How say you VJH?
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post, "And our nominees are ....."
Good Day Mr. Pieuk,
Well, well, well, it would seem that the CJC might have a backbone yet!
They are proceeding with a public inquiry. Considering the nature of the content of the inquiry (which by the way is still all over the internet) will be pornographic, exactly how public could it really be?
At this stage, I'm thinking that Madame Justice Douglas should avoid the public humiliation, especially since she has a teenager - the husband.
Really, how much more of the taxpayers money must be wasted on this morally bankrupt Justice and her (word deleted) teenaged husband and simply resign. Unless, of course, this is part of her fetish and will only provide more tittilation for her and him?
Simply disgusted, I remain,
VJH
P.S. - Unfortunately, I have no suggestions for Blackie, though I am very curious as to the outcome of the Charter challenge.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear VJH:
As always thank you very much for writing. Hope you don't mind but you're one of CyberSmokeBlog's four nominee's to sit on the CJC's inquiry committee.
To respond to your comments. We don't think the pornographic nature of the inquiry will matter. Here's way. Several months The Public Eye received an anonymous e-mail which he passed onto to us.
Truth To Power (www.accesstoinfo.blogspot.com; vicpopuli1@gmail.com)
It contained step-by-step instructions for accessing the 30 nude photographs of Justice Douglas. Since it could have been a hoax we checked it out and there they were - completely uncensored. Some even had Dark Cavern handwritten on the bottem which, as we understand, is the website where they originally appeared. Keep in mind at the time there was, and still is, a publication ban covering this material.
We even found some of these pictures, with a red maple covering the private parts, on New York based Above the Law (http://abovethelaw.com - over half a million professional monthly readers) operated by Harvard trained lawyer Elie Mystal. Heaven knows how many other blogs have reproduced these images? For these reasons the pornographic aspects of the case may be academic/irrelevant.
Completely agree. Justice Douglas would have been much better served by stepping down from the Bench long ago given it's always better to jump than to be pushed. When is it not worth the money to continue?
Regarding Blackie, unfortunately, we're unable to update you. While we attended the initial 5 meetings at the Law Society of Manitoba we've been barred from the sixth and 7th (held yesterday at 9:30). Here's our response sent the other day to a senior official at The Society in response to their correspondence. CyberSmokeBlog has yet to receive a reply.
Note: Any e-mail correspondence received from the LSM is treated as public information. As a courtesy we do not normally identify the sender which, in this case, was a senior Society official - you'd recognize the name. However, we reserve the right to change that policy without notice.
Mr. Pieuk:
The Pre-Hearing Confernce commences at 9:30 a.m. I would remind you that you were asked by the Chairperson not to attend any further Pre-Hearing Conferences for reasons which he explained to you at the time.
Dear (Senior Law Society Official):
For your edification I would remind you CyberSmokeBlog’s position on the matter is outlined below in an excerpt from one of its recent postings (“OMG VJH is back!” –July 1, 2011):
On the subject of cojones Blackie has them in spades! He has filed a Charter challenge against the LSM. Early last month we showed up, along with a Crown Prosecutor from Manitoba Justice's Constitutional Law Branch, to attend the sixth meeting - this case is far from discipline hearing ready - only to be barred. After it was over, Mr. Douglas A. Bedford, a lawyer with Manitoba Hydro, came down to explain why we had been excluded. Problem is, he was wrong, wrong and wrong again!
In what sounded at times like a broken record, he went on and on and on ad nauseam about how we could "possibly" be called as a witness at Blackie's disciplinary hearing whenever that takes place. Being a Media Citizen Journalist would place us in a conflict of interest position. Of course, the LSM could never allow that to happen because it was paramount the accused receive a fair hearing. Problem is, it's the complainants who are the issue The Society has it back asswards.
LSM appointed prosecutor David M. Skwark (FillmoreRiley) had at one point sent us an e-mail suggesting the June 3, 2011 meeting was a Pre-Hearing Conference and, as such, was like a Pre-Trial Conference in Queen's Bench where the public is not allowed to attend. That was the basis of learned friend Douglas Bedford's argument.
Here's why we disagree. In a classic textbook SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) in which we were a Co-Defendant, the attorney prosecuting the case for the publicly funded Manitoba Metis Federation (reference www.jus.gov.mb.ca - MMF et al. versus Terry Belhumeur et al. File Number CI 05-01-41955) was able to get a publication ban at the first Pre-Trial Conference (September 8, 2008). Before it ended there were almost 30 Pre-Trials many more than convicted serial killer Willy Pickton likely faced if you can believe it. We self-represented for all but the last one.
