Are publication bans now irrelevant?
www.ptlaw.mb.ca; mtrachtenberg@ptlaw.mb.ca
It's fair to say Counselor Trachtenberg tried everything within The Queen's Bench Act, Rules and Regulations to shield his Plaintiffs from public scrutiny (MMF President David Chartrand and his Board of Directors as it existed in March of 2005 when the original Statement of Claim was filed). The S/C was subsequently amended and re-amended multiple times over the years.
Get this, when the original Pre-Trial Justice was replaced (June 2010), Mr. Trachtenberg desperately attempted to have me barred from an upcoming Pre-Trial Conference on the basis I was now represented (for much of the time I'd been a "self-rep"). Taken in total, his actions can only be viewed as a deliberate, beyond pathetic attempt to suppress information which we believe the taxpaying public had every right to access after all it was paying for the lawsuit. Needless to say his letter to the incoming P-T J failed miserably.
The Publication Ban was requested by Mr. Trachtenberg at the first of almost 30 Pre-Trial Conferences (September 8, 2008). Its terms and conditions were written by the presideing Pre-Trial Justice who advised at the time although not a requirement it was preferable She be the one to hear an appeal should one be filed. On that basis we decided not to challenge the ban. It's interesting to note the ban per se is silent on the matter of life expectancy - does it remain in place forever?
Finally, suffice it to say for now the ban has given rise to an action at The Law Society of Manitoba.
American legal scholars have coined a term for these kinds of litigation - SLAPPs (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) of which this one was a textbook classic. Found the following cartoon recently which says it all.
We hope the judge denies Elizabeth Harriman's request for a publication ban especially if it could impact on future lawsuits launched by a victim or relatives of the victims. We can't help but wonder what his daily life at Kingston penitentiary looks like. Now that there will be no appeals will he choose to give any jailhouse interviews? Will he be allowed as often seen on American television?
Sincerely/Clare L. Pieuk
__________________________________________________
Sex killer Russell Williams's wife ordered to disclose divorce deal
By Andrew Seymour, Postmedia News
March 22, 2011
Convicted murderer and rapist Russell Williams has been accused of fraudulently transferring his assets, including title to the couple’s Ottawa home, to his wife. (Photograph by: Fred Thornhill, Reuters)
OTTAWA — An Ottawa judge has ordered convicted sex killer Russell Williams's wife to disclose a domestic contract in which the disgraced former colonel transferred assets to her.
For now, the document can be seen only by lawyers representing the Ottawa Citizen and other media.
The order was made in advance of a Thursday hearing where lawyers representing Mary Elizabeth Harriman and several media organizations are set to argue over whether her divorce proceedings should be subject to a complete sealing order or a sweeping publication ban that would prevent the reporting of any details of the divorce.
During a hearing seeking access to the domestic contract Tuesday, Citizen lawyer Richard Dearden argued the domestic contract may contain details of Williams' transferring portions of his military pension to Harriman and is of "significant" public interest.
Harriman announced her intention to seek a divorce from Williams in December, two months after he was sentenced to life in prison for killing 27-year-old Jessica Lloyd and 37-year-old Marie-France Comeau.
Williams also pleaded guilty to two counts of sexual assault and 82 break-and-enters, including many in the city's east end, where he frequently photographed himself wearing children's or women's underwear that he had stolen.
Williams has been accused of fraudulently transferring his assets, including title to the couple's Ottawa home, to his wife. The allegations are part of a civil lawsuit filed in Belleville, Ont., against Williams and Harriman by one of his victims.
"There's a public interest out there in knowing what former colonel Williams did with his assets six weeks after being charged," said Dearden. "What's so secret? What are they afraid the public might learn?"
A sealing order or publication ban would not be in the public interest but in the private interests of Harriman and Williams, Dearden argued, adding the measure "offends" the constitutionally protected rights of the freedom of the press and the open-court principle. Divorce proceedings are usually public.
"They want a complete, private divorce," said Dearden.
In her decision, Ontario Superior Court Justice Jennifer McKinnon found that the production of the domestic contract is necessary for a proper consideration of the issues raised in Harriman's sealing application.
McKinnon's decision means media lawyers will have confidential access to the document to prepare arguments for the Thursday hearing. Neither the media nor the public will be allowed to view the domestic contract until the document is filed as part of the divorce proceedings and the judge declines to seal the divorce file or to put a publication ban in place.
Harriman's lawyers want the document to remain sealed, along with her medical and financial records.
Harriman's lawyer, Jonathan Richardson, argued the content of the domestic contract is "irrelevant" to the media's arguments that the divorce proceedings should remain public.
The contract is a "private interest between private parties," Richardson argued.
He also argued that the judge shouldn't confuse media interest with the public interest.
aseymour@ottawacitizen.com
posted by Clare L. Pieuk at 8:26 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home