Tuesday, April 29, 2008

Murray Trachtenberg being counter sued!

Murray Trachtenberg before he met DONALD SCHADE!

Tansi/Good Day Readers:

The case file contains 109 pages. As we read the material we found it troubling. Here's a synopsis:

(1) There are a lot of moving parts and several parties involved. Donald Schade formerly from Winnipeg now Calgary was Executor of his parents' estate. He hired Murray Trachtenberg

(2) At some point his brother Larry Schade engaged an attorney (Gordon Katenikoff) to challenge Donald Schade's right to probate his parent's will

(3) Enter a Bankruptcy Trustee (solicitor Byran Hyman) to represent the interests of the Provincial Registrar

(4) Mr. Donald Shade claims only a verbal agreement existed with Counselor Trachtenberg who quit giving rise to a dispute over approximately $5,700 in what the latter claims are unpaid legal fees. Mr Trachtenberg filed a Small Claims action to recover the funds

(5) There are several e-mail written by Donald Schade in which he appears increasingly angry, frustrated, agitated - whatever the descriptives - with Counselor Trachtenberg

(6) Donald Schade claims he suffers from a medical condition (not explicitly identified) which impacts on his physical and cognitive capacities. He is self-represented

Here are three documents from the file - you be the judge.

Clare L. Pieuk
Murray Trachtenberg
Donald Schade

The Queen's Bench - General Division Centre
Civil Disposition Sheet
Sitting date(s): April 16, 2008
Judge: J. Hanssen

M. Trachtenberg
G. Katenikoff
B. Hyman

If the counter claim is going ahead $150 security for costs to be paid within 30 days or counter claim will be struck. Court is not appointing counsel at this time. No other parties will be added by by D. Schade. Amend title of proceedings to add the public trustee.

Adjournment to May 12, 2008 at 10 a.m. in court room 317 for trial.
Notice to Plaintiff

If you do not appear at the hearing of the counterclaim, a default judgment may be given against you and you may not then appeal this decision unless you first obtain leave to appeal from a judge.

Queen's Bench Small Claims
Winnipeg Centre
File No. S/C 07-01-09647

Between: Murray N. Trachtenberg


- and -

Estate of Alfred Schade, Executor Don Schade and Beneficiary Don Schade

Notice Of Intention To Appear

The defendant Don Schade intends to appear at the hearing to dispute the claim.


1. Donald Schade is the executor of his late father, Alfred Schade's estate. Alfred Schade resided in Winnipeg at the time of his death.

2. The Grant of Probate for the estate of Alfred Schade issued from the Court of Queen's Bench in Manitoba.

3. The principle remaining asset of the estate is a house located at 2 Windermere Bay, Winnipeg Manitoba.

4. Donald Schade retained the plaintiff to provide legal services including commencing an action in the Court of Queen's Bench Winipeg Centre to obtain vacant possession.

5. The contract for legal services was made in Manitoba. The legal services were provided in Manitoba. The contract provided for the plaintiff to charge an hourly reate, plus disbursements and taxes.

6. Donald Schade personally and the estate are jointly and severally liable to the plaintiff for payment of the outstanding amount.

7. Services were provided by the plaintiff and invoices were sub mitted in accordance with the terms and conditions of the retainer agreement.

8. The following amounts remain unpaid:

Invoice Date
November 1, 2006
February 27, 2007
April 16, 2007
May 16, 2007
August 16, 2007
October 15, 2007
November 29, 2007

Total $5,709.38

9. The plaintiff has demanded payment but the defendants have failed to pay the amount due.

10. The claim may be served on the defendants outside of Manitoba without an order of the Court in accordance with Queen's Bench Rule 17.02 as follows:

17.02(f) (i) the contract was made in whole or in part in Manitoba
(iv) the breach of contract has been committed in Manitotba
(h) the loss/damage claimed was sustained in Manitoba

SCHEDULE "A" Response

1) Donald Schade WAS the Executor of the Estate of the late Alfred Schade and the Manitoba PUBLIC TRUSTEE is the executor, and has assumed all responsibilities for the estate. When I was asked by my late father to be the executor I resided in Calgary, and it was understood and agreed by my father and I, that the jurisdiction was where I lived.

At no time when Mr. M. N. Trachtenberg was hired was I informed of issues relative of jurisdiction AND I would have made them by agreement, Calgary.

2) From my vague recollection, this Grant of Probate may be true. I do not believe my lawyer explained what this document was.

3) I believe that is fact, except to say I told my lawyer at that time, that Larry Schade may have had Power of Attorney over the estate of Alfred Schade, and that this has not been disclosed. L. Schade has also not fully disclosed under his Power of Attorney for the late Rachel Simone Shade, wife of Alfred Schade, and my mother. So there may be an "Accounts Receivable" issue as an asset of the estate

4) "VACANT POSSESSION," was never obtained. I arrived about June 25, 2006 at 2 Windermere Bay, (Winnipeg) after 15 hours of driving. The property smelled of dog urine, sewer gas, and full of dangerous black mold on the ceiling, walls and floors. Both sinks leaked severely, the home was filthy, food was left in two freezers (one which had thawed and then replugged in) and fridge. I took about 150 full size pictures of the damage. I had difficulty in getting the key for the home and thus the garage as well.

I put phone service in the home and attempted to talk with my lawyer, who I had never met in person. Through his secretary, Louise, I asked to talk with him and meet with him. I also asked if he could view the home first hand. I said I was available from 8:00 a.m. until 11:59 p.m. weekends included. I was told he was "too busy" could/would not meet or talk with me. After about 8 days my lawyer said he was going to make a claim for my not receiving "vacant possession [v.p]." The estate had no funds, and I am on a federal Canada Disability Pension, since 1993.

5) The agreement was made in Calgary. The hierarchy was in Calgary.

Initially, the executor has asked for a large retainer and my lawyer was told that the only asset was the home which was clear title. The verbal agreement was that the estate would pay for "opening the file" which was for out of pocket costs, which was deemed fair by the executor. I sent him a $500 cheque for the filing fee. I never saw a receipt for the filing fee and believe $500 was not the real cost and was not as agreed. There was no retainer. He was to be paid $250 per hour and the total legal fee was to be paid when funds were received from the sale of the home.

6) Don Schade, is a beneficiary and was kind enough to rpovide the filing fee as a loan to the executor and the estate. If beneficiaries are liable then Larry Schade and Cheryl Schade should also have been sued. Suing beneficiaries would be precedent setting. Ironically, the executor is not sued.

There was no written agreement as it was verbal. In case I had errored, I repeatedly asked my lawyer for a copy of the agreement he provided none and ignored me. I then wrote the Law Society of Manitoba and asked them to get me this "agreement." None was provided. If there was an agreement, why was one submitted much later. It asked for a "personal guarantee." I was not in a position to provide such a guarantee, nor was one ever asked for before or agreed to!

I was advised that if I did not let the lawyer exhort this agreement he would quit.

He did quit twice but in between he sent out documentation to two opposing lawyers. I AM NOT A LAWYER BUT IS THIS LEGAL?

7) The executor instructed his lawyer to discuss matters with Mr. B. Hyman, which I believe was not done. Mr. Hyman was a lawyer with the Public Trustee and represented my sister who is a beneficiary.

8) The lawyer does not provide a full accounting and statement from when he was retained by the estate which as I recall was about June, 2006. I believe he is suppressing evidence.

9) Payment was from the sale of 2 Windermere Bay. There was nowhere else it could have initially come from. The executor brought offers as early as about March, 2007 and more recently twice about September, 2007. None of these were acted on but were ignored.

Recovery of funds could have come from "costs" given to the estate twice in amounts of about $1,200 and about $1,400 (with interest). Contempt of Court could have been validated I understand the executor could have got title to 2 Windermere Bay and moved without interference.

A second finding as plaintiff was begun against Larry Schade for fraud under his Power of Attorney for not disclosing what happened to my mother's funds. About that time, my lawyer asked me where I was going to get the funds to make repairs/renovations to 2 Windermere Bay. I told him from my mother's estate, and he gave a surprised "OH!" Where did he think the funds are going to come from?" He then told me he had done nothing, even though I had paid him a lot of money for filing. AFTER THE FACT, he told me it would cost a lot of money not before! In other words I was being tricked again.

