Thursday, September 30, 2010
Give Murray Trachtenberg more taxpayer dollars to squeeze blood from a rock!
Beware wealthy Canadians the taxman cometh!
Thursday, September 30, 2010 .
By Joseph Loiero, CBC News
The Canadians on the list are part of a larger group that includes about 80,000 accounts belonging to HSBC Private Bank clients held in Geneva, according to whistleblower Herve Falciani.
Falciani, who obtained the list of accounts when he worked as head of computer security at HSBC, told the CBC Investigative Unit's Diana Swain in an exclusive interview that the offshore accounts are large, with a hefty minimum deposit.
Just to open an account, "you need at least $500,000," Falciani said.
Falciani claimed he was worried that criminals and tax cheats were using the bank to hide money, so he pleaded with his bosses to become more transparent about their banking practices. When they refused, he decided to start making copies of the accounts in an attempt to reveal his concerns.
"I came to the point that something was very wrong and it should be changed," said Falciani, who began copying information on private accounts to his personal computer in 2006.
Canada Revenue Agency investigates
The spokeswoman said the CRA is assessing the names "on a case-by-case basis, and will take aggressive action to recover money owed to Canadians."
It is not clear exactly how much money Canadians are holding in the HSBC accounts, nor is it known precisely how many individual Canadians hold the 1,785 Canadian accounts.
Don Johnston, the former head of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, said he thinks the total amount of money in Canadian accounts would be large.
"You're talking about this number of people, you're obviously talking billions of dollars," said Johnston, who was president of the Treasury Board under Liberal Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau.
When Johnston headed the OECD, it was largely focused on trying to hold the Swiss banking system responsible for its practices. He said he has found the offshore banking situation unsettling.
"Frankly, I'm outraged," he said. "Every Canadian who pays his or her taxes here in Canada should be outraged."
Fired by HSBC
Swiss authorities confronted him about that allegation and brought him in for a day of interrogation. They asked him to return the next day, but he never did.
Revenue Canada response
"We have been working with international bodies like the OECD and Joint International Tax Shelter Information Centre.
"Some new information has come to light within the past day.
"Our office can now confirm that the CRA has been working with French government on this matter. The CRA has received a list of names of individuals who may be exploiting offshore accounts. Due to privacy regulations and the sensitivity of this issue, we are not in a position to comment further on the numbers or the names of individuals.
"The CRA is in the process of assessing these individuals on a case-by-case basis.
"The CRA is reassessing over $1 billion in international assets for the 2009 fiscal year. Also in the 2009 fiscal year, the CRA received almost 3,000 international voluntary disclosures, representing close to $600 million in previously undisclosed assets.
"Just five months into this fiscal year, the number of last year’s disclosures has already been surpassed.
"We encourage any Canadian who has avoided taxes to come forward through the CRA’s VDP program."
Falciani fled to his parent's house in Nice, France, with the data. French authorities searched the house at the request of the Swiss and seized the list of accounts.
French prosecutor Eric de Montgolfier said Falciani explained the importance of the documents to French authorities. There were 8,000 accounts on the list that belonged to French citizens, and only two accounts had been declared for tax purposes.
French officials ultimately gave their citizens an opportunity to pay up without facing penalty. Half a billion euros were returned.
The French have also proceeded with tax fraud investigations, based on the information Falciani provided, and they are looking into the possibility that money in the HSBC accounts originated from criminal activity.
"Let's be clear here, we would not have had access to the data without his contribution," De Montgolfier said of Falciani.
Falciani said since he was the source of the information authorities now have, he is aware he now could be at risk.
British tax authorities recently obtained the list of HSBC accounts from French authorities, and they are investigating possible tax evasion by their own citizens. The Italian government has also received the data.
In a written statement to CBC News, HSBC said the bank "in no way condones tax evasion and is co-operating with authorities while protecting the rights of our clients to confidentiality."
'A wink and a nod'
"We know that the Swiss banks did do marketing to high-net-worth people, wealthy people in North America, trying to entice them to take their money away from banking with local financial institutions, to bank in Switzerland," he said.
"And that with a wink and a nod, it was indicated, 'Well, this way you get around your local taxes.'"
The Falciani case is one in a string of tax scandal stories in the last few years that have shaken up offshore banking industry.
CBC News and the Globe and Mail reported last December that the CRA probed Royal Bank of Canada Dominion Securities for information on Canadians with alleged links to offshore accounts in Liechtenstein in Western Europe for the purpose of hiding money.
