Is this why Canada-Manitoba give the MMF leadership $20 million annually?
Tansi/Good Day Readers:
I would particularly like to draw your attention to Item 3 (below) of Mr. Trachtenberg's e-mail. Perhaps forthwith he would like to file yet another Notice of Motion so we can argue before a Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench Justice at exactly what point Ms Everton broke down in tears - no doubt Their Honour would be most impressed! If successful, I would then be able to have it entered into the official public record as evidence for the world to see. Why not? There have already been an astonishing ninety-four (94!) documents filed to date since the Statement of Claim was served May 28, 2005, most by the Plaintiffs, which must be unprecedented in the annals of Canadian legal history for this type of case.
On the subject of Item 4 (below), at my January 24, 2006 Cross-Examination by Counselor Trachtenberg at his Office, among the many e-mail he ordered me to bring was any correspondence which existed between Mr. Niederhoffer and Ms Everton. Guess what? There was none! To protect her as best I could, Mr. Niederhoffer was not informed of her identity until just before we met with Mr. Trachtenberg prior to my "interrogation" at which time I turned over all the requisite documentation to my attorney.
In what had to be a First for Canadian jurisprudence, Mr. Trachtenberg actually contested Mr. Niederhoffer's request to withdraw as Counsel of Record for a client whose identity he did know until the morning of January 24, 2006 nor meet before the February 13, 2006 Hearing in front of Master Sharp. Why should Mr. Trachtenberg care who represents Ms Everton?
Or what about the time my former attorney and I filed an affidavit which had one slight error - February 9, 2005 should have read February 9, 2004. Instead of simply picking up the telephone like most lawyers would to confirm the minor mistake, Mr. Trachtenberg had to make it the subject of yet another separate affidavit by MMF Executive Director Oliver Boulette - Unbelievable!
The lawsuit is nowhere near trial ready. The Federation currently pays Mr. Trachtenberg at least $250/hour. From which Metis Programs is this public money being taken? Ms Everton is a Metis Mother of four. Nice, real nice .....
Sincerely,
Clare L. Pieuk
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
VIA EMAIL and MAIL
Jeffrey J. Niederhoffer
Barrister and Solicitor
P.O. Box 48081
RPO Lakewood
Winnipeg, Manitoba
R2J 4A3
Dear Mr. Niederhoffer:
Re: MMF et al. vs. Clare L. Pieuk et al.
Queen's Bench File No. CI 05-01-41955
My File No. 2003-20
Following the appearance before Master Sharp on Monday, February 13, 2006, I requested that you provide me with a copy of the Notice of Intention to Act in Person which you told me had been signed by Ms. Everton. Despite promising to do so, I note that I have yet to receive a copy of the document. Please attend to this forthwith.
I have also reviewed your Press Release posted on your website yesterday and on cybersmokesignals.com as well. Your Press Release is misleading and a distortion of many of the facts including the position of my client in this lawsuit. Particulars of this are as follows:
1. You describe "Pieuk and Terry Belhumeur, currently the only named defendants in the suit." That is patently false. This action was started against metis_mom right from the start.
2. You "confirmed" in the Press Release "that it is only a matter of days before a Court Order is issued to include Everton in the suit." As you are fully aware, this Order was pronounced by Master Ring on January 30, 2006 allowing for an amendment of the Statement of Claim to properly name Vanessa Everton.
3. You have stated that "Everton broke down in tears when the MMF lawyer confirmed in open court that the MMF and its Board of Directors intend to proceed against her." That is not true. Ms. Everton broke down in Court when she first started to speak. One of the first things she said is that she understood you had been assigned as her lawyer but she did not know how that happened. She also said that she was not aware of this until very recently and believed that someone should have made a better effort to find her and advise her of this lawsuit before now.
4. You describe yourself as "Everton's lawyer before she made the decision this week to represent herself." You consistently denied that you were acting for Ms. Everton and having any communications with her. You were her lawyer of record through what appears to have been an unauthorized filing by you of a Notice of Appointment of Lawyer which you then immediately recanted and have spent several months pursuing a Motion to be removed from the record at considerable costs to my client.
5. You state that in the MMF Statement of Claim "lawyers for the MMF have conceded that Everton did not write or publish the petition and that her formal role was limited to fielding requests for hard copies of the petition." I would like you to immediately advise me where that is stated in the Statement of Claim. While you are at it, I suggest you read paragraph 54 of the Statement of Claim in which the allegation is made against all defendants that they published the election funding petition. I expect that you have widely distributed this false and misleading Press Release to the media. I suggest that you immediately take steps to curtail the effect this will have. I shall be seeking further instructions from my clients with regard to this action on your part.
