Are judges adequately vetted in Manitoba?
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post, "Why Associate Chief Justice Lori Douglas should resign - now!"
Good Morning Mr. Pieuk:
In an interesting development, Shane Perlmutter has been appointed to the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench:
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/joyal-new-court-of-queens-bench-chief-justice-115545399.html
He was one of Jack King and Lori Douglas' partners in 2003 - was this addressed during his vetting process I wonder?
Lori Douglas must be delighted to have a former partner on the bench with her, lending optical credibility to her cause. I can hear the whining now, "If he can be on the bench and he knew about it, why can't I?"
I'm sure Mr. Perlmutter has a wonderful reputation, but with the stink that is on TDS (Thompson Dorfman Sweatman) right now, were there no other candidates?
I think it's time that the vetting process became public - don't you?
As always, I'm seeking
VJH
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear VJH:
As always thank you very much for writing. Last first. Without question the vetting process for selecting judges should have much more public input - this change is long, long overdue. The way it's currently done is archaic, arrogant and insulting because it assumes taxpayers, ultimately responsible for paying the salaries, are too stupid or uninformed to have any meaningful involvement.
Look at the United States where there's an open confirmation process for supreme court justices after which a vote is taken. This allows a committee (with cameras present) to question candidates on their voting history, position on various social issues, as well as heaven forbid, any skeletons in their closets. Although far from perfect it's much better than what we currently have. Here, a couple years ago, the current government allowed parliamentary debate on the appointment of supreme court judges but it's merely window dressing. Regardless, the Prime Minister retains the right to make the final decision.
We see parallels between the secretive appointment of judges and the modus operandi of law societies. One would think in light of the Douglas-King-Chapman colossal embarrassment those responsible for choosing the judiciary would have steered clear of TDS to avoid even the perception of controversy although in fairness Mr. Pulmutter may be of outstanding character - at least while, as you suggest, the stink of Douglas-King-Chapman still hangs in the air.
Another parallel? Why does the LSM not have layperson respresentation on it's disciplinary committees? Are there no outstanding non-lawyers of unquestioned character with brains?
This latest development should not be surprising. One highly respected attorney recently suggested the power within the Law Society of Manitoba does not reside with staff rather the members who serve on various committees. Even at that probably 50% or so come from Winnipeg's two largest law firms. Do two practices dominate the disciplinary committees?
Look at the case of Blackie. He advised beforehand the potential for a serious conflict of interest existed - the prosecutor chosen had been on the opposide side of a litigation a few years ago and had, if you can believe this, threatened Blackie with a defamation lawsuit. He never made good on his threat yet the LSM refuses to replace this individual (David M. Skwark, FillmoreRiley). Blackie has had to file a Motion Brief to have Mr. Skwark recused. Why or why would The Society in its "infinite wisdom" as soon as it became aware of the potential for a conflict not have acted to select another prosecutor? It seems to us if the LSM refuses to make the change this leaves the door wide open for an appeal.
This afternoon there will be a brief conference call meeting at the Offices of the Law Society involving Blackie, staff and members of the disciplinary committee. Our understanding is Blackie will confirm he has received the LSM's Motion Brief defending its choice of David Skwark. Presumably a date will be set today to hear it.
Please stay tuned we'll report on today's events later.
Sincerely,
Clare L. Pieuk
P. S. What's supremely ironic is Blackie's accusers Mr. Y ("What a guy that Mr. Y!") and his accomplice's motives for bringing this action should be closely scrutinized by The Society. Unfortuantely, we're unable to identify them at this point but will as soon as possible.
Good Morning Mr. Pieuk:
In an interesting development, Shane Perlmutter has been appointed to the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench:
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/joyal-new-court-of-queens-bench-chief-justice-115545399.html
He was one of Jack King and Lori Douglas' partners in 2003 - was this addressed during his vetting process I wonder?
Lori Douglas must be delighted to have a former partner on the bench with her, lending optical credibility to her cause. I can hear the whining now, "If he can be on the bench and he knew about it, why can't I?"
I'm sure Mr. Perlmutter has a wonderful reputation, but with the stink that is on TDS (Thompson Dorfman Sweatman) right now, were there no other candidates?
I think it's time that the vetting process became public - don't you?
As always, I'm seeking
VJH
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear VJH:
As always thank you very much for writing. Last first. Without question the vetting process for selecting judges should have much more public input - this change is long, long overdue. The way it's currently done is archaic, arrogant and insulting because it assumes taxpayers, ultimately responsible for paying the salaries, are too stupid or uninformed to have any meaningful involvement.
Look at the United States where there's an open confirmation process for supreme court justices after which a vote is taken. This allows a committee (with cameras present) to question candidates on their voting history, position on various social issues, as well as heaven forbid, any skeletons in their closets. Although far from perfect it's much better than what we currently have. Here, a couple years ago, the current government allowed parliamentary debate on the appointment of supreme court judges but it's merely window dressing. Regardless, the Prime Minister retains the right to make the final decision.
We see parallels between the secretive appointment of judges and the modus operandi of law societies. One would think in light of the Douglas-King-Chapman colossal embarrassment those responsible for choosing the judiciary would have steered clear of TDS to avoid even the perception of controversy although in fairness Mr. Pulmutter may be of outstanding character - at least while, as you suggest, the stink of Douglas-King-Chapman still hangs in the air.
Another parallel? Why does the LSM not have layperson respresentation on it's disciplinary committees? Are there no outstanding non-lawyers of unquestioned character with brains?
This latest development should not be surprising. One highly respected attorney recently suggested the power within the Law Society of Manitoba does not reside with staff rather the members who serve on various committees. Even at that probably 50% or so come from Winnipeg's two largest law firms. Do two practices dominate the disciplinary committees?
Look at the case of Blackie. He advised beforehand the potential for a serious conflict of interest existed - the prosecutor chosen had been on the opposide side of a litigation a few years ago and had, if you can believe this, threatened Blackie with a defamation lawsuit. He never made good on his threat yet the LSM refuses to replace this individual (David M. Skwark, FillmoreRiley). Blackie has had to file a Motion Brief to have Mr. Skwark recused. Why or why would The Society in its "infinite wisdom" as soon as it became aware of the potential for a conflict not have acted to select another prosecutor? It seems to us if the LSM refuses to make the change this leaves the door wide open for an appeal.
This afternoon there will be a brief conference call meeting at the Offices of the Law Society involving Blackie, staff and members of the disciplinary committee. Our understanding is Blackie will confirm he has received the LSM's Motion Brief defending its choice of David Skwark. Presumably a date will be set today to hear it.
Please stay tuned we'll report on today's events later.
Sincerely,
Clare L. Pieuk
P. S. What's supremely ironic is Blackie's accusers Mr. Y ("What a guy that Mr. Y!") and his accomplice's motives for bringing this action should be closely scrutinized by The Society. Unfortuantely, we're unable to identify them at this point but will as soon as possible.
posted by Clare L. Pieuk at 6:12 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home