In May, that investigation widened to include UBS Bank Canada, Financière Banque Nationale Inc. and BMO Nesbitt Burns Inc, which led to audits of Canadian taxpayers.
The case was sparked by a former Liechtenstein bank employee who stole four disks of confidential client information and then sold them to German tax authorities for the equivalent of $7 million US.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
"The Lori Douglas factor?"
Bet you've got a better one "Flaw" Society of Manitoba!
Costs include 24% interest on loan arranged by lawyer
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
By Kathy Tomlinson, CBC News
An accident victim from Vancouver Island has filed a formal complaint against her lawyer after legal fees and related expenses took more than half of her $250,000 insurance settlement.
"He never let me believe once that I would be walking out of there with nothing," said Kyli Murphy of Comox, British Columbia.
Her final bill included $30,827 in interest — at a 24 per cent annual rate — charged for a loan arranged by the lawyer's office to cover Murphy's living expenses while she recovered from her injuries and took job retraining.
"I'd actually never heard of that high of interest on anything," she said.
"I don't understand. I understand where the money I spent went — I know that. Where's the rest of it? I don't understand that."
Money all gone
Murphy was 21 and employed full-time as a retail sales assistant when she was seriously injured as a passenger in a one-vehicle accident in December of 2005. A male friend was driving.
She spent several weeks in hospital and then went through months of rehabilitation before doctors said she could work again.
"I was hoping [the settlement] would give me a platform to build a life from," she said tearfully. "Instead I've got nothing." McGarvey declined to comment about the case.
"I am of the view that it would be unprofessional for me to publicly comment upon this matter at this time," he wrote in a letter to CBC News.
Records show McGarvey took Murphy's case just days after the accident as she was lying in hospital with several broken bones. Kyli Murphy and her three-year-old son now live on social assistance. (CBC)
She said McGarvey told her his fee would be 30 per cent of whatever insurance payout she received. He later told her in writing that he hoped to get $350,000 in a settlement with the Insurance Corporation of B.C.
Based on that, Murphy calculated she would net $245,000 — 70 per cent — after the lawyer's bill was paid.
Instead, Murphy claims McGarvey later pressured her to settle when she didn't want to, for $100,000 less than she expected.
McGarvey's final accounting — which lists everything paid by his office — includes $136,000 for legal fees, expenses, research and interest. That alone is more than half the quarter-million-dollar final settlement amount.
Thousands for photocopies, faxing
"I didn't know I would get charged for his office supplies, or his research, or anything like that," Murphy said. "I was never told I would pay for all of that stuff."
The rest of the insurance payout went to Murphy's medical and living expenses, incurred before the case was settled.
Submit your story ideas:
•We tell your stories and hold the powers that be accountable.
•We want to hear from people across the country with stories they want to make public.
Submit your story ideas to Kathy Tomlinson at Go Public
McGarvey's office had also advanced her a living allowance against her future settlement. Her case dragged on for 4½ years and the bill for her advances mounted. On average, she was advanced $2,200 per month over that period.
In the meantime, Murphy gave birth to a son and took upgrading courses, a decision she said her lawyer supported.
"He became like my biggest support group," Murphy said. "By the end of it, he was telling me not to speak to anyone in my family — not even my grandpa — and I believed him."
After several months, Murphy said McGarvey told her he couldn't afford to advance her any more money, so he arranged a loan from a "litigation funding" firm in Waterloo, Ontario.
His office then resumed paying her what he called the "modest" bi-weekly allowance.
The Law Society of B.C. says it is improper for lawyers to lend money to clients when it gives them a vested interest in the case.
"Our code of professional conduct makes quite clear that a lawyer should not take a personal interest in a client's matter if, by doing so, their judgment might be impaired," said Stuart Cameron, the Law Society's director of investigations.
"In a situation where the lawyer would be loaning a significant amount of money to a client, that's worrisome," he said.
"It's something we'd investigate very thoroughly. And we'd want a very satisfactory explanation — satisfactory to us and ultimately satisfactory to the client."
"If the client owes the lawyer money, the client might feel beholden to the lawyer and that might restrict their ability to call the shots in a lawsuit," said Dodek. Personal injury lawyer Al McGarvey declined to comment on the Murphy case. (CBC)
In most states, U.S. lawyers are strictly prohibited from lending money to clients because of the potential for conflict of interest. In Alberta, two lawyers have been disciplined for doing so in the last few years.
One was suspended and the other was fined and reprimanded.
"I'd like to see something even more explicit — like the Americans have — that … this is something that lawyers must not do and cannot do," said Dodek.