I advised my lawyer to ask the court if funds were recovered, that after everyone was offered a chance to participate, like in a bankruptcy, only those participated in the recovery would lose or win. I spent as best I can tell about $4,000-$5,000 on this second file.

Finally, Larry Schade owned up to defrauding about $11,000. Though these facts may pertain to the file being used on, it shows a pattern of my lawyer not working in the best interest of his clients(s).

I asked Mr. Trachtenberg if he was withdrawing because what he was suing had lapsed and the statute barred/expired, TWICE! He refused to answer, saying it was a legal question. He was still on the court record.

Mr. Trachtenberg withdrew with court permission on or about November 23, 2007. As he was going to charge costs, I gave him consent to withdraw if there were no costs. He advised me that he told the Judge that this was with consent and he took costs as well. This matter was with conditional consent if no costs were charged. The court was deceived. Justice was mislead!

On or about December 10, 2007 Mr. Trachtenberg withdrew from the second file opened in 2007. He indicated that "He could not work for that man" or words to that effect defaming me. He told me he could not work for me as the two other lawyers objected to his not handling both files. He hid the fact that he stayed with the second file, as he had duped me into paying additional fees. When I became aware, and stopped paying (as he had done no work) he quit.

He also advised me that I could not appear in court under Rule 15.01 (1) without a lawyer (which I could not afford as he had all my funds and refused to collect on Order/Judgments which was valid.

After calling Legal Aid 5-6 times and approaching about 5 other lawyers, I found one who was interested and wanted to see my file. Mr. Trachtenberg would not let him see the file unless this lawyer was retained.

My lawyer violates the "Statement of Principles on Self-Litigants" which comes from the Canadian Judicial Council chaired by the Right Honourable Beverley McLachlin, Head of the Canadian Supreme Court.

My lawyer, interestingly originally honoured the Canadian Human Rights when he agreed to get paid from the sales proceeds. HOWEVER, when he made a change as evidenced by his new contract he VIOLATED Canadian Human Rights and Manitoba Human Rights which mimic CHR.
I advised my lawyer at the outset that I had virtually no money. I also advised him at the outset that I had a disability which is classified by medical personal as "prolonged and severe." One needs "prolonged and severe" to qualify for CPP Disability. CPP D pays me about $1,000/month which equates to about 50% of the poverty level. I am in debt to the tune of about $250,000+/-. My disabilities relate to cognitive and physical. These matters herein have put me under a doctor's care and I saw two doctors yesterday and have appointments with two later. Two medications have been prescribed in addition to the one I was already taking.

A huge amount of time was correspondence demanding, coercing, exhorting new agreements and funds in violation of the original agreement. This to me is over billing and of no value as it did not benefit anyone or anything. As such I am in the process of having the bills taxed by the Law Society of Manitoba.

On at least two occasions, stupid old me had to advise my lawyer that the action(s) were seized by a particular judge and that my lawyer was going to the wrong court.

I will be filing a human rights complaint and have talked with the human rights lady at the Law Society trying to get her to mediate. This action was unsuccessful.

The breaching of the verbal agreement for no significant and valid reason(s) has left the estate executor and the beneficiaries disadvantaged severely, I am being flooded with Motions/Affidavits, etc.

I am spending 100s of of hours as I am not a typist, have no filing system. Often I start at about 8:00 a.m. and finish after 1:00 a.m. in the morning, physically and emotionally exhausted with these matters.

My lawyer's actions and inactions are causing increased utility costs (gas, electricity, sewer, water, telephone) plus flying to Winnipeg, car rental, office expenses (paper, printer ink, courier and documentation commissioner and notary charges, car and gas), etc. related to 2 Windermere Bay.

Mr. Trachtenberg advised me at one stage to go deeply into debt with a mortgage on 2 Windermere Bay; do all the work, pay all the bills, be responsible for the mortgage and take my 1/3; while no one else provided any benefits. THAT is the investor we are all looking for, "You take all the risk and do all the work and get 1/3 of the return." I desperately look for such a party in a fools paradise!

Don Schade has loaned the estate and paid taxes twice to stave off a tax sale on 2 Windermere Bay, in an amount totaling with interest about ($3,500 and $3,700 approximately) $8,000 and is the most penalized in these matters. One or more of the parties sued today plans to take further action and/or has the option to do so and asks for a judgment and/or award in such a way that this award goes to Don Schade in a form such as "damages?"

All three parties ask for $10,000 each (i.e $10,000 x 3) intrusted to Don Schade to do as he wishes/pleases or as the good court decides in fairness.

I attest to the information provided above on these 4 pages and others herein.


January 31/2008
The Queen's Bench Winnipeg Centre
S/C 07-01-09647
Between: Nurray N. Trachtenberg


- and -

Don Schade (Funder and Beneficiary) and/or Estate of Alfred Schade and Executor Don Schade


The Defendant (as above) counter claims against the plaintiff M. N. Trachtenberg for the sum of ($1,000 x 3 or $10,000), plus prejudgment interest and costs of this counterclaim, for the following reason or the reasons set out in the attached document: (as included on a separate page)

Date: January 31, 2008

(Signature of Defendant or Solicitor)
116 Deercrest Close
Calgary, Alberta T2J 5T3


Don Schade and the other parties if they are still included in this action:

That amount sued for by the lawyer, $5,709.06 be denied and the filing fee(s) of $500 and $500 the second being because the files are linked even in Queen's Bench Court in documents as recent as January 25, 2008.

- That amount of $10,000 x 3 ($30,000) for each of the parties sued as this really is 3 actions under the guise of one file number, be awarded under the sole control of Don Schade to do as he solely wishes

Or if denied:

- An award to Don Schade, the party most harmed and disadvantaged, an award of $10,000

Both the above with interest and costs

Or as the good Court awards

Thank you.

File no. CI 06-01-48519
The Queen's Bench Winnipeg Centre


Donald Schade in his capacity as the Executor of the Estate of Alfred Schade and the Estate of Alfred Schade (Plaintiff)

- and -

Larry Schade (Defendant)
Affidavit of Don Schade
Sworn The 22 Day Of November, 2007
Hearing Date Of Friday, November 23, 2007
Before Madam Justice Duval

Don Schade, Executor
116 Deerecrest Close SE
Calgary, Alberta T2J 5T3
Telephone: (403) 225-0202 (MST)

Affidavit Of Don Schade

I, Don Schade, of the city of Calgary, in the Province of Alberta

Make Oath And Say:

1. I hired lawyer Mr. Murray Trachtenberg and as such have personal knowledge of the matters herein.

2. I advised Mr. Trachtenberg that I had a limited income as I was on a long term disability under the Canada Disability Pension Plan term of "Prolong and Severe" since 1993 and have cognitive problems.

3. There was an agreement that he would receive his payment from the sale proceeds of the 2 Windermere Bay and he would be paid $250 per hour and I paid $500 for the filing fee.

4. When I asked Mr. Trachtenberg for a copy of our agreement which I thought may be in writing, he submitted a new agreement which made me personally guarantee the Estate. As he would not provide the old agreement, which I recalled as verbal, I asked the Law Society of Manitoba to get it for me. What I received was not an agreement, and I sadly believed that I was being tricked adn deceived.

5. I was being told that I would have to sign a personal guarantee for the Estate which I refused to do as that was not our original agreement, or he would quit, which he currently intends to do with costs. This is most unfair and I believe he is punishing me for going to the Law Society.

6. His actions violate my Canadian Human Rights and I am told by and adviser at Manitoba Human Rights, and that the Manitoba Human Rights mimic the Canadian Human Rights.

7. Mr. Trachtenberg actually quit twice and in between sent out written communications to the other lawyers and I believe this was because he was tardy in responding to them.

8. I believe that considerable time and probably billings were caused by his trying to get me to sign a new contract, which I was told was the same as the old one and this confused me as it made no sense if they were the same?

9. I have asked Mr. Trachtenberg if any of our actions had lapsed time or expired and have not had a response.

10. Mr. Trachtenberg advised that I can not appear and present in court because I must be represented by a lawyer because of my disability. I have contacted Winnipeg Legal Aid 5-6 times and have not had my telephone call returned. I have contacted 3 other lawyers and been unsuccessful. I was told that because of poverty they would not work for me and they wanted a large retainer and the file was very/too complicated.

