"The MurrayGate Tapes!" - Part IV: "The fine art of trying to make a silk purse out of an old sow's ear!"
Tansi/Good Day Folks:
This is the final episode based on an official Court transcript of my cross-examination (Read: Interrogation!) by Mr. Murray N. Trachtenberg (his Office January 24, 2006). Also present was my former attorney Mr. Jeffrey J. Niederhoffer now at Winnipeg based Law Firm Campbell Marr LLP (www.campbellmarr.com). As you read it ask yourselves, "Is this why the federal and provincial governments give the MMF leadership taxpayer dollars?"
Sincerely,
Clare L. Pieuk
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
101 Q: So let's just see if we can identify firstly what we're looking at here where it starts off on page 1 of Exhibit 6 Friday November 11, 2005. It says,
"Please do the right thing. Turn yourself in immediately."
An then it continues, and it continues, Sir, onto the next page, page 2 where at the top of the page after the first paragraph, it says, "Merci/Sincerely Clare L. Pieuk Web Master." So am I correct that that first page at the top of page 2 of Exhibit 6, that's something that you were responding to and you posted that?
Mr. Niederhoffer: Objection. How is any of this remotely relevant to Mr. Pieuk's affidavit or to the withdrawal of myself as counsel for metis_mom@hotmail.com?
Mr. Trachtenberg: Totally relevant. If you want to just first let him identity that that is in fact something that he posted, it will become apparent in a moment, Mr. Niederhoffer.
By Mr. Trachtenberg:
102 Q: Is that the response that you posted, Sir, as I pointed out to you?
A: You're looking at this section?
103 Q: Yes. All of page 1 and the top of part of page 2.
A: As you can clearly see, it bears my name.
104 Q: So is the answer yes?
A: Yes.
105 Q: Thank you.
A: You're welcome.
106 Q: Now, in that part you posted on Friday, November 11, 2005 you started off saying, go back to page 1:
"Dear metis_mom@hotmail.com. If you are the person(s) using this e-mail address who sent us the following letter today, we urge you to do the right thing. Step forward and self-identify."
Then on page 2, where it says, "Friday November 11, 2005, Dear CyberSmokeSignals" and then there's a paragraph and then it says "Thanks MM." So am I correct that the Friday, November 11, 2005, that paragraph is the letter or e-mail letter that you received that day that you are referring to in your response?
A: The letter which starts "Attention Web Masters?"
107 Q: That's correct?
A: Yes.
108: Q: Okay. So you received a communication from what you believed was metis_mom@hotmail.com on November 11, 2005, correct?
A: I didn't know whether it was metis_mom or not.
109 Q: Well, in your response you said, "Dear metis_mom@hotmail.com" on page 1of Exhibit 6. You say you didn't know that that's who you were writing to?
A: I'm doing this from memory, but that e-mail about which you're questioning me probably came in as an anonymous hotmail address. So was it the original metis_mom or someone else? I do not know.
110 Q: Okay. But you assumed it was metis_mom@hotmail.com."
A: That I assumed that it was Vanessa Everton?
111 Q: You assumed that it was metis_mom@hotmail.com because that's who you sent your response on page 1 of Exhibit 6 to. Is that correct?
A: That is correct. And if I could add, the reason I did that was the person had signed their e-mail metis_mom, so.
112 Q: Which is fine. That's fine. And in your, go to the top of page 2 of Exhibit 6, you said in part:
"Once again, we urge you to please immmediately arrange a meeting with Mr. Trachtenberg and your solicitor of record so counselor Trachtenberg can serve you in person with your Statement of Claim."
And as at November 11, 2005, the solicitor of record for the person or persons using the e-mail address at metis_mom@hotmail.com was Mr. Niederhoffer, correct?
A: No, because I did not know or I had not been in communication with Vanessa Everton. So I had no way of knowing whether she had obtained separate independent legal counsel.
113 Q: You said that metis_mom@hotmail.com should get in touch so a meeting with myself and their solicitor of record could be arranged. I'm simply asking you when you use the phrase, "solicitor of record" where you referring to Mr. Niederhoffer?
A: No, Sir.
114 Q: You were referring to whom?
Mr. Niederhoffer: Sorry, Clare stop for a second. Murray, I question the productivity of this line of questioning. It's established Mr. Pieuk has just said that he has not assumed that this person writing to him was Vanessa Everton. If could have been anybody.
Mr. Trachtenberg: I've heard what he said. I want him to finish the answer.
The Witness: Could you repeat the question please.