The Law Society promises a thorough investigation of the Murphy case.
Now on welfare
Murphy is now on welfare and said she will be scrambling to find a decent job.
"When it was all over, it was like, 'See you later, Kyli. Good luck.' Not even good luck. 'Go see welfare.' It's hard. I wasn't on welfare before the accident," she said.
"I wish he had said, 'You know I can only help you out with maybe $2,000, but the rest you've got to figure out on your own' because then I would have gone out and done that
200 - 575 10th Street/Courteney, British Columbia V9N 1P9/(250) 338-9440
Thank you, thank you readers!
Yesterday we had the second largest number of daily visitors to this site since in came online during March of 2006. Today we've yet to post any new material and the count is already starting to head off the charts again. We have no explanation? As already noted, for legal and strategic reasons we do not reveal this information.
Thank you again!
Clare L. Pieuk
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
How private are your parts?
Same kind of case different outcomes. Here's why its hard to tell whether what you do on Faceboook is private in the eye of the law.
THE NOT SO PRIVATE PARTS Kashmir Hill
Your Facebook profile photo should look like this if you file a personal injury lawsuit.
Here’s a tale of two lawsuits: an artist who wants to get paid for his work and a university employee who wants to get paid for falling out of her chair. The former gets to keep his Facebook and MySpace communications private and the latter has to turn them over. Old electronic communications laws mixed with cutting edge electronic communication on social networking sites mean that individual judges have wide leeway in determining what online is private and what’s not.
In California, artist Buckley Crispin sued an apparel company for using his designs in ways that violated his original contract. During the course of defending itself, the company — Christian Audigier, for the fashionistas out there, known in part for having put its logo on luxury condoms — wanted access to all of Crispin’s communications about his work for Audigier from Facebook and MySpace, among others. They probably hoped to find evidence that Crispin was psyched that the company was not limiting his work to street-wear apparel, but was also putting it on jewelry, pet accessories, wine bottles, luggage, etc. Perhaps they would even find that he posted on someone’s Facebook wall that he hoped to see his designs on a condom soon.
Crispin wasn’t keen on having his social networking communications turned over. He objected on privacy and electronic data privacy law grounds. A magistrate judge was unsympathetic, but a federal judge came to his rescue on appeal.
The federal judge used a 1986 electronic communications law — which Congress is in the midst of updating — to determine that messages sent on Facebook and MySpace are considered private (and thus don’t have to be turned over to the opposition in a civil lawsuit) and that “wall postings” may fall into the same category depending on a user’s privacy settings. If Crispin’s Facebook wall is set to “Everyone,” he’d have to turn those puppies over, but if he restricts his wall to friends only, his status updates are considered as private as an email message.
A happy ruling for Crispin, and also for privacy advocates out there. (If you’re interested in the nitty-gritty details of that case, read this article by Duane Morris lawyers on the National Law Journal or read the nuanced and tech-savvy opinion from Judge Margaret Morrow.)
Now let’s go across the country to New York, where a woman named Kathleen Romano has sued a chair company –Steelcase Inc., for the, um, office-furnituristas among you — because she sustained “serious, permanent personal injuries” after falling out of an allegedly defective chair while working at Stony Brook University. (Hat tip: Eric Goldman for sending the opinion my way.) The chair-challenged woman claims that she needed multiple surgeries for back injuries and that she’s been bedridden and stuck at home since the incident.
Steelcase’s lawyers wanted access to Romano’s Facebook and MySpace profiles to see if she’s really as injured as she claims. They were suspicious because Romano’s profile photo on Facebook showed her smiling and standing in front of her home instead of grimacing painfully from an untidy bed. Plus, it appeared that she had taken a trip to Florida. They suspected that the non-public information in her profiles held other damning evidence of her enjoying life.
Facebook fought the subpoena saying that turning over Romano’s info would be a violation of federal law. But the judge in the case disagreed. “Both Facebook and MySpace are social networking sites where people can share information about their personal lives, including posting photographs and sharing information about what they are doing or thinking. Indeed, Facebook policy states that ‘it helps you share information with your friends and people around you,’ and that ‘Facebook is about sharing information with others,’” wrote Justice Jeffrey Arlen Spinner.
