Thursday, September 23, 2010

Would you at least consider a symbol?

Dear Deep Throat II:
Thank you for writing. We simply felt you were at least deserving of a pseudonym. In the alternative would you consider a symbol? To the extent possible we try to give contributors a personality while protecting their identities and recognition by placing their comments on the main page rather than burying them somewhere in a link.
This is the motto of one of our favourite blogs Truth To Power ( whose Blogmaster "Vic Populi" ( is a practicing Canadian lawyer who frequently exposes the legal profession's excesses by posting articles about it including rulings from the Law Society of Manitoba's Discipline Case Digest
The Public Eye
Perhaps you could help us with two questions:
(1) Did Alex Chapman file a complaint against Lori Douglas with the Canadian Judicial Council? If so, will it still go forward now that the lawsuit against her has been dropped?
(2) Mr. Chapman was quoted in a recent Winnipeg Free Press article as being highly critical of Mr. King's lawyer (William Gange) who he claimed had gone public about two pardons he (Alex Chapman) had been granted. Once a pardon has been given doesn't it become sealed, private information?
We've added our comments below in bold to yours.
Clare L. Pieuk
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Deep Throat II emerges on CyberSmokeBlog!"

Hello again,

This this is your blog, you may choose to name me as you wish, though I question the implications of "Deep Throat II" when considering the predilictions of Douglas and her ilk, but as I said, it is your blog.

With the predictable demise of the first lawsuit, and the forth-coming challenges of maintaining the other 2, Mr. Chapman and his new attorney have their work cut out for them. Obviously Mr. Gilmour is made of stronger stuff than the Manitoba legal community, as evidenced by taking this case, and can, I hope, resist the urge to solicit his client, but I digress.

At least once it's over he won't have to deal with the local judiciary.

Couple of things popped into mind today as I read the reports.

First - the comment by Mr. Green that Douglas is "anxious" to return to her "private life and her judicial life." Mr. Green needs to be reminded that until such time as the Canadian Judicial Council issues it's decision on the two (sorry I can't find any mention of a third) complaints currently before the Council, Douglas had better be riding a desk ordering paper, pens and pencils. This is not something to be trivialized - she has breached the trust of the public and judiciary by not protecting the integrity of the bench. I, for one, sincerely hope that the CJC has not taken a page from the playbook of the Law Society of Manitoba and hopes that time will give them the opportunity to brush this under the rug. As for her desire to return to her "private life", well, I shall let discretion be the better part of valour and leave THAT comment alone.

Perhaps that should be looked upon as typical lawyer talk. Further, We simply cannot see Lori Douglas remaining as an Associate Chief Justice much less a Justice. Whether she likes it or not she now has a credibility issue and has given the system a bit of a black eye - at least more than the one it previously had. Perhaps you can help us with a question. Didn't Alex Chapman file a complaint against Ms Douglas with the CJC? If so now that he has dropped his lawsuit would it still go forward?

Second - someone should really be providing Mr. Gilmour with assistance. He needs to seriously review the exceptions to the Statute of Limitations, as well as, the use of a confidentiality agreement that conceals a breach of trust.

Unfortunately, we're unable because we lack any formal legal training. However, if someone out there sees this and would like to offer advice we'll certainly publish it.

I am curious - how much did Chapman pay to TDS in fees before getting reimbursed by way of a very shady Confidentiality Agreement? Does anyone know?

Case law research should be done to determine if CA's are appropriate in cases where the victim is exploited by those who are in a position of trust? While I would presume most of these cases involve a deviant scout master or hockey coach - is the duty of a lawyer to his/her client of a similar pretext? Is a client not considered to be like a child when faced with the considerable intimidation of a legal proceeding? Probably not, but still worthy of exploration.

Once again we don't know but does anyone out there?

Third - any connection I have to the legal community is purely academic, but still worth protecting, and so, I continue to remain...
A Symbol?


Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am flattered by your desire to provide me with an identity. I wouldn't presume to use the motto of another, perhaps "veritas justitia honoris" is one I can live with.

With regard to the questions you posed. As I understand it, a complaint filed with the CJC is a separate entity from a lawsuit. A complaint against a federal judge relates to conduct, not a decision, and therefore is unaffected by proceedings in the court. However, considering the behaviour of other governing bodies, this too may fall by the wayside.

As I understand a pardon forgives the wrongdoer of the conviction and restores their civil rights. A search of an individual who has been pardoned, should not reveal the conviction which was pardoned. As such, a pardon is designed to 'erase' a conviction and the person is restored to an "innocent" state. The revelation by Mr. Gange of Mr. Chapman's past, as it relates to his pardoned offences, is a privacy breach (in my opinion), though I'm sure Mr. Gagne would argue "a mistake" as pardons are not published, and so while knowledge of the conviction is not erased in the public mind, merely a database.

As for my other queries, I have no answers, but continue to seek...

Veritas Justitia Honoris

5:46 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home