By Mr. Trachtenberg:
115 Q: Who did you assume the solicitor of record for metis_mom@hotmail.com was on November 11, 2005 when you sent this response?
A: I didn't know.
116 Q: Okay.
A: It could have been any lawyer.
117 Q: Yes. I'm showing you a three page document. I wonder if you can confirm that this reflects a posting on CyberSmokeSignals.com on August 15th and August 16, 2005?
A: Without reading the exact contents and upon cursory examination, it appears that someone has directly downloaded this from CyberSmokeSignals.com.
Mr. Trachtenberg: All right. Let's mark that as the next Exhibit.
(Exhibit 7 three page Press Release on CyberSmokeSignals.com on August 15th and August 16th, 2005)
By Mr. Trachtenberg:
118 Q: Now what we've marked in Exhibit 7 is a so-called Press Release that was circulated by you to a number of individuals on or after August 15, 2005. Is that correct?
A: That appears to be correct.
119 Q: And the Press Release, would you agree with me, it deals with the petition, the resulting lawsuit and the matter of a forensic audit of the Manitoba Metis Federation?
A: It does.
120 Q: All right. Now you sent a copy of this Press Release to Prime Minister Martin by e-mail?
A: I can't recall.
121 Q: Let me assist you in that way.
A: Please.
122 Q: I'm showing you a two page document. It appears to be a letter from you to Prime Minister Martin on Monday, August 15, 2005. It refers to a Press Release. Firstly, can you confirm the two page document is an article that appeared on CyberSmokeSignals on that date?
A: I guess it should be amended to ex Prime Minister Martin.
123 Q: Yes. But are you able to confirm that in fact this was a posting on August 15, 2005?
A: It appears someone has downloaded this from CyberSmokeSignals.com.
124 Q: Which means it was a posting on that date, correct?
A: Correct.
125 Q: Thank you.
A: You're welcome.
126 Q: Also, while you have it in front of you, it refers to below a copy of a Press Release. Is the Press Release the Press Release that we've just marked a moment ago as Exhibit 7? So that's the Press Release you were referring to. Is that correct?
A: I can't be certain because I didn't write the attached Press Release of --
127 Q: Well, on August 15 of 2005, did you have some other Press Releases you were circulating?
A: I think we circulated four to date.
128 Q: But on August 15, 2005 you just released the new Press Release, Exhibit 7. I'm asking you is that not the Press Release you sent to the Prime Minister along with this posting on August 15, 2005?
A: It most likely was.
Mr. Trachtenberg: Thank you. We'll mark the two page letter to the Prime Minister as the next Exhibit
(Exhibit 8: Two page letter to Prime Minister Martin dated August 15, 2005.)
129 Q: And you also sent a copy of the Press Release to Premier Doer? And I'm showing you a page from CyberSmokeSignals on August 17, 2005. Can you confirm that posting was in fact on the website on August 17, 2005?
A: It appears that Exhibit whatever number was downloaded by someone from CyberSmokeSignals.com.
130 Q: Okay. And just to clairfy the record, we haven't marked it as an Exhibit. You're talking about this letter of yours to Premier Doer. It that correct?
A: Correct. So it's now an Exhibit. I was not premature in my comment.
Mr. Trachtenberg: Okay.
(Exhibit 9: Letter by Mr. Pieuk to Premier Doer)
By Mr. Trachtenberg:
131 Q: And according to Exhibit 9, you did in fact transmit that by e-mail to the Premier on or about that date, did you Sir?
A: to the best of my knowledge, I did.
132 Q: Okay. And below, it indicates several other Ministers as also receiving copies. You transmitted it to them also on or about that date?
A: To the best of my knowledge I did.
133 Q: And the reference to sending them the Press Release, we are able to agree the Press Release that you've sent them was the one we've already looked at a moment ago and marked as Exhibit 7, the Press Release of August 15th or 16th, I can't quite tell from the 2005 posting.
A: It's August 16, 2005.
134 Q: That's the Press Release that you sent off to the Premier?
A: To the best of my knowledge, Sir.
135 Q: Thank you.
A: You're welcome.
136: Q: Have a look at paragraph 4 of your affidavit, please.
A: What page is that?
137 Q: Page 2. Now in page 2 you deposed that from September 15, 2003 to September 9, 2005 when you swore the affidavit, Lionel Chartrand had served and continued to serve as general counsel for the website. So let me just get some clarification. Lionel Chartrand is a lawyer correct?
A: Correct, a Metis lawyer from Winnipeg.
