The art of hanging on!

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post, "Les Enfants terribles! You can call us stupid but ....."

Hang on a second Mr. Pieuk,

Regarding your questions:

(1) The legal community knows a lot of things that the LSM does nothing about, because they (the membership) does not report the behaviour because they do not have ‘evidence’ only heresay. Those who do know, are sworn to secrecy by the firms involved. Have you heard that there are two firms in Winnipeg known as “Sodom” and “Gomorrah,” both are powerful and could destroy a career easily

(2) Only Chapman can tell you why he didn’t file a complaint back then, I suspect it was part of the blackmail – “Pay me or I report you!” – makes sense doesn’t it?

(3) Again, only Chapman can answer this one. In media reports he claims he was honouring the agreement, and then guilt and fear finally overcame him, and he suspected Douglas to be interfering in a civil suit. Could be true I suppose

(4) As for the accusation of an affair – the press release doesn’t say that. It stated, “a personal relationship”, which could be anything from an affair to friendship to sitting on a committee or board. I went back to McIntyre’s article which is the only report I’ve seen about this complaint, and he reported on September 8:

“The woman alleges she has since learned her ex-husband and Douglas knew each before she became a judge, but didn’t provide any specifics.”

Without the actual content of the complaint, which we do not know and likely never will, we cannot assume an affair, the only information in the media is that they “knew each other.” I “know” a lot of people, none of whom I’m having an affair with, and to presume an affair is a leap I think.

If Douglas sues, which is questionable since the complaint itself is confidential, Douglas will have to reveal the portions of the complaint that could be “libellous” in her claim. What kind of precedent would be set if Douglas won? What would happen to the integrity of future complaints? Could all complaints that are tossed be subject to litigation? What kind of precedent would it set if Douglas were to lose? Could all rejected complaints proceed through litigation? What would it do to her reputation? Her seat on the bench? I doubt she wants more attention that this would bring.

I think we must be careful to maintain an objective stance on this matter. Language is a powerful thing, and we both know that the legal community relies upon the specific meanings of words, and not implied meanings. I have no more information than Ms. Rabson does on the matter – I just keep a detailed record of all the media reports that I have read on the subject – and am careful to ensure I don’t make inferences based on implied meanings, because of the threat of libel.

After all, I am an annonymous poster - a.k.a. coward.

Veritas Justitias Honoris
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear VJH:

This is your third e-mail today so we're feeling honoured! We've now finished hanging on and are back.

Regarding your point (1) it's interesting because it speaks to the issue of whether an organization, law firm or otherwise, has the legal right to silence an employee who becomes aware of wrongdoing.

There's an interesting case in the United States currently in which a middle level manager at a major financial institution was asked to approve documents which she knew to contain false information - Affidavits in the robo-signing foreclosure housing scandal. She refused and was terminated Aware of other significant infractions committed by organization, she filed a wrongful dismissal suit subsequently coupling it with a complaint to the Securities and Exchange Commission. If the SEC levies penalities in excess of $1 million as a result of imformation proffered, the informant stands to receive up to a maximum of 30% of the amount. Companion anti-retaliation legislation was also enacted at the same time (July 2010). By comparison, existing Canadian whistleblower legislation is much weaker.

Can confidential agreements be misused to silence employees who become aware of corporate wrongdoing? Most probably.

Speaking hypothetically, of course, are retraction/apology letters prosecuting attorneys seek to have Defendants sign in lawsuits suggesting they're unaware of any corporate evil/wrongdoing, in the process eliminating their ability to mount a defence, ethical? We'll leave that one for you VJH. Given the aforementioned discussion and what we've seen from some lawyers to date it comes as no great surprise there may be a couple "Sodom" and "Gomorrah" legal firms operating in Winnipeg.

Your point (2) makes perfect sense.

Item (3) also is completely plausible although the onus rests with Mr. Chapman to tender evidence to substantiate judicial interference in another unrelated case he may have before the courts.

Point (4). Based on your comments we returned to our original posting where you will notice we made significant changes (deletions). Citing the reporter's original comments:

"The woman alleges she has since learned her ex-husband and Douglas knew each other before she became a judge, but didn't provide any specifics."

Ideally, anyone appearing before a judge as a Plaintiff or Defendant should not have had any previous dealings with them be they social, professional, personal or otherwise. They should only be aware they exist through media reports if at all.

To particularize. Last summer we were summoned for jury duty. If your name is picked, literally out of a hat, you're asked by the judge overseeing the process whether there's anything that could eliminate you from further consideration. We did not declare we had a blog on the basis why possibly remove yourself before the the process does it for you? Well, as fate would have it we made it as far as the jury box but were rejected by the defence lawyers without being questioned and no reason(s) given. Their decision was based on name, occupation, address and appearance which is the only information they had to make an informed decision. We looked very respectful (Wore a jacket!) and smiled politely but that didn't seem to matter. And, yes, had we made it onto the jury we'd have disclosed we're a blogger. That's the way it should be between a judge and those they're judging.

One final example because it all ties together. A few years ago a lawyer representing the Plaintiffs was able to force a judge to recuse himself because he'd ruled on a previous unrelated case in which the Defendant standing before him had been the Plaintiff. In the end it mattered not because the Defendant eventually won. But here's the irony of ironies. The Complainant against Blackie in the LSM action was the same solicitor who was able to force the judge to recuse. But it doesn't end there. Blackie was part of the successful defence team.

This is why The Society's refusal to appoint another lawyer to prosecute Blackie in full knowledge of a possible conflict of interest is impossible to fathom. In light of the foregoing discussion, the LSM has left the door wide open for an appeal by Blackie should he lose at the disciplinary hearing.

Winnipeg is still a very small town when it comes to who knows who especially within the legal community.

Sincerely/Clare L. Pieuk

P.S. Au contraire, you are not a coward. Those who stand silent in the face of evil and wrongdoing are the real cowards you're simply being wise and judicious. Why hang your neck out when it's unnecessary?