11. With regards to Mr. Trachtenberg's Point 5, I am confused with his comment. The issue was Mr. Trachtenberg demanding me to sign a PERSONAL GUARANTEE for the Estate something which I felt was grossly unfair as I was not in a position to do so. His not providing a copy of the initial agreement made me suspicious. I believed he was using my disability against me.

12. His Point 6: I believe the issue of my not signing the Personal Guarantee and his now wanting to be paid every month is in contravention of our original verbal agreement. I am not aware of any communications I made to my lawyer which show loss of confidence. IT IS INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT AT THE TIME OF HIS "UNCONTESTED" NOTICE OF MOTION, he was prepared to carry on the file on my mother's estate which I believe is paid far in advance and was an error on my part. As there is no example of any "certain e-mail communications" so I can not comment. It is true that I am sometimes considered agitated, which I am not really inside, and this is a disability symptom. I also often use CAPITALS for speed and readibility and NOT shouting.

13. I did have a concern my lawyer was appearing before The Master and Not the Judge seized the two files, as I seemed to know and he did not and that this would waste time and money. I did bring this to his attention as time had been wasted before the Master who felt could not make a decision on the matter presented. I advised him that I did not want this Estate to be my career.

I did see communications from other lawyer(s) asking why I was not giving instructions and I was concerned. I was concerned when I was being blamed for delays because my lawyer was on holidays. I recall a communication/concern Mr Hyman as to what the Executor was doing with the Estate. I responded in detail, about 3 pages. My lawyer had this information. I invited my lawyer and the other lawyers to see the VERY SORRY state of 2 Windermere Bay, which was NOT received "Vacant Possession" meaning usable, safe, dangerous. No one attended.

15. His Point 7: I am not a lawyer and could not sign an agreement I did not understand, was not explained and most importantly the consequences to the Executor and the Estate. As a lawyer has a power over his client, is this not a conflict of interest?

16. His Point 8: I did request the name of the Trustee's lawyer and the name of the last female/Madam Judge directly from my lawyer. He did not ask why I wanted this information NOR did he object. Subsequently, I did about 2-3 weeks ago receive a telephone call from Mr. B. Hyman and he told me he had permission from my lawyer to talk with me and progress seemed waining. He did not even seem interested in meeting with me when I was in Winnipeg at the end of June/early July, 2007.

17. I have paid the outstanding amount of the last two tax payments for 2006 and 2007, now pay the water and sewer, heat/natural gas, insurance, phone service and have spent hundreds of hours on these estate matters.

18. I believe this court appearance on November 23, 2007 is unnecessary as I have sent two registered e-mails to my lawyer and these e-mails do not appear to have been opened. These e-mails said I would release him from the file of the Estate of Alfred Schade because of the threat of the Estate being charged with costs by my lawyer. I consider this unfair.

19. I believe I may have asked my lawyer for more time as I was trying to get a lawyer and am not well as the stress of these matters increases the symptoms of my disability.

20. Rule 15.01(1) says "a party to a proceeding who is under disablilty or acts in a representative capacity shall be represented by a lawyer.

I ask that a lawyer familiar with estates and related litigation be appointed by the QUEEN'S BENCH for the Executor and the Estate.

21. As I know that I can not contact a Judge directly, I received the times Madam Justice Duval was in court and may be available in court either as an ex parti or a special.

22. THE REASONS I wanted to meet the Judge in open court was to ask for directiion on issues and concerns I had as Executor as I felt I had hit a wall:

The serious condition of 2 Windermere Bay which made me ill because of sewer back up and gas, dog urine and black mold and my lawyer has the 100-200 pictures

23. I did not believe this court appearance would happen until this last moment because I offered his release though extorted. My travel by car is about 15 hours each way or 30 hours return.

Repeated threats by Larry Schade of wanting to smash my face and strangle me and I and others have a concern for my/their safety. And to discuss threats initially made to me by Larry Schade to extortion by reporting me to Revenue Canada and now the use of 2 cheques from my mother's estate which are my funds which are being used with a fraudulent explanation that they were a loan from my mother to me.

My lawyer is aware of the above.

I never borrowed any funds from either of my parents. And Mr. G. Katelnikoff, Larry Schade's lawyer is using these cheques with the Public Trustee's Office to defame my good name and ask for my removal.

Mr. G. Katelnikoff represented me as my lawyer and bungled a transactin and the Law Society of Manitoba removed his/my file from him. This bungling cost me a huge sum of money probably at this stage $200,000 +/-. He has personal information about me and it is most unfair and unprofessional that he be involved against me in this Estate matter.

That costs not be awarded to Mr. M. Trachtenberg as this action does not serve the benefit of the Executor and Estate and, in fact, harms it.

That costs and penalties be awarded to Don Schade and/or the Executor and/or the Estate of Alfred Schade for breach of contract, misrepresentation and attempted fraud and,

That all funds paid by me, such as my personal payment for filing costs, be returned as there will be additional costs to the Estate in hiring.

Cost for the huge amount of time and stress on me personally and

Such further and other relief as the natuure of the case may require and this Honourable Court deem just.

Please find attached 23 pages of documents marked as Exhibit "A."

City of Calgary, in the)
Province of Alberta)
22nd of November, 2007.)

Katarina Ruta Holdaway A Commissioner for Oaths in and for the Province of Alberta. My Commission expires December 7, 2009.



Sunday, April 27, 2008


Anonymous has left a new comment on your post, "Why we're trying to join the Media Bloggers Association!"

Lets hope Clare, lets hope...keep up the gusto...with you all the way!

Dear ...O...

Thank you for writing. Even if the MBA cannot admit us because we're a Canadian Blog, that's far from the end of the road. We have the addresses of at least three sites the Media Bloggers Association successfully defended against defamation lawsuits. Shortly we'll be opening an online dialogue which, hopefully, will see them posting Murray Trachtenberg's legal scribblings for their readers and the American legal community to enjoy.

Clare L. Pieuk

Write our readers a detailed critique dude!

afdasdf has left a new comment on your post, "Hope this helps!"

This is sick, dude! Why would you advertise this kind of book?
Dear Dude:

Thank you for writing. Since many of us have not read the book why not prepare a critique and we'll post it.

Clare L. Pieuk

Hope this helps!

Samuel T. Charleston has left a new comment on your post, "Here goes - wish us well!"

Do you know how I might be able to contact Rudolph Carlyle Evans? (and if you don't could you please post this message on your website as I am quite desperate to find out, post haste). I would like to purchase his book, The Resurrection Of Aristocracy, and quickly, but I am unable to locate new copies anywhere.
Dear Mr. Charleston:

Thank you for writing. You have two options:

(1) Go to the amazon.com link shown below. It looks like there are 4 used and new copies (paperback starting from $1.98) which can be ordered online


(2) Find out the publisher's name. A few months ago we were interested in a book (eventually purchased) by Canadian attorney Philip Slayton - Lawyers Gone Bad: Money, Sex And Madness In Canada's Legal Profession. We wished to make Mr. Slayton aware of our Blog so contacted The Penguin Group (Canada) directly asking if it could provide us with his e-mail address which it did.

The Resurrection of Aristocracy appears to have been published in 1988 so we're assuming author Rudolph Carlyle Evans is still alive. Why not try corresponding with him directly?

Hope this helps.

Clare L. Pieuk

Out Of Print - Used Copies Available

Rudolph Carlyle Evans (born circa 1951-1952) is a reactionary author who has prophesied the rise of a new feudalism. Evans was born in Kingston, Jamaica. At age 5, he moved to England, where he obtained a Bachelor of Arts degree in Sociology and Social Anthropology from Hull University in July of 1976. He moved to the United States, resided in Hempstead, New, York and became a U.S. citizen. (www.wikipedia.org)

"The present age is one of equality, the new age will be one of aristocracy; the present age is dominated by urban life, the new age will be dominated by a rural lifestyle; the present age is one of mass production, the new age will be one of homemade goods and craftsmanship; the present age has given us the nuclear family, the new age will return us to the extended family; the present age idolizes science and technology, the new age will be hostile or indifferent to these things."

