachtenberg commented he would leave it for me to draw my own conclusions stating anything he said would be reported on my blogsite - he got that part right!
Justice McCawley affirmed she is very mindful of deadlines so I must have my Motion Brief registered with the Courts on or before April 13, 2006. I commented I had a profound respect for the law and would submit on time to her my best effort. Additionally, I noted this case has shaken me to the core because of the way the system can be abused/misused to legally harass individuals noting she would know a lot more about that than I. And finally, once the trial got underway there would be some shocking revelations. However, I stopped short of revealing I plan to subpoena each active Plaintiff, the two who removed themselves plus a Winnipeg Metis lawyer so I can cross-examine each at trial under oath. Their testimony will be reported on the internet.
The next hearing is re-scheduled to May 1, 2006 for 10:00 a.m. - half a day has been set aside. Two previous dates were available but Counselor Trachenberg had court appearances one being a full day session in Selkirk, Manitoba. The Motion to be debated will be whether the Plaintiffs can force me to reveal internal MMF documents allegedly in my possession and their source(s).
Note: I've been spending time at the University of Manitoba's Law Library researching precedent case law since so much Canadian jurisprudence is based on it. Have also been studying Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench Rules - not an easy read!
posted by Clare L. Pieuk at 11:05 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home