“To permit a party claiming very substantial damages for loss of enjoyment of life to hide behind self-set privacy controls on a website, the primary purpose of which is to enable people to share information about how they lead their social lives, risks depriving the opposite party of access to material that may be relevant to ensuring a fair trial,” wrote Spinner. “[W]hen Plaintiff created her Facebook and MySpace accounts, she consented to the fact that her personal information would be shared with others, notwithstanding her privacy settings. Indeed, that is the very nature and purpose of these social networking sites else they would cease to exist. Since Plaintiff knew that her information may become publicly available, she cannot now claim that she had a reasonable expectation of privacy.”
(Want more legalese? Check out the article on this case at the New York Law Journal.)
Both judges used the same 1986 law to make their determinations on the privacy of what we do on social networks. But in California, your privacy settings matter on Facebook/MySpace, and in New York, they don’t.
Romano’s lawyer has said they will appeal the decision. Meanwhile, I hope Romano’s working on uploading a lot of new photos to her “Look How Miserable My Life Actually Is” Facebook photo album.
Is ‘Private’ Data on Social Networks Discoverable? [National Law Journal]
Crispin v. Christian Audigier [Central District of California]
Judge Grants Discovery of Postings on Social Media [New York Law Journal]
Monday, September 27, 2010
"And on the seventh day he rested ....." Tweet! Tweet! Tweet!
By: Allie Townsend
Topics: Religion, internet, twitter, christianity
It's definitely no NIV. A new Biblical translation is written wholly in twee speak – a chapter-by-chapter summary, each in 140 characters or less.
Called the T140, or The Twitter 140 Bible, the new project from author Scott Douglas (Quiet, Please! Dispatches From A Public Librarian) will attempt to condense each chapter of the Bible into one 140-character tweet. The idea for the new translation was born after wondering what the Ten Commandments would look like if presented as a Twitter entry, Douglas wrote in a blog post this is what I came up with:
<3 God,<3 no othergod,dont b a idol,dont idol, dont say God's name in vain, sabbathholy, honorparents, no adultry,no falsewitness,dont envy"
Over the next few months, Douglas will present his summary of the Bible through Twitter account, @The140Bible, beginning with The New Testament's Mark. "It's not in chronological order because I want to keep things interesting," Douglas wrote. "Even at 140 characters, Chronicles is boring! To sound trendy, I'll call it "tweetvangelism."'
Tweetvangelism, indeed. Religious outreach is no stranger to social media with thousands of Facebook pages and Twitter feeds spouting spiritual messages to the online community – church goers and non. Religious leaders now offer sermons through weekly podcast series or YouTube videos – even creating their own brand of viral material aimed as outreach. And hey, even the Pope's online. I guess we'll call it Religion 2.0.
"Cheri, il y a une petite difference entre les deux!"
Within hours, the video was an internet hit on websites such as YouTube.
Ms Dati, now a Euro MP, later laughed off the whole episode saying she had spoken too quickly.
Ms Dati also said she was happy to have provided some entertainment.
The French word for fellatio is "fellation", which sounds similar to the word "inflation".
Ms Dati left the government last year amid criticism of her management style, and gossip about her clothes and love life.
She is now an MEP and serves as mayor of Paris's seventh arrondissement.
Allons enfants de la patrie,
Le jour de gloire est arrivé!
Contre nous de la tyrannie
L'étendard sanglant est levé! (bis)
Entendez-vous dans les campagnes,
Mugir ces féroces soldats?
Ils viennent jusque dans nos bras
Égorger nos fils, nos compagnes!
Aux armes, citoyens!
Formez vos bataillons!
Marchons ! Marchons!
Qu'un sang impur
Abreuve nos sillons!
Que veut cette horde d'esclaves,
De traîtres, de rois conjurés?
Pour qui ces ignobles entraves,
Ces fers dès longtemps préparés? (bis)
Français ! pour nous, ah ! quel outrage!
Quels transports il doit exciter!
C'est nous qu'on ose méditer
De rendre à l'antique esclavage!
Quoi ! ces cohortes étrangères
Feraient la loi dans nos foyers!
Quoi ! ces phalanges mercenaires
Terrasseraient nos fiers guerriers! (bis)
Grand Dieu ! par des mains enchaînées
Nos fronts sous le joug se ploiraient!
De vils despotes deviendraient
Les maîtres de nos destinées!
Tremblez, tyrans ! et vous, perfides,
L'opprobre de tous les partis,
Tremblez ! vos projets parricides
Vont enfin recevoir leur prix! (bis)
Tout est soldat pour vous combattre,
S'ils tombent, nos jeunes héros,
La France en produit de nouveaux,
Contre vous tout prêts à se battre!
Français, en guerriers magnanimes,
Portez ou retenez vos coups!