Life will be hard, and the commoners will have very low expectations. They will never question the permanency of their subordinate position...and their joys will be of the most basic kind, such as the birth of a child, the marriage of a son or daughter, and military success of their lord, particularly so when it involves the members of their own community, and of course a good harvest...Communial cooperation will be essential for the common people if they are to survive. No longer will they be able to beg for a living, or live off the charity of some benevolent institution or rely on the government to provide for their needs - put simply, those who do not work really will not eat." - from the book.

Rudolph Carlyle Evans has a utopian vision. A civilization devoid of any modern technology, ruled by an unopposed and unquestioned elite, managed by a warrior caste, and tended to by serfs and commoners. No "trickle down economics" here, just a return to a feudal state run by an iron hand. To quote the introduction by Robert Hertz, "In Evans' view, the main function of the common people is to beat the lily pads at night to keep the frogs quiet." Popular with the Satanists, this work is Machiavelli taken to the exteme. (http://www.angelfire.com/nv/micronations/


Saturday, April 26, 2008

Here goes - wish us well!

Mr. Ronald D. Coleman
Hoffman Pollard & Furman PLLC
Attorneys At Law
220 E 42 Street
Suite 435
New York, N Y 10017

Telephone: (212) 338-0093
Facsimile: (212) 338-0093

Dear Mr. Coleman:

Our Blog, www.CyberSmokeBlog.blogspot.com is a Canadian site based in Winnipeg, Manitoba. Its precursor www.CyberSmokeSignals.com was sued for alleged defamation during May 2005.

A Brief Chronology

(1) The Plaintiffs are the Manitoba Metis Federation and its Board of Directors. The MMF is funded by the Government of Canada and the Province. It's annual budget is approximately $25 million

(2) CyberSmokeSignals first began publishing during the Summer of 2000. It was critical of the Federation because of what it considered inappropriate expenditures of taxpayer dollars plus a lack of organizational transparency and financial accountability

(3) In mid-September, 2003 a very reliable source advised us the Federation's Board of Directors had passed a Motion to have one of its lawyers (presumably Murray Norman Trachtenberg - www.ptlaw.mb.ca/Contact.htm; mtrachtenberg@ptlaw.mb.ca) monitor CSS.com looking for litigious material. In effect, we were placed on a defamation watch

(4) Shortly thereafter, a Winnipeg Legal Aid Metis solicitor (Lionel R. Chartrand) was subsequently approached by CSS.com publicly agreeing to serve as CyberSmokeSignals' pro bono General Legal Council. He wrote several articles (published on CSS) strongly disagreeing with the approach MMF President David Chartrand (not related) was taking in negotiations with the provincial government over Aboriginal gathering rights

(5) In late January, 2004 Mr. Lionel Chartrand wrote a petition (calling for MMF election campaign reform) and authorized it's posting on CSS.com. We have the black print (i.e. e-mail) firmly establishing this to be true

(6) February 9, 2004 lawyer Lionel Chartrand and the registered owner of CyberSmokeSignals (Terry Belhumeur) received defamation warning letters regarding the petition from MMF Counsel Murray Trachtenberg. For reasons unknown I was not served

(7) During late May, 2005 the Federation issued a Statement of Claim against CSS.com. Registered site owner Terry Belhumeur and I (wrote many of the articles appearing on CyberSmokeSignals) were named as Co-Defendants along with a third person (Vanessa Everton) who had been identified as the online Petition Co-ordinator

(8) Unbelievably, our attorney (Lionel R. Chartrand) was not named in the suit. Unbeknownst to us at the time, we later learned he had signed a retainer agreement ($2,500 monthly - I saw a copy) with the MMF to provide legal advice in respect of Manitoba Metis hunting rights. We later witnessed a letter (dated mid-December, 2004) in which President Chartrand wrote to Lionel Chartrand offering him a contract to be drafted by Federation Counsel Murray Trachtenberg if solicitor Chartrand were interested

(9) In the intervening years, we have agreed to sign requests by three MMF Board of Director Plaintiffs for Notices of Discontinuance removing them as litigants. A fourth never agreed from the get go. Also, Petition Co-ordinator Vanessa Everton endorsed a letter saying she was unaware of any malfeasance on the part of the Federation and, in return, was dropped from the lawsuit. We have a copy of said missive but Manitoba Queen's Bench Rules block us from publishing it verbatim on the internet although we've made reference to it on several occasions

(10) The Federation's lawyer (Murray Trachtenberg) charges at least $250/hour. We have seen several copies of his invoices for other MMF related work he has done. To date, we estimate his total billables are somewhere in the $150,000 range and remember he's paid using Canadian taxpayer dollars

(11) Early February 2006, Co-Defendant and registered CyberSmokeSignals owner Terry Belhumeur arbitrarily changed the site's password and username effectively blocking my access. He then tried unsuccessfully to broker a deal with the Manitoba Metis Federation to have his name dropped from the action. In March, 2006 CyberSmokeBlog was born

(12) As an unrepresented Co-Defendant I am within my rights to post any and all correspondence from the MMF's attorney which is exactly what we've done

(13) If you go to the Manitoba Justice home page, you will see to date approximately 120 documents have been filed in this case the vast preponderance by solicitor Trachtenberg on behalf of his clients [http://www.jus.gov.mb.ca/; click "File Search Number" (on left) and enter CI05-01-41955]

In summation, this case is not about defamation - far from it. Rather, it's a shoddy, expensive attempt by a publicly financed organization with a dictatorial regime to misuse our legal system in an attempt to bully, threaten and intimidate those who dare criticize it publicly.

Our Questions

(i) Although we're a Canadian site, would it be possible to become a Member of the Media Bloggers Association?

(ii) If yes, could we display your logo on CyberSmokeBlog in the capacity as a Member?

(iii) If no to (i) and (ii), could we still post articles about this lawsuit on MBA links?

(iv) Could we exchange links with the Media Bloggers Association?

Finally, approximately 3-4 years ago there was an article in a major Canadian newspaper (The National Post) about then employment search firm Bernard Haldane (now J.L. Kirk &Associates) concerning complaints registered by clients against its Canadian operations. We will source it and send Katherine Cobel a copy.

Thank You!
Clare L. Pieuk
cc info@mediabloggers.org

Thank You research team!

Tansi/Good Day Readers:

We've got some excellent researchers anonymously helping us. Don't know who sent this but it might be "Browkin." They're a mathematical-computer genius and super good Google searcher. Whoever and wherever you are, Thank You indeed!

Our next step will now be to send an electronic letter to Messrs. Cox and Coleman. We'll begin displaying it shortly.

Clare L. Pieuk
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post, "Why we're trying to join the Media Bloggers Association!"


On the Media Bloggers Association website, I found MBA's President Robert Cox's e-mail listed as
info@mediabloggers.org. Likely a general address which teams of assistants monitor and vet, but don't let that get you down necessarily - I think the Manitoba Metis Federation lawsuit and your Blog are sufficiently interesting to make it past the checkpoint. FYI, and quite fittingly, Cox also has a blog of his own(http://www.mediabloggers.org/wordsinedgewise).

In regards to Ron Coleman, after doing no small research and due diligence to make sure it is THE Ron Coleman, General Counsel to the MBA, he's now with Hoffman Polland & Furman PLLC (
http://hpf-law.com ). You can find his lawyer profile at http://hpf-law.com/attorneys/ronald-coleman.php. His electronic address is Rcoleman@hpf-law.com.

Interestingly (though I suppose this shouldn't entirely be a surprise for an entertainment and intellectual-property lawyer), Ron Coleman also maintains not one but TWO websites,

http://www.likelihoodofconfusion.com and http://www.likelihoodofsuccess.com.

Judging from the pages, he comes across as not only a damned sharp litigation lawyer but an interesting man to know in his own right.

Oh, and if I haven't given you enough links - a sample of Mr. Coleman's work,


My conclusion: It would not be a waste of your time at all to contact these gentlemen. Titans though they are, I couldn't imagine a better forum for you to "plead" your case.

Friday, April 25, 2008

Why we're trying to join the Media Bloggers Association!

