Sunday, April 20, 2008

$The Murraygate Tapes$ - Episode 2!


President Lionel R. Chartrand
Below is Episode 2 of $The Murraygate Tapes$. As you read it keep in mind:

(1) The allegedly defamatory material (a petition calling for MMF election reform) was written by Metis Manitoba Legal Aid lawyer Lionel R. Chartrand who at the time (January, 2004) was vehemently opposed to David Chartrand's position on Aboriginal gathering rights. At the time, he had publicly acknowledged he was www.CyberSmokeSignals.com's General Legal Council:

From: "Lionel Chartrand" lrc@shaw.ca
To: "Clare Pieuk" pieuk@shaw.ca; "Vanessa Everton" veverton1@shaw.ca
Sent: January 21, 2004 1:35 AM
Attach: WMA20040121.PETITION.doc
Subject: Re: CyberSmokeSignals

Hi Clare,

Here is a quick draft petition. If you and Vanessa like it, please feel free to use and in whatever context you like. I don't need to have credit for it.

If you prefer it come from me, (it may be beter that it doesn't) then perhaps post it along with a letter something line this:

Dear readers:

I have been receiving requests to draft a petition to the governments on behalf of the Metis requesting that they do not give the MMF any more funding until the MMF has complied with the court order. I am responding with a draft petition according to the instructions given to me by (Metis Mom) -or- (a Federation member) -or- (an MMF member who requested their identity not be disclosed).

Please feel free to amend the draft petition as you see fit.

(2) Not only did he sanction it's vertatim posting, he continued to provide CSS.com with legal advice after both he and Terry Belhumeur had received defamation warning letters (February 9, 2004) from Murray Trachtenberg

(3) During mid-December, 2004 President Chartrand sent a letter to Lionel Chartrand inquiring if he were interested in a retainer agreement with the MMF to provide legal advice on Aboriginal gathering rights. Counselor Trachtenberg subsequently obtained a Court Order forcing us to turn over to his care it plus 1,573 pages of other Federation documents. However, any and all can be subpoeaned at trial

In said missive, President Chartrand went on to say if Lionel Chartrand were interested he'd request MMF lawyer Murray Trachtenberg draft the necessary contract. A document was eventually written calling for Mr. Lionel Chartrand to receive a monthly payment of $2,500. Messrs. Belhumeur and Pieuk only found about this arrangement much later

Lionel Chartrand also unofficially (name never appeared on any court documents filed) assisted Winnipeg lawyer Regan Thatcher defend Yvon Dumont in a lawsuit brought by the Metis National Council, Metis National Council Secretariat and President Clement Chartier. Attorneys Anders Bruun and Jeff Niederhoffer subsequently took over the case which they won. Several months ago Murray Trachtenberg filed a Notice of Appeal that has gone nowhere likely because of the MNC's serious financial problems

(4) Lionel Chartrand has been the subject of complaints to the Law Society of Manitoba and sued by former clients

(5) Lionel Chartrand has not been named a Co-Defendant in this case - WHY?

(6) Today Lionel Chartrand is President, Aboriginal Council of Winnipeg Inc.

Sincerely,
Clare L. Pieuk
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Murray Norman Trachtenberg

Happy Pesach (Hebrew for Passover)
The Six Symbols of the Jewish Passover
The $Murraygate Tapes$ - Episode 2 (pages 10 - 16)
POSNER & TRACHTENERG
Barristers, Solicitors & Notaries Public
710-491 Portage Avenue
Winnipeg, MB R3B 2E4
Fax: (204) 944-8878

Gerald Posner
Manitoba & Ontario Bars

Murray N. Trachtenberg, B.A., LL.B.
Direct Line: (204) 940-9602
________________________________________
July 6, 2007

Mr. Terry Belhumeur
P.O. Box 166
Gunton, Manitoba R0C 1H0
Mr. Clare L. Pieuk
2 - 371 Des Meurons Street
Winnipeg, Manitoba R2H 2N6

Gentleman:

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

Enclosed please find an original Affidavit of documents of the Plaintiff Manitoba Metis Federation Inc. sworn July 6, 2007.

I have written to both of you previously and requested your advice as to your availability for examinations for discovery. I have had no response.

I am available on August 21, 22, 23, 24, 29, 30 and 31, 2007.

Please advise as to you availability on these dates.

In the event I do not hear from both of you within opne week from the date of this letter, I will pick a date for the discoveries and have you served with the appropriate notice.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours truly,
MURRAY N. TRACHTENBEG
MNT/lec
Enc.

This is Exhibit "A" referred to in the Affidavit of Oliver Boulette Sworn before me this 8th day of April A.D. 2008 (Signature - Murray Trachtenberg) A Notary Public in and for the Province of Manitoba.

Exhibit Number: 1
Exhibit of: T. Belhumeur
Date: January 28, 2008
Rose Gingell Gill Reporting
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
POSNER & TRACHTENBERG
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
________________________________________
August 16, 2007

Mr. Terry Belhumeur
P.O. Box 166
Gunton, Manitoba R0C 1H0

Dear Mr. Belhumeur:

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

I wrote to you on July 23, 2007 requesting you advise me as to your availability for an examination for discovery during the first week of September 2007. I have had no response from you.

As a party to the litigation, you are required pursuant to Queen's Bench Rule 30.03 (1) to serve an affidavit of documents in the prescribed form "disclosing to the full extent of the party's knowledge, information and belief all relevant documents that are or have been in the party's possession, control or power and the affidavit shall sufficiently identify the documents."

I have not received such an affidavit from you and I am requesting that you provide me with one in the near future.

I enclose a copy of Queen's Bench Rule 30.08(2) which sets out possible actions the Court will take in the event a party fails to serve an affidavit of documents.