Épargnez ces tristes victimes,
A regret s'armant contre nous. (bis)
Mais ces despotes sanguinaires,
Mais ces complices de Bouillé,
Tous ces tigres qui, sans pitié,
Déchirent le sein de leur mère!
Amour sacré de la patrie,
Conduis, soutiens nos bras vengeurs!
Liberté, Liberté chérie,
Combats avec tes défenseurs! (bis)
Sous nos drapeaux, que la victoire
Accoure à tes mâles accents!
Que tes ennemis expirants
Voient ton triomphe et notre gloire!
Nous entrerons dans la carrière
Quand nos aînés n'y seront plus;
Nous y trouverons leur poussière
Et la trace de leurs vertus. (bis)
Bien moins jaloux de leur survivre
Que de partager leur cercueil,
Nous aurons le sublime orgueil
De les venger ou de les suivre!
I was wondering if you accept guest post for your blog. If you do, I would like to submit a few. You can see a sample of my work at LaptopComputers.org under the author James Mowery. I've also written for several high-profile blogs like Mashable (http://mashable.com), Performancing (http://performancing.com), and CMSWire (http://cmwire.com). Thank you for your time.
"With Prejudice" and Manitoba's Privacy Act!
I am touched by your desire to provide a symbol, feel free to attach whatever you think is fun.
As for your question regarding "with prejudice" - when a suit is dismissed with prejudice, it means the plaintiff is barred from ever bringing the claim forward again. So, essentially, the claim against Douglas has been dismissed, and Chapman can never take action againt her in the courts for this particular set of circumstances again.
Looks like you're having fun in the court file, I enjoy the access to the documents, as I don't have the time to spend at the courthouse myself. It is individuals such as yourself, who continue to demonstrate for myself that not all of society is lost to the age of indulgence and self-gratification.
Dear Veritas Justitia Honoris:
Thank you for writing. We're happy you're touched to have a symbol which will distinguish you from the dozens and dozens of other "Anonymous" e-mail we receive.
Thank you for explaining the significance of "with prejudice" to our readers in the now defunct Chapman-Douglas case.
October 12 next month (10:00 a.m.) there will be a Motion Hearing at which time Jack King's lawyer (William Gange) will attempt to get a summary judgment against Mr. Chapman's lawsuit. In other words, have it thrown out. It appears from the online Queen's Bench File Registry Madam Justice Joan McKelvey will preside. We hope to attend at which time we'll photocopy for posting the original Statement of Claim by Alex Chapman against Lori Douglas.
Mr. Gange's upcoming Motion Brief arguments appear to rely heavily, but not exclusively on Sections 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8 of The Privacy Act (Manitoba) reproduced below.
Thank you for the kind words. Fortunately, being retired we're able to spend time at The Law Courts searching files. We've also have individuals helping us.
Finally, we're quietly tracking another case before the Law Society of Manitoba which has the potential of becoming another embarrassment for it. Hopefully, we'll be able to begin going public soon.
Clare L. Pieuk
THE PRIVACY ACT OF MANITOBA
HER MAJESTY, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba, enacts as follows:
1(1) In this Act
"common-law partner" of a person means a person who, not being married to the other person, is cohabiting with him or her in a conjugal relationship of some permanence; (« conjoint de fait »)
"court" means the Court of Queen's Bench except in section 5 where it means any court and includes a person authorized by law to take evidence under oath acting for the purposes for which he is authorized to take evidence; (« tribunal »)
"defamation" means libel or slander; (« diffamation »)
"family" means the spouse, common-law partner, child, step-child, parent, step-parent, brother, sister, half-brother, half-sister, step-brother, step-sister, of a person. (« famille »)
Registered common-law relationship
1(2) For the purposes of this Act, while they are cohabiting, persons who have registered their common-law relationship under section 13.1 of The Vital Statistics Act are deemed to be cohabiting in a conjugal relationship of some permanence.
Violation of privacy
2(1) A person who substantially, unreasonably, and without claim of right, violates the privacy of another person, commits a tort against that other person.
Action without proof of damage
2(2) An action for violation of privacy may be brought without proof of damage.