Tansi/Good Day Folks:

A very special thank you to one of our eagle-eyed readers who spotted this article and anonymously passed it along. Fascinating!

New Rochelle, New York based MEDIA BLOGGERS Association (http://www.mediabloggers.org/) is a highly organized, sophisticated operation representing several thousand American Bloggers throughout the United States. It's mission statement:

(1) Promoting its members by advancing the grassroots media movement generally, showcasing exemplary instances of media blogging and citizen journalism, making members available for media appearances, and otherwise creating promotional opportunities for the MBA and its members.

(2) Protecting members by defending the rights of bloggers and citizen journalists generally, providing first-line legal advice to members, and partnering with organizations dedicated to promoting values enshrined in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
(3) Educating its members through mutual support and robust internal discussion, by partnering with organizations dedicated to education in the area of technology, methods and standards and otherwise creating educational opportunities for the MBA and its members

MBA President Robert Cox

MBA General Legal Counsel Ronald D. Coleman

Hoffman Polland & Furman PLLC - New York


http://hpf-law.com/attorneys/ronald-coleman.php (Profile)

http://batesline.com/archives/2005/02/a-formal-respon.html (His Work)

http://www.likelihoodofconfusion.com (Blog)

http://likelihoodofsuccess.com (Blog)

When you read the article below, you'll understand why we'd like so much to become a member even though it's for American Bloggers. We're hoping the MBA will find the Canadian taxpayer funded Manitoba Metis Federation's defamation lawsuit against www.CyberSmokeSignals.com and the bigger issue of Bloggers' rights it raises worthy of it's consideration. If we can't join perhaps the Association will allow us to post articles to their homepage. We'll also request an exchange of links.

Shortly we'll be posting our MBA letter.


Clare L. Pieuk
Winners And Losers In blogger Defamation Lawsuits
Full text: Visit links

BillHobbs.com (http://billhobbs.com/2007/04/coble_case_settled.html) and the Nashville, Tennessee city newspaper he works for report that Katherine Coble has reached an agreement (http://mycropht.wordpress.com/2007/04/17/jl-kirk-resolution/) with J.L. Kirk in its threatened defamation lawsuit. I predicted this last week, but it didn’t take clairvoyance to figure out that J.L. Kirk had heedlessly kicked a hornets’ nest in response to one sting.

The obvious loser here is J.L. Kirk & Associates. As Brittney Gilbert of Nashville is Talking

(http://www.nashvilleistalking.com/2007/04/16/katherine-coble-and-jl-kirk-surpass-jeff-jarvis-and-dell-as-example-of-blog-brawn/) noted this previously unknown firm launched itself into newspaper headlines and the top ten of Technorati’s blog searches when it sent Coble the demand takedown letter. But it is more interesting to note the winners in this chain of events. The most obvious winner, I think, is not Katherine Coble, but the Media Bloggers Association. Certainly, Coble has been vindicated in her cogent critique of the executive placement firm’s policies. But the Media Bloggers Association (http://www.mediabloggers.org/) members arranged (http://www.mediabloggers.org/mba-news/nashville-woman-local-headhunting-firm-squaring-off-over-comments-woman-made-on-her-blog-libel-suit-threatened) for New York attorney Ron Coleman to represent Coble pro bono and helped draw the large publicity to the case. The Media Bloggers Association has been riding high lately, coming off the victorious settlement in the Main Web Report lawsuit (http://www.mediabloggers.org/mba-news/unconditional-surrender-by-ad-agency-in-main-blogger-case) and securing media credentials (http://www.mediabloggers.org/mba-news/mba-board-member-on-blogging-the-libby-trial-necns-chet-curtis-report) for its bloggers for the Lewis Libby trial, a first in the history of blogging. This case is is a quick, effective victory for Media Bloggers and their cause.

The other winners in this situation are American consumers. If citizen bloggers were discouraged from publishing non-defamatory criticisms of business or service providers by the threat of spurious lawsuits, there would be less information available for consumers to make an informed decision. Katherine Coble cited this as the major reason for her initial post

(http://mycropht.blogspot.com/2007/02/jl-kirk-associates-my-story.html) about J.L. Kirk — she and her husband had been unable to find any online information on the firm, and she wanted other potential clients of the firm to be aware of what they would experience.

The only question left in my mind is whether King & Ballow (http://kingballow.com/kb/index.html), the law firm representing J.L. Kirk, is a winner or loser in this case. On the one hand, King & Ballow and J.L. Kirk eventually backed down under the firestorm of public criticism. On the other hand, at teh end of the day, King & Ballow got a paycheck for its role in the case. This raises the same issues as the Lance Dutson litigation (http://www.mediabloggers.org/mba-news/mba-member-hit-with-multi-million-dollar-federal-lawsuit)does a law firm have a duty to discourage its clients from pursuing heavy-handed tactics against private citizens (such as bloggers) when the suits have little legal basis? In the case of Lance Dutson, the law firm of Preti, Flaherty, Beliveau, Pachios & Haley (http://www.preti.com/) sued blogger Dutson on behalf of its client, Warren Paino Kremer Advertising. The result in that case was even more adverse for the advertising firm when Dutson counter-sued and achieved national media coverage. But in both situations, should the law firm have advised its client not to take legal action?

King & Ballow may have come out on top in this case, or at the very least didn’t it didn’t wind up a loser. However, firms like this need to realize that suing (or threatening to sue) a blogger could run counter to is clients’ interests. Of course, I wasn’t privy to King & Ballow’s discussions with J.L. Kirl; K&B may have warned J.L. Kirk of the potential backlash. But in a world where every citizen can harness the power of the Internet, law firms will have to advise clients accordingly or they will indeed end up the losers.

It's in the mail - really!

Tansi/Good Day Readers:

Just finished mailing a signed copy of Darrel Deslauriers' request for a Notice of Discontinuance. Must say, felt good, real good, as the envelope slid from our hand disappearing into the shiny red Canada Post Box.

Soon he'll be free again - was quick, simple and painless wasn't it? Wonder how many other Plaintiffs in the Manitoba Metis Federation's frivolous, vexatious, suprious defamation lawsuit against www.CyberSmokeSignals.com will follow suit.

Clare L. Pieuk

Thursday, April 24, 2008

It's almost in the mail!

Tansi/Good Day Readers:

Received Darrel Deslauriers' Notice of Discontinuance from Counselor Trachtenberg yesterday. Advised Mr. Deslauriers by telephone last evening it will be signed and returned.

Had to laugh at a story Mr. Deslauriers mentioned about President David Chartrand asking at a Provincial Board of Directors meeting how many read the Metis specific Blogs. How do the out of towners keep up with what's really happening at MMF headquarters? Only two owned up Brother Elbert ("You can't fire me!) Chartrand and another whose name escapes us - yeah right!

Good Luck with your upcoming Winnipeg Free Press story!

Clare L. Pieuk
Barristers, Solicitors & Notaries Public
710-491 Portage Avenue
Winnipeg, MB R3B 2E4
Fax: (204) 944-8878

Gerald S. Posner
Manitoba & Ontario Bars

Murray N. Trachtenberg, B.A., LL.B.
Direct Line: (204) 940-9602
e-mail: mtrachtenberg@ptlaw.mb.ca
April 23, 2006

Mr. Terry Belhumeur
2020 Burrows Avenue
Winnipeg, Manitoba R2R 0Y8

Mr. Clare L. Pieuk
2 - 371 Des Meurons Street
Winnipeg, Manitoba R2H 2N6

Re: MMF et al vs. Terry Belhumeur et al
Queen's Bench File No. CI 05-01-41955
My File No. 2003-20

I have received instructions from Darrel Deslauriers to seek your consent to his filing a Notice of Discontinuance.

Enclosed with this letter please find:

1. A Consent for your signature; and
2. A self-addressed postage paid envelope.

If you are prepared to consent, please sign the enclosed document where indicated and return it to me.

I will provide you with a true copy of the Notice of Discontinuance once same has been filed with the Court.