I have already provided you with the affidavit od documents of the Manitoba Metis Federation. You have certain rights to inspect documents listed in that affidavit and I enclose for your information a copy of Queen's Bench Rule 30.04 which details those rights.

It seems quite apparent that you do not intend to cooperate in the establishment of an examination for discovery date and as such, I will be taking other steps to secure you attendance to be examined.

Yours truly,
MURRAY N. TRACHTENBERG
MNT/lex
Encs.

This is Exhibit "B" referred to in the Affidavit of Oliver Boulette Sworn before me this 8th day of April A.D. 2008 (signature - Murray Trachtenberg) A Notary Public in and for the Province of Manitoba.

Exhibit Number: 1
Exhibit of: T. Belhumeur
Date: January 28, 2008
Rose Gingell Gill Reporting 943-0196

Failure to serve affidavit or produce document
30.08(2) Where a party fails to serve an affidavit of documents or produce a document for inspection in compliance with these rules or fails to comply with an order of the court under rules 30.02 to 30.11, the court may,

(a) revoke or suspend the party's right, if any, in initiate or continue and examination for discovery;

(b) dismiss the action, if the party is a plaintiff, or strike out the statement of defence, if the party is a defendant; and

(c) make such an order, including a compempt order, as is just.

Inspection of documents
Documents in affidavit
30.04(1) A party who serves on another party a request to inspect documents (Form 30 C) is entitled to inspect any document that is not privileged and that is referred to in the other party's affidavit of documents as being in the other party's possession, control or power.

Documents in pleadings
30.04(2) A request to inspect documents may also be used to obtain the inspection of any document in another party's possession, control or power that is referred to in the originating process, pleadings or an affidavit served by the other party.

Inspection
30.04(3) A party on whom a request to inspect documents is served shall forthwith inform the party making the request of a date within 10 days after the service of the request and of a time between 9:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. when the documents may be inspected at the office of the lawyer of the party served or at some other convenient place, and shall at the time and place named make the documents available for inspection.

Documents to be taken to examination and trial
30.04(4) All documents listed in a party's affidavit of documents that are not privileged and all documents previously produced for inspection by the party shall, without notice, subpoena or order, be taken to and produced at, previously produced for inspection by the party shall, without notice, subpoena or order, be taken to and produced at,

(a) the examination for discovery of the party or of a person on behalf of or in addition to the party; and

(b) the trial of the action;
unless the parties agree or the court otherwise orders

Court may order production
30.04(5) The court may at any time order production for inspection of relevant documents that are not privileged and that are in the possession, control or power of a party.

Court may inspect to determine claim of privilege
30.04(6) Where privilege is claimed for a document, the court may inspect the document to determind the validity of the claim.

Copying of documents
30.04(7) Where a document is produced for inspection, the party inspecting the document is entitled to make a copy of it at the party's own expense, if it can be reproduced, unless the person having possession or control of or power over the document agrees to make a copy, which case the person shall be reimbursed for the cost of making the copy.

Divided disclosure or production
30.04(8) Where a document may become relevant only after the determination of an issue on the action and disclosure or production for inspection of the document before the issue is deterined would seriously prejudice a party, the court on the party's motion may grant leave to withhold disclosure or production until after the issue has been determined.

Disclosure Or Production Not Admission Of Admissibility
30.05 The disclosure or production of a document for inspection shall not be taken as an admission of its admissibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
POSNER & TRACHTENBERG
Barristers, Solicitors & Notaries Public
710-491 Portage Avenue
Winnipeg, MB R3B 2E4
Fax: (204) 944-8878

Gerald S. Posner
Manitoba & Ontario Bars

Murrray N. Trachtenberg, B.A., LL.B.
Direct Line: (204) 940-9602

August 17, 2007

Mr. Terry Belhumeur
P.O. Box 166
Gunton, Manitoba R0C 1H0

Dear Mr. Belhumeur:

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

Enclosed please find the following:

1. Notice of Examination; and

2. My cheque payable to you in the amount of $50.20.

The Notice of Examination is for an examination for discovery at my office on Thursday, September 6, 2007 at 9:30 a.m. The documents mentioned in subrule 30.04 of the Queen's Bench Rules referred to in the Notice are the documents required to be disclosed and produced by way of your affidavit of documents. My letter of yesterday explained your obligation to produce such an affidavit.

The Court of Bench Rules also provide that you are entitled to the following payment:

1. Attendance money $25 per 1/2 day

2. Travel allowence

-52.5k x 2 = 105k x $.24 per k = $25.20
======
Total $50.20

In the event you fail to attend at the examination for discovery, the Court may make such order as it sees fit including striking out you statement of defence.

Yours truly,
MURRAY N. TRACHTENBERG
MNT/lec
Encs.

This is Exhibit "C" referred to in the Affidavit of Oliver Boulette Sworn before me this 8th day of April A.D. 2008 (signature - Murray Trachtenberg) A Notary Public in and for the Province of Manitoba.

Exhibit Number:3
Exhibit of: T. Belhumeur
Date: January 28, 2008
Rose Gingell Gill Reporting 943-0196

.....to be continued - only 27 more pages to go!

1 Comments:

Anonymous Interested Legal Observer said...

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, which was posted on Sanderson's blog on April 17, 2008 (http://derrylsanderson.blogspot.com/2008/04/terry-belhumuer-distances-himself-from.html), 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, this would be a genuine tragedy in a larger sense. From my observations of this lawsuit, it is obvious that the one thing the plaintiffs in this action are dreading is having this monstrosity actually proceed to trial. From my own researches, I know that several of the plaintiffs have criminal records and, shall we say, tarnished reputations, and would be extremely vulnerable if they were ever exposed to the scrutiny of cross-examination. 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.

1:06 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home