Examples of violation of privacy
3 Without limiting the generality of section 2, privacy of a person may be violated
(a) by surveillance, auditory or visual, whether or not accomplished by trespass, of that person, his home or other place of residence, or of any vehicle, by any means including eavesdropping, watching, spying, besetting or following;
(b) by the listening to or recording of a conversation in which that person participates, or messages to or from that person, passing along, over or through any telephone lines, otherwise than as a lawful party thereto or under lawful authority conferred to that end;
(c) by the unauthorized use of the name or likeness or voice of that person for the purposes of advertising or promoting the sale of, or any other trading in, any property or services, or for any other purposes of gain to the user if, in the course of the use, that person is identified or identifiable and the user intended to exploit the name or likeness or voice of that person; or
(d) by the use of his letters, diaries and other personal documents without his consent or without the consent of any other person who is in possession of them with his consent.
4(1) In any action for violation of privacy the court may
(a) award damages;
(b) grant an injunction if it appears just and reasonable;
(c) order the defendant to account to the plaintiff for any profits that have accrued, or that may subsequently accrue, to the defendant by reason or in consequence of the violation; and
(d) order the defendant to deliver up to the plaintiff all articles or documents that have come into his possession by reason or in consequence of the violation.
Considerations in awarding damages
4(2) In awarding damages in an action for a violation of privacy of a person, the court shall have regard to all the circumstances of the case including
(a) the nature, incidence and occasion of the act, conduct or publication constituting the violation of privacy of that person;
(b) the effect of the violation of privacy on the health, welfare, social, business or financial position of that person or his family;
(c) any relationship, whether domestic or otherwise, between the parties to the action;
(d) any distress, annoyance or embarrassment suffered by that person or his family arising from the violation of privacy; and
(e) the conduct of that person and the defendant, both before and after the commission of the violation of privacy, including any apology or offer of amends made by the defendant.
Accounting not considered in awarding damages
4(3) Notwithstanding anything in subsection (2), in awarding damages in an action for violation of privacy of a person, the court shall not have regard to any order made under clause (1)(c) in respect of the violation of privacy.
5 In an action for violation of privacy of a person, it is a defence for the defendant to show
(a) that the person expressly or by implication consented to the act, conduct or publication constituting the violation; or
(b) that the defendant, having acted reasonably in that regard, neither knew or should reasonably have known that the act, conduct or publication constituting the violation would have violated the privacy of any person; or
(c) that the act, conduct or publication in issue was reasonable, necessary for, and incidental to, the exercise or protection of a lawful right of defence of person, property, or other interest of the defendant or any other person by whom the defendant was instructed or for whose benefit the defendant committed the act, conduct or publication constituting the violation; or
(d) that the defendant acted under authority conferred upon him by a law in force in the province or by a court or any process of a court; or
(e) where the act, conduct or publication constituting the violation was
(i) that of a peace officer acting in the course of his duties; or
(ii) that of a public officer engaged in an investigation in the course of his duty under a law in force in the province;
that it was neither disproportionate to the gravity of the matter subject to investigation nor committed in the course of a trespass; and was within the scope of his duties or within the scope of the investigation, as the case may be, and was reasonably necessary in the public interest;
(f) where the alleged violation was constituted by the publication of any matter
(i) that there were reasonable grounds for the belief that the publication was in the public interest; or
(ii) that the publication was, in accordance with the rules of law in force in the province relating to defamation, privileged; or
(iii) that the matter was fair comment on a matter of public interest.
Right of action in addition to other rights
6 The right of action for violation of privacy under this Act and the remedies under this Act are in addition to, and not in derogation of, any other right of action or other remedy available otherwise than under this Act; but this section shall not be construed as requiring any damages awarded in an action for violation of privacy to be disregarded in assessing damages in any other proceedings arising out of the same act, conduct or publication constituting the violation of privacy.
Effect on law of evidence
7 No evidence obtained by virtue or in consequence of a violation of privacy in respect of which an action may be brought under this Act is admissible in any civil proceedings.
Application of Act
8(1) Notwithstanding any other Act of the Legislature, whether special or general, this Act applies where there is any violation of the privacy of any person.
Conflict with other Acts
8(2) Where there is a conflict between a provision of this Act and a provision of any other Act of the Legislature, whether special or general, the provision of this Act prevails.
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Why wasn't the computer relinquished?
King versus Chapman (CI 10-01-68113)
Good Day Readers:
Here's the Statement of Claim filed with the court by William S. Gange.
As already noted he'll be in court next month trying to get a summary judgment, that is, have Alex Chapman's lawsuit against his client Jack King thrown out.
Note item 7(b). According to our resident electrical engineering/computer science/internet genius "The Great Bowkin" with today's highly sophisticated data retrieval sofware programs, it's impossible to guarantee all information has been deleted by a computer operator short of melting down their system. Therefore, could the argument not be made, albeit hypothetical, while Mr. Chapman may have thought he deleted all the imformation in reality did he?