Yours truly,
File No. CI 05-01-41955
The Queen's Bench Winnipeg Centre




- and -

Terry Belhumeur, Clare L. Pieuk and Vanessa Everton

Note: Richard Delaronde and Bonnie McIntrye previously submitted Notices of Discontinuance which we signed. Former Co-Defendant Vanessa Everton signed a statement indicating she was unaware of any MMF malfeasance. Court of Queen's Bench rules prevent us from publishing it otherwise we would.
Consent Of The Defendant Clare L. Pieuk

Barristers, Solicitors & Notaries Public
710 - 491 Portage Avenue
Winnipeg, Manitoba
R3B 2E4

Phone No. (204) 940-9602
Fax No. (204) 944-8878
File No. 2003-20


The defendant Clare L. Pieuk hereby consents to the plaintiff Darrel Deslauriers filing a Notice of Discontinuance in the form attached hereto.

Dated at Winnipeg, Manitoba this ___ day of April, 2008.
Per: (Signature)
Clare L. Pieuk
Notice of Discontinuance

1. A Statement of Claim in this action has been served.

2. The plaintiff Darrel Deslauriers wholly discontinues his claim against the defendants, without costs to any of the parties, and the within Notice of Discontinuance shall constitute a defence to any subsequent jaction as comtemplated by Queen's Bench Rule 23.02(1).

April 23, 2008

Per: (Signature)
Murray N. Trachtenberg
Counsel for the plaintiffs

To: Clare L. Pieuk
2 - 371 Des Meurons Street
Winnipeg Manitoba R2H 2N6

And To: Terry Belhumeur
2020 Burrows Avenue
Winnipeg, Manitoba R2H 0Y8

The spirit of Atticus Finch is alive, well and living at www.atticusfunchisdead.blogsopt.com!

Concerned Legal Watchdog has left a new comment on your post, "You too can be crazy like a tick and still get certified to practice law in Manitoba!"

You think that's something? This guy was nutsoid, but at least he didn't hurt anyone beside himself. If you want something interesting to read about for lawyers in your province of Manitoba, check out what David Davis was up to in 2001 or Grant Golightly in 1995. It's a goddam crying shame what lawyers think they can get away with.

Check out my blog atticusfinchisdead.blogspot.com. The spirit of Atticus Finch is dead -all lawyers are crooks and all lawyers nowadays want to do is gratify themselves, make money and cut corners. They're lechers, you're better off without one. More power to you and your buddy in defending yourself!

A Concerned Legal Watchdog
Dear Concerned:

Thank you for writing. We checked out your Blog and highly recommend the article currently posted - well said indeed!

What we don't understand about Counselor Trachtenberg is he's always so nasty to us yet we've made him a ton of money since he first started billing the Canadian taxpayer funded Manitoba Metis Federation way back in 2003 - over $150,000?

You're right about self-representing. Correspondence between opposing attorneys is normally kept private, however, that does not apply in our case. If it did, Murray Trachtenberg would have been all over us like a cheap shirt having filed 500 complaints with the Law Society of Manitoba. What can LSM do take away our license to practice we don't have?

Keep up the great work on your Blog which we'll bookmark and regularly check. We'll send a copy of your e-mail to author Philip Slayton (philipslayton@hotmail.com). Curious. Are you based in the United States or Canada?

Clare L. Pieuk
Atticus Finch is a major character in Harper Lee's Pulitizer Prize - winning novel To Kill A Mockingbird. He's a lawyer, local politician and resident of Maycomb County, Alabama and father of Jeremy Atticus "Jem" Finch and Jean Louise "Scout" Finch - one of the central characters in the novel, arguably the single central character.

As a descendant of Simon Finch, an apothecary from England who settled near Maycomb, rather than stay in the family homestead (named "Finch's Landing"), Atticus went to Montgomery to study law. He was later elected to the Alabama State Legislature, was then re-elected without opposition many times and was known as a respected, hard-working lawmaker (although it's never stated whether he was a member of the Alabama house of Representatives or the Alabama Senate.

While a legislator, he met and married the future mother of Jem and Scout Finch (who is never named, although it is mentioned that she was fifteen years his junior). His wife died of a heart attack two years after Scout, their youngest child, was born. Throughout the novel, Atticus lives in Maycomb with his two children and his maid, Calpurnia. He has one sister, who has very different ways of bringing up children and wants to make Scout more feminine.

Gregory Peck as Atticus Finch

"..... There is one institution that makes a pauper the equal of Rockefeller, the stupid man the equal of any Einstein, and the ignorant man the equal of any College President. That institution, gentleman, is a court."


Going international?

Tansi/Good Day Folks:

Another special thank you to one of our readers who sent us a link to the MEDIA BLOGGERS association (www.mediabloggers.org). Based in New Rochelle, New York it looks like a highly organized, extremely well networked organization of thinkers interested, among other considerations, in internet defamation lawsuits.

MBA profile (Mission Statement, Principles, Standards - www.mediabloggers.org/about) does not specifically state whether membership is limited to American citizen journalists so we're going to apply. We believe our southern cousins would love to hear about the Manitoba Metis Federation's frivolous, vexatious, spurious and beyond asinine lawsuit against www.CyberSmokeSignals.com. Hopefully, it will allow us to post for its readers some of Counselor Trachtenberg's many legal scribblings.

Clare L. Pieuk

You too can be crazy like a tick and still get certified to practice law in Manitoba!

Typical Law Office

Tansi/Good Day Readers:
A special thank you to the reader who sent the following - wonder how many hundreds of dollars per hour he's charging clients? Did anyone think to ask what he was watching on "his colour television?" Sound like anyone you know? Maybe he's not so crazy after all! Found it so weird we're e-mailing a copy to Philip Slayton author of Lawyers Gone Bad: Money, Sex And Madness In Canada's Legal Profession. Perhaps he should add, "And Crazy Too" to the subtitle.

Clare L. Pieuk
Subject: Crazy Lawyer
To: Clare Pieuk< pieuk@shaw.ca>
Date: Thursday, 24 April 2008 06:39-0500
... and speaking of Law Society complaints, I thought you'd be interested in this record of decision (www.lawsociety.mb.ca/case_digests/case
digest_94_16.htm ) which contains some of the zaniest allegations I've ever seen against a lawyer. It has to be read to be believed.
Despite the not guilty finding, the allegations are not disputed. This lawyer was found not guilty on a technicality - it depends on what the definition of "incompetence" is and apparently it doesn't encompass lawyers who in legal proceedings claim they are one-year-old or who play with cardboard boxes made to look like television sets. Good thing for him he was found not guilty. Had he can you imagine how quickly news of these allegations would spread throughout the profession?


Case 94-16 Manitoba MEMBER A

Particulars of Charges
- mental incapacity or infirmity
Date of Hearing
September 13 & 14, 1994
PanelDouglas Yard, Q.C. (Chairperson)
Bruce Miller, Q.C.
Hymie Weinstein, Q.C.
- Not proven
Incompetence - Facts
Member A appeared before the Discipline Committee on September 13 and 14, 1994.
The Member was charged with incompetence as a result of concerns that he might be suffering from mental incapacity or infirmity which impaired his ability to perform legal services which he had undertaken to perform. The basis for the concerns were incidents that involved:
(i) a Statement of Defence in reponse to a Statement of Claim filed against him for an assault in 1990 wherein he stated that he was incapable of forming and did not have the intent to commit an assualt upon the plaintiff
(ii) at the Examination for Discovery with respect to the above noted matter, he advised that his age was "one"
(iii) he advised the Law Society that he had no respect for psychiatrists or their philosophies or ethics
(iv) a salesperson had attended at his office and was confronted by the member sitting behind his desk holding a box on his lap which had been made to look like a television
The member did not dispute any of the factual allegations against him. Medical evidence was called to show that the member was a manic depressive, however there had been no recent examination of the member by a medical practitioner.
Comments of the Discipline Committee
The Committee noted that there was no direct evidence that the member was suffering from any impairment to perform legal services as there was no legal work of the member brought before the Committee for the examination or any clients brought before the Committee to give evidence. Also there was no evidence from other members of the profession as to their dealings with that member.
The Committee found that they were being asked to infer from a series of discreet incidents occuring over a four year period that the member was incompetent by reason of his suffering from some sort of mental incapacity of infirmity. The Committee noted that although these events were disturbing, bizarre, unusual and inappropriate they could not find that the performance of legal services was impaired as a result.
Findings and Penalties
The Committee was unable to find that the Society had proven a case of incompetence. However, the committee did determine that the behavior the member exhibited in the past was inappropriate and unacceptable. In general terms, they found that much of his behavior was bizarre, odd, eccentric, peculiar, immature and capable of bringing the profession into disrepute.
The Committee advised the member that if it was not already evident to him, if he continued to behave in the way as set out in the evidence, the Society might well be forced to use its disciplinary process against him again.