138 Q: Yes. And when you say he served as your general counsel, do you mean he gave - firstly, well just deal with the website where it says general counsel for the website. So he gave legal advice on a number of matters from time to time? Is that what you mean by general counsel.
A: Yes.
139 Q: Okay. And then you went on to say, "and an informal legal adviser to Mr. Belhumeur and myself." And when you say informal legal adviser, do you mean that he was not acting as a lawyer to you?
A: He was acting as a lawyer.
140 Q: So what's an infromal legal adviser as compared to a general counsel? What's the distinction you are drawing there?
A: Well, maybe there is no distinction.
141 Q: Well, it's your words. You swore this affidavit.
A: I understand that.
142 Q: Okay. So you're saying though that despite that, there's no distinction you can tell me about today?
A: Perhaps you can find the correct words. On several occasions we showed postings to Mr. Lionel Chartrand asking for an opinion before we posted them. And that was because, as I'm sure you are aware, from a Manitoba Metis Federation Annual General Assembly --
143 Q: Excuse me, Mr. Pieuk.
A: -- in early September --
144. Q: Excuse me, Mr. Pieuk.
A: -- of 2003 --
145 Q: Mr. Pieuk, you're not going to keep talking over on the record, Sir, if you want. I said excuse me, twice.
A: I'm sorry, Sir, twice.
146. Q: I asked you a question if there was a distinction between the words general counsel and an informal legal advisor. And I think your answer, I just want ot get it clear, is you are saying there is no distinction that you can tell me about today?
A: He served as out pro bono general legal counsel.
147 Q: Pro bono meaning he didn't charge you a fee?
A: Exactly.
148 Q: And he was your legal counsel you're saying?
A: He was CyberSmokeSignals'.
149 Q: But you said he was an informal legal advisor to Mr. Belhumeur and yourself relative to CyberSmokeSignals?
A: Maybe we should take out that last statement.
150 Q: I don't want to take out anything. It's your affidavit. I want to know what you mean.
A: He was general legal counsel and he agreed to it in writing.
151 Q: All right. That concludes my questions. Thank you, Mr. Pieuk.
A: You'be very welcome. It was nice seeing you.
(Proceeding Adjourned At 10:40 A.M.)
THE END - OY VEY!
(CA-CHING! CA-CHING! CA-CHING!)
This is the final episode based on an official Court transcript of my cross-examination (Read: Interrogation!) by Mr. Murray N. Trachtenberg (his Office January 24, 2006). Also present was my former attorney Mr. Jeffrey J. Niederhoffer now at Winnipeg based Law Firm Campbell Marr LLP (www.campbellmarr.com). As you read it ask yourselves, "Is this why the federal and provincial governments give the MMF leadership taxpayer dollars?"
Sincerely,
Clare L. Pieuk
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
101 Q: So let's just see if we can identify firstly what we're looking at here where it starts off on page 1 of Exhibit 6 Friday November 11, 2005. It says,
"Please do the right thing. Turn yourself in immediately."
An then it continues, and it continues, Sir, onto the next page, page 2 where at the top of the page after the first paragraph, it says, "Merci/Sincerely Clare L. Pieuk Web Master." So am I correct that that first page at the top of page 2 of Exhibit 6, that's something that you were responding to and you posted that?
Mr. Niederhoffer: Objection. How is any of this remotely relevant to Mr. Pieuk's affidavit or to the withdrawal of myself as counsel for metis_mom@hotmail.com?
Mr. Trachtenberg: Totally relevant. If you want to just first let him identity that that is in fact something that he posted, it will become apparent in a moment, Mr. Niederhoffer.
By Mr. Trachtenberg:
102 Q: Is that the response that you posted, Sir, as I pointed out to you?
A: You're looking at this section?
103 Q: Yes. All of page 1 and the top of part of page 2.
A: As you can clearly see, it bears my name.
104 Q: So is the answer yes?
A: Yes.
105 Q: Thank you.
A: You're welcome.
106 Q: Now, in that part you posted on Friday, November 11, 2005 you started off saying, go back to page 1:
"Dear metis_mom@hotmail.com. If you are the person(s) using this e-mail address who sent us the following letter today, we urge you to do the right thing. Step forward and self-identify."
Then on page 2, where it says, "Friday November 11, 2005, Dear CyberSmokeSignals" and then there's a paragraph and then it says "Thanks MM." So am I correct that the Friday, November 11, 2005, that paragraph is the letter or e-mail letter that you received that day that you are referring to in your response?
