Les Enfants terribles! You can call us stupid but .....
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post, "L'affaire terrible/La cause celebre/Les Miserables!"
Hello Mr. Pieuk:
The WFP article by Mia Rabson, most of the article is lifted from the CJC press release – hardly the WFP reporter making assumptions, but certainly not citing the source appropriately, as the press release states:
“A second complaint, which was publicized in media reports, was also considered by Chief Justice Wittmann. The complainant, whose name was not divulged publicly, claimed that Associate Chief Justice Douglas had a personal relationship with the complainant’s ex-husband and that she should not have heard the divorce case involving the complainant and her ex-husband.”
Since the contents of the complaint were not released, aside from this press release, we have no way of knowing what the wife specifically claimed. The sensational aspects of this case aside (FD06-01-82192), obviously the wife had no direct evidence of a connection between Douglas and her ex-husband hence the “speculation, hearsay and assumptions” statement from the CJC and rejection of the complaint. Too bad, because I thought this angle, that Douglas allowed her personal life colour her interpretation of the evidence of the wife, had merit. I applaud the woman for her efforts, but evidence is always required.
The complaint of Mr. Chapman has evidence – he contained the photos with his complaint – so it would be difficult for the CJC to not proceed to further investigation. At this stage the only finding by the CJC is that there needs to be further investigation, and the next step is the convening of a panel – who will also not judge the conduct, but whether or not a full-blown inquiry needs to be done. If an Inquiry Committee is to be convened - then and only then – will there be a ruling on her conduct, and the Committee will either recommend removal or impose consequences. Until that point, which is likely years down the road, why give up the big paycheque and benefits? All she is doing is paperwork, and what else is she going to do? Go back to practicing law? She’s milking the cow as long as she can – and it’s a testament to her continuing poor judgement and lack of integrity in my opinion.
Mr. Chapman never made a complaint about Jack King back in 2003. The LSM learned about the photos when they investigated Ian Histed. King voluntarily took a year off after the agreement with Chapman was complete and then provided a doctor’s note to return to practice. There was no formal investigation into King, nor any imposed consequences by the LSM. They now must investigate because Chapman did finally file a complaint and I’m betting King will be found guilty of inappropriate conduct, but no sanctions will be imposed because he already took a year off and saw a doctor.
As for the Forensic Report, as I stated in a previous email, it was filed long after the hearing before Douglas. The coffee house remains strangely silent on this topic since I learned that the report was done on the ex-husband, not the wife, and was written by one Dr. Lawrence Ellerby, a forensic psychologist specializing in the rehabilitation of sex offenders.
So, there is a practicing member of the LSM that has been found guilty of sexual harassment and is suspended in another jurisdiction (Alberta), is an admitted sex addict and practices sadomasochism (court transcripts), and has been the subject of a Forensic Psychological Assessment. I see this as an opportunity for the LSM to demonstrate its ability to investigate a member’s conduct without a complaint, and am waiting to see whether or not it is truly a governing body, or just a puppet of the ruling elite.
Mr. Fineblit – what say you – is the LSM a governing body or an ostrich?
Veritas Justitias Honoris
Hello Mr. Pieuk:
The WFP article by Mia Rabson, most of the article is lifted from the CJC press release – hardly the WFP reporter making assumptions, but certainly not citing the source appropriately, as the press release states:
“A second complaint, which was publicized in media reports, was also considered by Chief Justice Wittmann. The complainant, whose name was not divulged publicly, claimed that Associate Chief Justice Douglas had a personal relationship with the complainant’s ex-husband and that she should not have heard the divorce case involving the complainant and her ex-husband.”
Since the contents of the complaint were not released, aside from this press release, we have no way of knowing what the wife specifically claimed. The sensational aspects of this case aside (FD06-01-82192), obviously the wife had no direct evidence of a connection between Douglas and her ex-husband hence the “speculation, hearsay and assumptions” statement from the CJC and rejection of the complaint. Too bad, because I thought this angle, that Douglas allowed her personal life colour her interpretation of the evidence of the wife, had merit. I applaud the woman for her efforts, but evidence is always required.