Tuesday, April 22, 2008

A fascinating behind the scenes look!

Forwarded Conversation
Subject: Re: cybersmokesignals lawsuit
From: Murray Trachtenberg <mtrachtenberg@ptlaw.mb.ca>
Date: Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 4:50 PM
To: Darrel Deslauriers <ddeslauriers@inetlink.ca>

I acknowledge receipt of this email and the other one you sent today.

The procedure is to prepare a Notice of Discontinuance and have Messrs. Pieuk and Belhumeur consent and sign it. The Notice can then be filed with the Court.

You have asked me to send you the Notice. I assume that you will then arrange for them to sign. Alternatively, I can send the Notice to them by mail and request that they sign.

Please advise as to how you wish me to proceed.


----- Original Message -----
From: Darrel Deslauriers
To: mtrachtenberg@ptlaw.mb.ca
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 3:08 PM
Subject: cybersmokesignals lawsuit

Dear Murray,

Further to my e-mail this morning, be advised I am requesting my name to be removed from any and all lawsuits the MMF has my name attached to. Please forward me all notice of discontinuances needed. I will also be forwarding this to the Law Society of Manitoba, Belhumeur and Pieuk. I look forward to your speedy response.

Darrel Deslauriers d_deslauriers@hotmail.com
cc pieuk@shaw.ca
cc admin@lawsociety.mb.ca

From: ddeslauriers ddeslauriers@inetlink.ca
Date: Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 5:00 PM
To: Murray Trachtenberg <mtrachtenberg@ptlaw.mb.ca>

If that is procedure then send it to them for signing then forward me a copy.

Poof just like that!

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post, "Don't be so sure!"

Murray Trachtenberg just e-mailed me, he said the papers go to you to sign to remove me, is this true? He said I don't sign anything and you must agree to remove my name.

Dear Mr. Deslauriers:

Thank you for writing. Yes, we will receive a copy of the Notice of Discontinuance by surface mail which we'll sign and return to Counselor Trachtenberg after making a photocopy for our records. Since Terry Belhumeur is also a Co-Defendant he too will get one which he'd be insane not to endorse.

Once it has been signed and returned to Mr. Trachtenberg we'll post a copy on this Blog, as we're entitled to do, for everyone to see. As we recall, the Notice of Discontinuance is a bland 2-3 paragraph statement essentially saying you're requesting your name be removed as a plaintiff in the lawsuit. Simple isn't it? Didn't hurt either. Don't imagine David Chartrand will be too happy but then again who cares?

Clare L. Pieuk

Don't be so sure!

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Another one bites the dust?"

No way, Darrel Deslauriers will never tell Murray Trachtenberg where to stick it, he's afraid of him and so are all the plaintiffs for a lot of different reasons but especially because even though he lost the Dumont trial badly, and everyone knows he has been screwing up on this lawsuit, he has David Chartrand behind him!
Dear Anonymous:

Thank you for writing. Now that Darrel Deslauriers is no longer an MMF Provincial Board of Director what can David Chartrand do to him? Besides, it's not a question of telling Counselor Trachtenberg where to stick it, rather, demanding a fundamental right to which he is entitled.

Any plaintiff in this lawsuit can request they be removed as a litigant by signing a Notice of Discontinuance and there's nothing Murray Trachtenberg can do but perhaps get angry (So be it!) because it weakens his case. Richard Delaronde and Bonnie McIntyre have already done it and survived.

Remember, the plaintiffs are Counselor Trachtenberg's clients - he's working for them not the other way around. People fire their lawyers all the time. While General Manager of the Louis Riel Capital Corporation (1999), I had the extreme pleasure of informing Mr. Trachtenberg his services were no longer required. Earlier, the Board of Directors had passed a motion the potential for a possible conflict of interest existed because he was simultaneously corporate attorney for both the MMF and the "supposedly" arms-length LRCC. Felt real good too!

Having gone head-to-head with Murray Trachtenberg on at least five occasions (once before a Master, twice a Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench Justice, a Cross-Examination and an Examination for Discovery), his bark is a lot worse than his bite. Why is everyone so afraid of David Chartrand and Counselor Trachtenberg. Don't be so sure.

Clare L. Pieuk

Another one bites the dust?

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post, "When dealing with the current MMF leadership anything can happen!"

Just a note to let you know I once again today requested my name be removed from this mess. If you need to call me it's 447-3130

Dear Sir:

We're assuming you're Darrel Deslauriers a Plaintiff in the Manitoba Metis Federation's defamation lawsuit against www.CyberSmokeSignals.com. If correct and you haven't already done so, your best course of action is to directly contact:

Murray Trachtenberg
Posner & Trachtenberg
710-491 Portage Avenue
Winnipeg, MB R3B 2E4

Direct Line: 940-9602
Fax: 944-8878
e-mail: mtrachtenberg@ptlaw.mb.ca

Don't ask tell Counselor Trachtenberg you want to sign a Notice of Discontinuance - as his client you have that right! Being your solicitor of record in this lawsuit, he must comply otherwise he could find himself in a lot of seriously hot water with the Law Society of Manitoba's Disciplinary Committee.

Next, you will be required to sign the one page form (Notice of Discontinuance - couple paragraphs in length) which will then be surface mailed to Co-Defendants Belhumeur and Pieuk. After our endorsements have been affixed, it will be returned to Counselor Trachtenberg at which point the document becomes part of the official court record. Henceforth and forthwith you will no longer be a Plaintiff. It's as simple as that!

A very wise move indeed!

Clare L. Pieuk

When dealing with the current MMF leadership anything is possible!

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post, "What were you thinking www.CyberSmokeSignals.com?"

Just a thought - what if Terry Belhumeur has stuck a deal with the MMF, he doesn't do anything as far as his defence. Gets the judge to toss him out, but instead of asking Terry for any compensation, they drop it or ask for a small amount. This leaves you, Mr Pieuk, the only defendant and the Federation goes after you (a non-Metis) and makes you pay (if they win).

Does this sound like a viable scenario or am I reading too much into this. I heard once somewhere that David Chartrand would rather not go after Terry Belhumeur because he's Metis, but wants really badly to punish you.

William Shakespeare 1564-1616

Dear Anonymous:

Thank you for writing. Anything is possible, however, here's the problem with your scenario:

(1) Lionel Chartrand was serving pro bono as www.CyberSmokeSignals.com's General Legal Counsel at the time the alleged defamatory material was posted. Not only that, he wrote it and sanctioned its internet publication yet has never been named as a Co-defendant. Why? We have the black print (e-mail) to prove it

(2) As CSS.com's exclusive registered owner, Terry Belhumeur controlled access (user name, password) to his site. He could have locked me out at any time which he eventually did in early February, 2006 by simply changing these variables

(3) Unlike the United States, defamation trials in Canada are before judge and jury. They are also open to the public unless the presiding justice rules otherwise - possible but highly unlikely. Can you imagine when all the MMF's dirty laundry gets washed in public before the mainstream media and blogging community? They'll have a field day!

(4) If, as you suggest, David Chartrand is really after me because I'm non-Metis he best be very careful. Perhaps William Shakespeare said it best in Hamlet when he talked about being hoist with your own petard. Roughly translated, careful if you build bombs for you may blow yourself up. Much like the lawsuit against Yvon Dumont which Murray Trachtenberg lost, this one too is ill-advised, ill-conceived and, therefore, should never have seen the inside of a courtroom. It's doomed to fail and could explode in David Chartrand's face!

Clare L. Pieuk

New MMF Metis Women's Representative?