Why Mr. Gange at the time as part of the agreement did not insist the computer be turned over to him on behalf of Mr. King is beyond us. My Goodness Mr. Chapman could have bought a dozen new units with the $25,000 he received.
Sincerely/Clare L. Pieuk
The plaintiff claime:
(a) general damages;
(b) punitive damages;
(c) damages pursuant to The Privacy Act;
(d) an injunction preventing the defendant from making any use of documents and materials that are in his vossession in violation of The Privacy Act and the settlement agreement entered into by the parties;
(e) an order to deliver up to the plaintiff all documents and articles that are in his possession in violation of The Privacy Act and the settle agreement entered into by the parties; and
(f) costs on a solicitor-client basis.
2. The plaintiffr is a lawyer who resides in the Rural Municipality of Springfield, in the Province of Manitoba.
3. The defendant resides in the City of Winnipeg, in the Province of Manitoba.
4. In the year 2002, the defendant retained the plaintiff to act as legal counsel with respect to a matrimonial dispute.
5. In the year 2003, the defendant alleged that the plaintiff had breached his fiduciary duty to the defendant.
6. The plaintiff and the defendant, through legal counsel, agreed to settle the defendant's claim on certain terms (the " settlement agreement") that included:
(a) the defendant would deliver to the plaintiff's counsel all documents, e-mails and photographs ever provided to the defendant by the plaintiff;
(b) the defendant would delete from his computer all e-mails and photographs ever sent to him by the plaintiff;
(c) the defendant certified that he had never forwareded any e-mails or photographs sent to him by the plaintiff;
(d) the defendant would keep confidential the terms of the settlement agreement and would not disclose or discuss the terms of th esettlement agreement with anyone, and
(e) the defendant would compensate the plaintiff if the plaintiff breached the confidentiality clause of the settlement agreement
7. The defendant breached the terms of the settlement agreement. Particulars:
(a) the defendant kept copies of documents, e-mails and photographs provided to him by the plaintiff;
(b) the defendant failed to delete from his computer e-mails and photographs provided to him by the plaintiffs; and
(c) the defendant has disclosed and discussed the terms of the settlement agreement.
8. The defendant has used personal documents of the plaintiff without the consent of the plaintiff and in violation of the settlement agreement.
9. The defendant has substantially, unreasonably and without claim of right violated teh privacy fo the plaintiff.
10. As a result, the plaintiff has suffered damage.
11. The plaintiff relies upon the provisions of The Privacy Act and, in particular, Sections 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8.
September 1, 2010
Gange Goodman & French/Barristers & Solicitors/760-444 St. Mary Avenue/ Winnipeg MB R3C 3T1
William S. Gange 953-5401
Saturday, September 25, 2010
An identity and now a symbol!
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
Dear Veritas Justitia Honoris:
Thank you for writing - much, much better than "Deep Throat II" which never really fit. Of course you realize you now need a heraldic crest to go with that so we Googled VJH. This was the most impressive we found. Not sure, however, what it means - no matter. By the way it came with its own song but was lost transitioning into our image archive.
Here's what Mike McIntyre (Winnipeg Free Press reporter) said in his September 10, 2010 article ("Legal Fight Grows in Controversey - accuser sees bias doubts fair trial"):
"Chapman told court Thursday he is angry he seems to be painted as the enemy. Chapman accused King's lawyer of "slander" for bringing up the fact he was convicted of arson and uttering threats in 1993 in an attempt to discredit him. Chapman says he received a pardon for his crimes, which are registered under his previous legal name of Lenard Quaccoo."
William Gange, Jack King's lawyer, has a Motion Hearing scheduled for next month. Because of his Brief's length (64 pages including 3 - Tabs) replete with authorities, case precedents and detailed legal arguments we chose not to reporduce it. However, much of Mr. Gange's case seemed to be based on Manitoba's Privacy Act which to us seems a tad ironic.
Perhaps you could answer this for our readers. The Queen's Bench Disposition Sheet for the September 22, 2010 Motion Hearing presided over by Justice Kenneth Hanssen indicates Mr. Chapman's lawsuit again Jack King was summarily dismissed "with prejudice by consent." What is the significance, if any, of "with prejudice?"
Clare L. Pieuk
Don't miss the debut of Eliot Spitzer's new show!
David Beckham Affair Is Real Spitzer Madam Says
September 23, 2010
Rumors of a David Beckham affair continue to heat up. Just one day after a 26-year-old ex-call girl claimed to have bedded the soccer superstar, another woman has stepped up to defend the shocking allegation.