A: The letter which starts "Attention Web Masters?"
107 Q: That's correct?
A: Yes.
108: Q: Okay. So you received a communication from what you believed was metis_mom@hotmail.com on November 11, 2005, correct?
A: I didn't know whether it was metis_mom or not.
109 Q: Well, in your response you said, "Dear metis_mom@hotmail.com" on page 1of Exhibit 6. You say you didn't know that that's who you were writing to?
A: I'm doing this from memory, but that e-mail about which you're questioning me probably came in as an anonymous hotmail address. So was it the original metis_mom or someone else? I do not know.
110 Q: Okay. But you assumed it was metis_mom@hotmail.com."
A: That I assumed that it was Vanessa Everton?
111 Q: You assumed that it was metis_mom@hotmail.com because that's who you sent your response on page 1 of Exhibit 6 to. Is that correct?
A: That is correct. And if I could add, the reason I did that was the person had signed their e-mail metis_mom, so.
112 Q: Which is fine. That's fine. And in your, go to the top of page 2 of Exhibit 6, you said in part:
"Once again, we urge you to please immmediately arrange a meeting with Mr. Trachtenberg and your solicitor of record so counselor Trachtenberg can serve you in person with your Statement of Claim."
And as at November 11, 2005, the solicitor of record for the person or persons using the e-mail address at metis_mom@hotmail.com was Mr. Niederhoffer, correct?
A: No, because I did not know or I had not been in communication with Vanessa Everton. So I had no way of knowing whether she had obtained separate independent legal counsel.
113 Q: You said that metis_mom@hotmail.com should get in touch so a meeting with myself and their solicitor of record could be arranged. I'm simply asking you when you use the phrase, "solicitor of record" where you referring to Mr. Niederhoffer?
A: No, Sir.
114 Q: You were referring to whom?
Mr. Niederhoffer: Sorry, Clare stop for a second. Murray, I question the productivity of this line of questioning. It's established Mr. Pieuk has just said that he has not assumed that this person writing to him was Vanessa Everton. If could have been anybody.
Mr. Trachtenberg: I've heard what he said. I want him to finish the answer.
The Witness: Could you repeat the question please.
By Mr. Trachtenberg:
115 Q: Who did you assume the solicitor of record for metis_mom@hotmail.com was on November 11, 2005 when you sent this response?
A: I didn't know.
116 Q: Okay.
A: It could have been any lawyer.
117 Q: Yes. I'm showing you a three page document. I wonder if you can confirm that this reflects a posting on CyberSmokeSignals.com on August 15th and August 16, 2005?
A: Without reading the exact contents and upon cursory examination, it appears that someone has directly downloaded this from CyberSmokeSignals.com.
Mr. Trachtenberg: All right. Let's mark that as the next Exhibit.
(Exhibit 7 three page Press Release on CyberSmokeSignals.com on August 15th and August 16th, 2005)
By Mr. Trachtenberg:
118 Q: Now what we've marked in Exhibit 7 is a so-called Press Release that was circulated by you to a number of individuals on or after August 15, 2005. Is that correct?
A: That appears to be correct.
119 Q: And the Press Release, would you agree with me, it deals with the petition, the resulting lawsuit and the matter of a forensic audit of the Manitoba Metis Federation?
A: It does.
120 Q: All right. Now you sent a copy of this Press Release to Prime Minister Martin by e-mail?
A: I can't recall.
121 Q: Let me assist you in that way.
A: Please.
122 Q: I'm showing you a two page document. It appears to be a letter from you to Prime Minister Martin on Monday, August 15, 2005. It refers to a Press Release. Firstly, can you confirm the two page document is an article that appeared on CyberSmokeSignals on that date?
A: I guess it should be amended to ex Prime Minister Martin.
123 Q: Yes. But are you able to confirm that in fact this was a posting on August 15, 2005?
A: It appears someone has downloaded this from CyberSmokeSignals.com.
124 Q: Which means it was a posting on that date, correct?
A: Correct.
125 Q: Thank you.
A: You're welcome.
126 Q: Also, while you have it in front of you, it refers to below a copy of a Press Release. Is the Press Release the Press Release that we've just marked a moment ago as Exhibit 7? So that's the Press Release you were referring to. Is that correct?
A: I can't be certain because I didn't write the attached Press Release of --
127 Q: Well, on August 15 of 2005, did you have some other Press Releases you were circulating?
A: I think we circulated four to date.
