Monday, October 25, 2010

The Star Chamber?

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post, "A message for Veritas Justitia Honoria!"

Dear Mr. Pieuk:
I have been reading your blog, but due to my obligations as a working stiff and the expectations of capitalist society, I fear I had to turn my attentions to the demands of the establishment (and my wife) and have been engaged in the duties associated with a paycheque. I am well and I hope you are also.
However, I haven’t just been resting on my laurels.
After reading the anonymous posting directing me to the Queen's Bench file, I did return to the Registry and went through the pocket in detail. Indeed, this divorce is a mess, and it is very difficult to learn much without attending at the Courts. I thank you for your efforts, but it seems unlikely to me that the report was not available due to the CJC’s investigation. It is far more likely that the file was with a judge because, according to the Registry, there was an appearance pending on the file. Files are routinely forwarded to the judiciary prior to an appearance for review in anticipation of a hearing. Without knowing the basis of the hearing, one can only speculate the purpose for said hearing, and the pocket on this particular file is very difficult to follow. It is frustrating work.
I need to perform more investigation, and so I continue to seek …
Veritas Justitias Honoris
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dear VJH:
Thank you very much for another informative, well-written letter. We should mention we had telephoned the Queen's Bench Registry to find out if the file for which you're searching was available. In the past we've made the mistake of trundling off to the Law Courts Building only to discover a particular file or document was not available.
Oh we agree, this kind of research can be fraught with frustration. Ever get the impression sometimes the courts are more concerned with process than evidence?
Sorry for temporarily withholding the last three paragraphs of your e-mail but this was done for strategic reasons in consideration of a couple meetings we have pending shortly. We'll be saying more a little later.
Regarding "your favourite institution" the Law Society of Manitoba, we can pass a little information on to you and our readers. As you know, their disciplinary hearings are supposedly open to the public. We have been asked by a Defendant to attend their's in our capacity as a citizen journalist/blogger. Because we believe this case has the potential to go internet viral, much like the Douglas-King Chapman debacle, we have agreed. However, we should stress the two cases are in no way related save for a certain similarity in process. Recall at the time Mr. Chapman first approached the Law Society to complain about Mr. King's behaviour (2003) his lawyer was Robert Ian Histed. In that lies a procedural common denominator although Mr. Histed is not the lawyer cited in this latest complaint.
On October 5 of this year we attended a meeting at the LSM with senior officials to educate ourselves on what can and cannot be reported. For example, Section 79(1) of the Legal Profession Act which governs The Society's operations states:
"A person who publishes or broadcasts the name of a member in connetion with a complaint, investigation or charge before the member is found to be incompetent or guilty of professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming a lawyer or student is guilty of an offence and is liable, on summary conviction, in the case of an indivudual, to a fine of not more than $2,000 or to imprisonment for not more than six months, or both."
Notice the Section is silent on the issue of the name(s) of complainant(s). Unfortunately, when one askes for clarification and an interpreation the refrain parroted is, "We can't give you legal advice." Also, apparently, under certain situations a hearing can be closed to the public so now we have to try to find out what those are. It's like a cat and mouse guessing game or a good fencing match.
We can tell you, however, a pre-hearing conference will be scheduled shortly (we plan to attend) and a prosecutor recently appointed although it would appear there could be related issues. Sorry but that's as far as we can go at this time. As you well know, we're dealing with a Star Chamber-like organizational culture.
Perhaps some day we should collaborate on writing a book. Laugh as you will but the former publisher of the Toronto Star (Joseph E Atkinson) established an annual fellowship to fund research projects on topical public policy issues leading to a series of articles in the newspaper after which the writer(s) are at liberty to develop them into a book. Something to consider.
Keep up the great research you're doing. We need more of this!
Sincerely, Clare L. Pieuk

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home