Kristin Davis, the infamous madam who played a key role in Eliot Spitzer's sex scandal, has given new details about the alleged Beckham affair to In Touch. Davis says former prostitute Irma Nici "called me and asked if I could supply one of my girls for a threesome," Davis told the magazine. "Per her request, I sent a 'brunette with curves' at the rate of $2,400 cash. The next time we spoke, she informed me that the client was David Beckham."
Meanwhile, Beckham's management company intends to sue In Touch over the story. "Sadly we live in a world where a magazine can print lies and believe they can get away with it," a spokesman for Beckham said yesterday.
Beckham has three sons and has been married to Victoria Beckham, once known as Posh Spice of the Spice Girls, for 11 years.
Scroll down for more from In Touch. The magazine's latest issue has additional details.
Davis went to jail for her part in former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer's dalliance with prostitute Ashley Dupre. But Kristin tells In Touch in a statement, "Since my arrest, I have not disclosed any of my client details, and I continue to be dedicated to confidentiality, with the exception of Eliot Spitzer. I no longer have any connection whatsoever to this industry. I am dedicating myself to being an advocate for the decriminalization of prostitution so we can drive the sex traffickers and those who exploit women out of business. But this is Irma's story, and it is hers to tell."
For more of In Touch's exclusive cover story about Beckham's affair, pick up the latest copy of In Touch, on newsstands now.
Friday, September 24, 2010
A tag day for The Queen?
By RAPHAEL G. SATTER, Associated Press Writer
The official response, according to documents unearthed by The Independent newspaper, was that the handout might prove to be an embarrassment if word got out. The paper quotes an unnamed functionary as gently reminding the royal household that the money was meant for local authorities, housing associations, and the like.
"I also feel a bit uneasy about the probable adverse press coverage if the Palace were given a grant at the expense of say a hospital," the paper quoted the official as saying. "Sorry this doesn't sound more positive."
The newspaper said royal aides were looking for a way to pay the queen's spiraling utility bills, which had risen by 50 percent to more than 1 million pounds ($1.58 million) in 2004. A letter written that year and addressed to Britain's culture department asked whether the queen could get a community energy grant to upgrade the heating systems at Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle, the monarch's favorite weekend residence.
Officials were receptive to the idea, but eventually decided against it, the paper said Friday, citing documents obtained under Britain's Freedom of Information Act.
A Buckingham Palace spokeswoman confirmed that royal officials had explored the possibility of getting money under the program, saying it was part of an attempt to reduce both its burden on the taxpayer and improve the palaces' energy efficiency. She claimed the royal household was not initially aware that the money had been earmarked for low-income Britons.
The queen's finances have been controversial in the past, with occasional debates about whether Britain's head of state — whose role is almost exclusively ceremonial — costs too much. The queen has royal residences across Britain, including Balmoral Castle in Scotland and Sandringham House in eastern England.
Other residences, such as the Palace of Holyroodhouse in Edinburgh and St. James's Palace in London, are used as offices or for functions.
Still, the queen has a reputation for frugality and the monarchy has recently been keen to show it gives value for money. Taxpayers fund the royal household to the tune of 38.2 million pounds ($60 million) a year, which the royal website points out is only 62 pence (less than a dollar) per person.
That amount doesn't include the cost of providing security for the queen and her family.
Expensive or not, word that the royal household had toyed with the idea of trying to get money intended for some of the nation's poorest citizens had a medieval ring to it and the drew the ire of Republic, which campaigns for the abolition of the British monarchy.
The group said the story provided "clear evidence of the contempt the palace has for ordinary people in this country."
The report also raised eyebrows among some of those interviewed on the streets of north London Friday. Nick Bowring, a 23-year-old fitness instructor, said he didn't think the queen should get help paying her heating bills.
"There are people who need it a lot more than she does," he said.
But Ian Laming, a 49-year-old carpenter, disagreed, saying he didn't see why the government advised the palace not to apply for the funds. He said he admired the queen and was pleased when she volunteered to pay more taxes some years ago when royal finances were under scrutiny.
"She helps a lot," he said, explaining that the monarch was big boon to the U.K. economy.
"You just have to walk down to Buckingham Palace to see all the tourists."
Associated Press Writer Gregory Katz contributed to this report.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Would you at least consider a symbol?
Clare L. Pieuk
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Deep Throat II emerges on CyberSmokeBlog!"
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...