Yours truly,
MURRAY N. TRACHTENBERG
MNT/lec
I would particularly like to draw your attention to Item 3 (below) of Mr. Trachtenberg's e-mail. Perhaps forthwith he would like to file yet another Notice of Motion so we can argue before a Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench Justice at exactly what point Ms Everton broke down in tears - no doubt Their Honour would be most impressed! If successful, I would then be able to have it entered into the official public record as evidence for the world to see. Why not? There have already been an astonishing ninety-four (94!) documents filed to date since the Statement of Claim was served May 28, 2005, most by the Plaintiffs, which must be unprecedented in the annals of Canadian legal history for this type of case.
On the subject of Item 4 (below), at my January 24, 2006 Cross-Examination by Counselor Trachtenberg at his Office, among the many e-mail he ordered me to bring was any correspondence which existed between Mr. Niederhoffer and Ms Everton. Guess what? There was none! To protect her as best I could, Mr. Niederhoffer was not informed of her identity until just before we met with Mr. Trachtenberg prior to my "interrogation" at which time I turned over all the requisite documentation to my attorney.
In what had to be a First for Canadian jurisprudence, Mr. Trachtenberg actually contested Mr. Niederhoffer's request to withdraw as Counsel of Record for a client whose identity he did know until the morning of January 24, 2006 nor meet before the February 13, 2006 Hearing in front of Master Sharp. Why should Mr. Trachtenberg care who represents Ms Everton?
Or what about the time my former attorney and I filed an affidavit which had one slight error - February 9, 2005 should have read February 9, 2004. Instead of simply picking up the telephone like most lawyers would to confirm the minor mistake, Mr. Trachtenberg had to make it the subject of yet another separate affidavit by MMF Executive Director Oliver Boulette - Unbelievable!
The lawsuit is nowhere near trial ready. The Federation currently pays Mr. Trachtenberg at least $250/hour. From which Metis Programs is this public money being taken? Ms Everton is a Metis Mother of four. Nice, real nice .....
Sincerely,
Clare L. Pieuk
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
VIA EMAIL and MAIL
Jeffrey J. Niederhoffer
Barrister and Solicitor
P.O. Box 48081
RPO Lakewood
Winnipeg, Manitoba
R2J 4A3
Dear Mr. Niederhoffer:
Re: MMF et al. vs. Clare L. Pieuk et al.
Queen's Bench File No. CI 05-01-41955
My File No. 2003-20
Following the appearance before Master Sharp on Monday, February 13, 2006, I requested that you provide me with a copy of the Notice of Intention to Act in Person which you told me had been signed by Ms. Everton. Despite promising to do so, I note that I have yet to receive a copy of the document. Please attend to this forthwith.
I have also reviewed your Press Release posted on your website yesterday and on cybersmokesignals.com as well. Your Press Release is misleading and a distortion of many of the facts including the position of my client in this lawsuit. Particulars of this are as follows:
1. You describe "Pieuk and Terry Belhumeur, currently the only named defendants in the suit." That is patently false. This action was started against metis_mom right from the start.
2. You "confirmed" in the Press Release "that it is only a matter of days before a Court Order is issued to include Everton in the suit." As you are fully aware, this Order was pronounced by Master Ring on January 30, 2006 allowing for an amendment of the Statement of Claim to properly name Vanessa Everton.
3. You have stated that "Everton broke down in tears when the MMF lawyer confirmed in open court that the MMF and its Board of Directors intend to proceed against her." That is not true. Ms. Everton broke down in Court when she first started to speak. One of the first things she said is that she understood you had been assigned as her lawyer but she did not know how that happened. She also said that she was not aware of this until very recently and believed that someone should have made a better effort to find her and advise her of this lawsuit before now.
4. You describe yourself as "Everton's lawyer before she made the decision this week to represent herself." You consistently denied that you were acting for Ms. Everton and having any communications with her. You were her lawyer of record through what appears to have been an unauthorized filing by you of a Notice of Appointment of Lawyer which you then immediately recanted and have spent several months pursuing a Motion to be removed from the record at considerable costs to my client.
5. You state that in the MMF Statement of Claim "lawyers for the MMF have conceded that Everton did not write or publish the petition and that her formal role was limited to fielding requests for hard copies of the petition." I would like you to immediately advise me where that is stated in the Statement of Claim. While you are at it, I suggest you read paragraph 54 of the Statement of Claim in which the allegation is made against all defendants that they published the election funding petition. I expect that you have widely distributed this false and misleading Press Release to the media. I suggest that you immediately take steps to curtail the effect this will have. I shall be seeking further instructions from my clients with regard to this action on your part.
Yours truly,
MURRAY N. TRACHTENBERG
MNT/lec
posted by Clare L. Pieuk at 5:28 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home