Muriel Parker (L) and Rosemarie McPherson

Tansi/Good Day Readers:

Very interesting article posted on www.derrylsanderson.blogspot.com ("Muriel Parker Next Woman's Representative?" - April 20, 2008) suggesting David Chartrand and Rosemarie McPherson may be feuding opening the door for Muriel Parker to emerge as the winner. Perhaps President Chartrand will find a way to dump Ms McPherson from the MMF's Provincial Board of Directors then she'll go public with all kinds of interesting insider tidbits much like Darrel Deslauriers.
The article goes on to document what it claims are 5 honorariums Ms Parker reportedly receives for sitting on various Boards and Committees. Will she soon have a sixth?
Clare L. Pieuk

Monday, April 21, 2008

What were you thinking www.CyberSmokeSignals.com?

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post, "Time to wake up and smell the coffee Terry Belhumeur!"

The other issue here is that, for several months, Belhumeur hasn't bothered to maintain his posts on www.CyberSmokeSignals.com. It's not clear what the motivation was for him to essentially shut down CSS.com - was it laziness? Did he believe there was a deal on the table waiting for him so he could mothball CyberSmokeSignals in exchange for a settlement of the lawsuit?

However, the decision by Terry to neuter CSS was singlehandedly his biggest mistake. More than anything, it highlights how naive he really has been about this process. In a lawsuit where public opinion can be your greatest friend, and the plaintiffs detect weakness just as surely as sharks smell blood, passivity is the last thing a defendant should display. Because of this inaction, the Federation and its legal counsel now think they can kick Terry around and he won't defend himself.
Dear Anonymous:

Thank you for writing. We will never comprehend Terry Belhumeur's thought processes for as long as we live. Sure hope he doesn't fancy himself as a poker player otherwise he'll lose more than just his shirt! Not posting on www.CyberSmokeSignals.com since mid-July, 2007 has been tantamount to reaching across the gaming table, shaking David Chartrand and Murray Trachtenberg's hand then giving them all his chips with a big smile on his face?

Eight years of experience posting on the internet has taught us it takes a lot of time and effort to build a readership - the proverbial brick by brick by brick. If Mr. Belhumeur thinks after such a lengthy hiatus all he has to do is re-activate CSS and poof people will return in droves he's sadly mistaken.

This lawsuit has so many unique situations and potentially built-in intellectual property (i.e. defamation litigation) case precedents, at trial not only will it attract law students and University Faculties across Canada but the mainstream media both national and international. Plus Webmasters and Blogmasters everywhere will be watching. Can you imagine a cross-examination under oath of Darrel Deslauriers or Jack Park or John Fleury or David Chartrand or .....?

Being an outdoorsman, we've added an animated Canada goose from his T.B. Outfitting homepage in the hope he'll notice your comments.

Time to wake up and smell the coffee Terry Belhumeur!

Interested Legal Observer has left a new comment on your post "$The Murraygate Tapes$ - Episode 2!"

Mr. Terry Belhumeur only has himself to blame. It appears that he has consistently ignored correspondence from counsel for David Chartrand and the Manitoba Metis Federation (Mr. Murray Trachtenberg, I believe is the lawyer’s name) and, despite repeated warnings, has failed to comply with his disclosure obligations under the Queen's Bench Rules.

From Belhumeur's latest comment to his friend and in-law Derryl Sanderson, posted on Sanderson's blog (www.derrylsanderson.blogspot.com - "Terry Belhumeur Distances Himself From Anti-Metis Advocate Clare Peiuk" - April 17, 2008), it is obvious he still doesn't "get it." He talks of "the upcoming trial by judge and jury," but he does not realize that if Murray Trachtenberg is ultimately successful in this motion to strike out Belhumeur's defence, that will be the end of the line for Belhumeur. No trial, no defence, no opportunity to present his side of the case or to cross-examine the plaintiffs.
Because of Belhumeur’s non-responsiveness and reckless non-compliance with the Rules, the plaintiffs now have an excellent chance to knock Belhumeur out as a defendant to this action. If Mr. Trachtenberg and the Manitoba Metis Federation are successful in doing this, they can then note Belhumeur in default of this action, schedule a date for a default hearing – and obtain a default judgment against Belhumeur. Once that happens, it’s game over for Mr. Belhumeur. The plaintiffs will have the right to collect their judgment against him without him ever having had his day in court. And Belhumeur would only have himself to blame.

Although there would be a certain poetic justice in this, it would be a genuine tragedy in a larger sense. From my observations of this lawsuit, it is obvious the one thing the plaintiffs are dreading is having such monstrosity actually proceed to trial. From my own research, I know several of the plaintiffs have criminal records and, shall we say, tarnished reputations, and would be extremely vulnerable if ever exposed to the scrutiny of cross-examination under oath. If Belhumeur cares at all about having the opportunity to present his side of the story at trial and hold these defendants’ feet to the fire, he will proceed forthwith to provide Mr. Trachtenberg with the disclosure he is requesting. No more delays, no more excuses. It is inexcusable that Belhumeur has not taken his obligations seriously to this point.

With all due respect to him, Belhumeur needs to wake up and become actively involved in this lawsuit. It is not sufficient for him to simply do what he is now doing, namely, surface every few months with sporadic complaints about David Chartrand and declarations of Metis ancestry. He ignores his obligations at his own peril. Belhumeur now stands at a crossroads, and only he can determine whether he chooses to do the necessary spadework or whether he will be defeated by his own slothfulness.
Being an outdoorsman, we've added an animated Canada goose from his T.B. Outfitting homepage in the hope he'll notice your comments.
Dear Interested Legal Observer:
Thank you for writing. We'd like to add two comments:
(1) When Terry Belhumeur and I had the same attorney (Then co-defendant Vanessa Everton had tanked and gone into the Witness Protection Program refusing to respond to any of his correspondence later claiming she didn't even know a lawsuit had commenced?), there's a lot a client can do to help their case. It was as though Mr. Belhumeur expected lawyer Jeff Niederhoffer and I to do all the heavy lifting yet he'd be the first in line when we gained an advantage benefiting him as well
According to comments made to me, his wife never really approved of his public criticism of the MMF's leadership. During the first week of February, 2006 without prior consultation involving our attorney (Jeff Niederhoffer) or I, Mr. Belhumeur arbitrarly changed www.CyberSmokeSignals.com's password and username locking me out. In a telephone conversation he cited his wife's anger as one of the primary factors in the decision. Shortly thereafter he posted a long, rambling tome apologizing all over himself to the MMF presumably in the hope of being dropped as a co-defendant. Obviously it didn't work because he's still a litigant
Mr. Niederhoffer and I became increasingly concerned with his impulsive behaviour so later during February, 2006 I offered to purchase the rights to CSS.com. There's a $200 fee (payable by credit card) to change the registration, however, Mr. Belhumeur's was maxed to the limit on his and I don't use them so I offered to provide a cheque. He agreed but once again did nothing even after being remined on a second occasion. At the time, CyberSmokeSignals had accumulated over 275,000 visitors since it's inception (Summer, 2000) and was averaging over 200 hits daily.
Today it is a moribund shell of what it used to be
(2) In a letter dated December 17, 2007 (recieved the following day) Counselor Trachtenberg tried the same strategy on me as he's now using against Co-Defendant Belhumeur - submit an Affidavit of Document and respond to your Undertakings or I'll file a Motion with the Court to have your Statement of Defence trashed. In my case, he arbitrarily set a deadline of December 28, 2007
The next evening after work I had to leave for London, Ontario to spend some quality time with my then 84 year old Mother who has advanced Alzheimer's Disease and to help my brother-in-law and sister research home care facilitities. Instead I had to spend the next 10 days virtually chained to a couputer preparing a 15 page Affidavit of Documents, a two page response to his request for information on my Undertakings plus 38 pages of type-written interrogatories. These are questions to which he'll have to respond and I'll be able to use at trial
My fondest memory of Christmas Day 2007, sitting at a computer taking time out only long enough to have dinner with my family
Counselor Trachtenberg, I have not forgotten this no will I for a very long time! I will do everything in my power at trial to inform the judge and jury of your ignorant, insensitive behaviour! And yes, I barely met his December, 28 2007 deadline - nice try too bad it didn't work!
He just doesn't get it. There are those of us who must go to work every day to make an honest living while he receives at least $250/hour in Canadian taxpayers dollars provided by David Chartrand to pursue such a frivolous lawsuit. The Plaintiffs have given him a blank cheque which is making him wealthy