128 Q: But on August 15, 2005 you just released the new Press Release, Exhibit 7. I'm asking you is that not the Press Release you sent to the Prime Minister along with this posting on August 15, 2005?
A: It most likely was.
Mr. Trachtenberg: Thank you. We'll mark the two page letter to the Prime Minister as the next Exhibit
(Exhibit 8: Two page letter to Prime Minister Martin dated August 15, 2005.)
129 Q: And you also sent a copy of the Press Release to Premier Doer? And I'm showing you a page from CyberSmokeSignals on August 17, 2005. Can you confirm that posting was in fact on the website on August 17, 2005?
A: It appears that Exhibit whatever number was downloaded by someone from CyberSmokeSignals.com.
130 Q: Okay. And just to clairfy the record, we haven't marked it as an Exhibit. You're talking about this letter of yours to Premier Doer. It that correct?
A: Correct. So it's now an Exhibit. I was not premature in my comment.
Mr. Trachtenberg: Okay.
(Exhibit 9: Letter by Mr. Pieuk to Premier Doer)
By Mr. Trachtenberg:
131 Q: And according to Exhibit 9, you did in fact transmit that by e-mail to the Premier on or about that date, did you Sir?
A: to the best of my knowledge, I did.
132 Q: Okay. And below, it indicates several other Ministers as also receiving copies. You transmitted it to them also on or about that date?
A: To the best of my knowledge I did.
133 Q: And the reference to sending them the Press Release, we are able to agree the Press Release that you've sent them was the one we've already looked at a moment ago and marked as Exhibit 7, the Press Release of August 15th or 16th, I can't quite tell from the 2005 posting.
A: It's August 16, 2005.
134 Q: That's the Press Release that you sent off to the Premier?
A: To the best of my knowledge, Sir.
135 Q: Thank you.
A: You're welcome.
136: Q: Have a look at paragraph 4 of your affidavit, please.
A: What page is that?
137 Q: Page 2. Now in page 2 you deposed that from September 15, 2003 to September 9, 2005 when you swore the affidavit, Lionel Chartrand had served and continued to serve as general counsel for the website. So let me just get some clarification. Lionel Chartrand is a lawyer correct?
A: Correct, a Metis lawyer from Winnipeg.
138 Q: Yes. And when you say he served as your general counsel, do you mean he gave - firstly, well just deal with the website where it says general counsel for the website. So he gave legal advice on a number of matters from time to time? Is that what you mean by general counsel.
A: Yes.
139 Q: Okay. And then you went on to say, "and an informal legal adviser to Mr. Belhumeur and myself." And when you say informal legal adviser, do you mean that he was not acting as a lawyer to you?
A: He was acting as a lawyer.
140 Q: So what's an infromal legal adviser as compared to a general counsel? What's the distinction you are drawing there?
A: Well, maybe there is no distinction.
141 Q: Well, it's your words. You swore this affidavit.
A: I understand that.
142 Q: Okay. So you're saying though that despite that, there's no distinction you can tell me about today?
A: Perhaps you can find the correct words. On several occasions we showed postings to Mr. Lionel Chartrand asking for an opinion before we posted them. And that was because, as I'm sure you are aware, from a Manitoba Metis Federation Annual General Assembly --
143 Q: Excuse me, Mr. Pieuk.
A: -- in early September --
144. Q: Excuse me, Mr. Pieuk.
A: -- of 2003 --
145 Q: Mr. Pieuk, you're not going to keep talking over on the record, Sir, if you want. I said excuse me, twice.
A: I'm sorry, Sir, twice.
146. Q: I asked you a question if there was a distinction between the words general counsel and an informal legal advisor. And I think your answer, I just want ot get it clear, is you are saying there is no distinction that you can tell me about today?
A: He served as out pro bono general legal counsel.
147 Q: Pro bono meaning he didn't charge you a fee?
A: Exactly.
148 Q: And he was your legal counsel you're saying?
A: He was CyberSmokeSignals'.
149 Q: But you said he was an informal legal advisor to Mr. Belhumeur and yourself relative to CyberSmokeSignals?
A: Maybe we should take out that last statement.
150 Q: I don't want to take out anything. It's your affidavit. I want to know what you mean.
A: He was general legal counsel and he agreed to it in writing.
151 Q: All right. That concludes my questions. Thank you, Mr. Pieuk.
A: You'be very welcome. It was nice seeing you.
(Proceeding Adjourned At 10:40 A.M.)
THE END - OY VEY!
(CA-CHING! CA-CHING! CA-CHING!)
posted by Clare L. Pieuk at 3:57 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home