The complaint of Mr. Chapman has evidence – he contained the photos with his complaint – so it would be difficult for the CJC to not proceed to further investigation. At this stage the only finding by the CJC is that there needs to be further investigation, and the next step is the convening of a panel – who will also not judge the conduct, but whether or not a full-blown inquiry needs to be done. If an Inquiry Committee is to be convened - then and only then – will there be a ruling on her conduct, and the Committee will either recommend removal or impose consequences. Until that point, which is likely years down the road, why give up the big paycheque and benefits? All she is doing is paperwork, and what else is she going to do? Go back to practicing law? She’s milking the cow as long as she can – and it’s a testament to her continuing poor judgement and lack of integrity in my opinion.
Mr. Chapman never made a complaint about Jack King back in 2003. The LSM learned about the photos when they investigated Ian Histed. King voluntarily took a year off after the agreement with Chapman was complete and then provided a doctor’s note to return to practice. There was no formal investigation into King, nor any imposed consequences by the LSM. They now must investigate because Chapman did finally file a complaint and I’m betting King will be found guilty of inappropriate conduct, but no sanctions will be imposed because he already took a year off and saw a doctor.
As for the Forensic Report, as I stated in a previous email, it was filed long after the hearing before Douglas. The coffee house remains strangely silent on this topic since I learned that the report was done on the ex-husband, not the wife, and was written by one Dr. Lawrence Ellerby, a forensic psychologist specializing in the rehabilitation of sex offenders.
So, there is a practicing member of the LSM that has been found guilty of sexual harassment and is suspended in another jurisdiction (Alberta), is an admitted sex addict and practices sadomasochism (court transcripts), and has been the subject of a Forensic Psychological Assessment. I see this as an opportunity for the LSM to demonstrate its ability to investigate a member’s conduct without a complaint, and am waiting to see whether or not it is truly a governing body, or just a puppet of the ruling elite.
Mr. Fineblit – what say you – is the LSM a governing body or an ostrich?
Veritas Justitias Honoris
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear VJH:
As always thank you so much for your excently researched and written letter. Please keep up the superb work!
From the day the Douglas-Chapman-King scandal went viral there are certain aspects of the case we are simply unable to comprehend and now there's another which we'll get to in a moment:
(1) a mountain of evidence seems to exist suggesting the Douglas-Chapman-King connection was common knowledge within Manitoba's legal community for literally years. Why did it take the Law Society of Manitoba so long to finally react and via a third party at that - Ian Histed Mr. Chapman's attorney at the time?
(2) at the time this was happening why didn't Mr. Chapman file a complaint with the LSM which would have stopped Mr. King dead in his tracks?
(3) it took Alex Chapman almost 7-years to go public and formally file a complaint with the Law Society. Why did it take so long?
And now we have this - a party to a divorce proceeding alleging the judge hearing her case knew her ex-husband which apparently made its way into the media. We say "apparently" because we never saw it. When and where was the comment made - inside or outside the courtroom?
We also wonder about Ms Douglas' salary and benefits package, as well as, the type of work she's currently doing for the Queen's Bench. Is she being vastly over compensated?
As for Mr. Fineblit, ran into a lawyer some time ago who once served on an LSM committee. They noted he's a fine (Sorry for the bad pun!) decent fellow, however, the real power resides with the lawyers running the various committees - staff are but facilitators much like the bureaucracy where the politicians are in charge. However, that's not to say bureaucrats are without power albeit is silent. There have probably been more unmarked brown manilla envelope leaks in the Stephen Harper administration than in any other recent federal government.
Hope you dont' mind VJH but we're going to e-mail a copy of this posting to Ms Rabson. We suspect you know much more about the specifics of this situation than her. CyberSmokeBlog will publish any reply received.
Sincerely/Clare L. Pieuk
P. S. Hope it "heats up" soon in that coffee shop!
1 Comments:
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 that 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
Post a Comment
<< Home