During these Pre-Trials, on several occasions both sides debated Motions they'd filed. Justice Karen I. Simonsen who presided over all except the final one (she was suddenly and unexpectedly, at least for us replaced by Justice McKelvey) had previously ruled in response to our question whether Motions were open to the public that they indeed were and by extension publishable. However, all other discussion was not.
Back to Blackie. Given the aforementioned, Douglas Bedford erred when he chaired the June 3, 2011 Pre-Hearing Conference and ruled we were to be excluded. Blackie had filed a Motion, therefore, at the minimum we should have been allowed to attend at least that part of the discussion.
The next LSM meeting in the Blackie case could take place this month. Regardless and whenever if there is any discussion related to a motion(s) Blackie has or will file, CyberSmokeBlog should be allowed to attend at least that part dealing with them. Ditto for his Charter challenge.
It is our contention our right as a Media Citizen Journalist to public access information has been violated by The Law Society of Manitoba. We are considering a complaint with the Federation of Law Societies of Canada. Each province has a representative on its National Council. While it would be a miracle if the FLSC were to intervene, nevertheless, it should at least be apprised of the situation.
So how say you VJH should we file a complaint with the Federation of Law Societies of Canada? Little miracles do happen. Look at today's announcement from The Canadian Judicial Council.
Sincerely,
Clare L. Pieuk
Good Day Mr. Pieuk,
Well, well, well, it would seem that the CJC might have a backbone yet!
They are proceeding with a public inquiry. Considering the nature of the content of the inquiry (which by the way is still all over the internet) will be pornographic, exactly how public could it really be?
At this stage, I'm thinking that Madame Justice Douglas should avoid the public humiliation, especially since she has a teenager - the husband.
Really, how much more of the taxpayers money must be wasted on this morally bankrupt Justice and her (word deleted) teenaged husband and simply resign. Unless, of course, this is part of her fetish and will only provide more tittilation for her and him?
Simply disgusted, I remain,
VJH
P.S. - Unfortunately, I have no suggestions for Blackie, though I am very curious as to the outcome of the Charter challenge.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear VJH:
As always thank you very much for writing. Hope you don't mind but you're one of CyberSmokeBlog's four nominee's to sit on the CJC's inquiry committee.
To respond to your comments. We don't think the pornographic nature of the inquiry will matter. Here's way. Several months The Public Eye received an anonymous e-mail which he passed onto to us.
Truth To Power (www.accesstoinfo.blogspot.com; vicpopuli1@gmail.com)It contained step-by-step instructions for accessing the 30 nude photographs of Justice Douglas. Since it could have been a hoax we checked it out and there they were - completely uncensored. Some even had Dark Cavern handwritten on the bottem which, as we understand, is the website where they originally appeared. Keep in mind at the time there was, and still is, a publication ban covering this material.
We even found some of these pictures, with a red maple covering the private parts, on New York based Above the Law (http://abovethelaw.com - over half a million professional monthly readers) operated by Harvard trained lawyer Elie Mystal. Heaven knows how many other blogs have reproduced these images? For these reasons the pornographic aspects of the case may be academic/irrelevant.
Completely agree. Justice Douglas would have been much better served by stepping down from the Bench long ago given it's always better to jump than to be pushed. When is it not worth the money to continue?
Regarding Blackie, unfortunately, we're unable to update you. While we attended the initial 5 meetings at the Law Society of Manitoba we've been barred from the sixth and 7th (held yesterday at 9:30). Here's our response sent the other day to a senior official at The Society in response to their correspondence. CyberSmokeBlog has yet to receive a reply.
Note: Any e-mail correspondence received from the LSM is treated as public information. As a courtesy we do not normally identify the sender which, in this case, was a senior Society official - you'd recognize the name. However, we reserve the right to change that policy without notice.
Mr. Pieuk:
The Pre-Hearing Confernce commences at 9:30 a.m. I would remind you that you were asked by the Chairperson not to attend any further Pre-Hearing Conferences for reasons which he explained to you at the time.
Dear (Senior Law Society Official):
For your edification I would remind you CyberSmokeBlog’s position on the matter is outlined below in an excerpt from one of its recent postings (“OMG VJH is back!” –July 1, 2011):
On the subject of cojones Blackie has them in spades! He has filed a Charter challenge against the LSM. Early last month we showed up, along with a Crown Prosecutor from Manitoba Justice's Constitutional Law Branch, to attend the sixth meeting - this case is far from discipline hearing ready - only to be barred. After it was over, Mr. Douglas A. Bedford, a lawyer with Manitoba Hydro, came down to explain why we had been excluded. Problem is, he was wrong, wrong and wrong again!
In what sounded at times like a broken record, he went on and on and on ad nauseam about how we could "possibly" be called as a witness at Blackie's disciplinary hearing whenever that takes place. Being a Media Citizen Journalist would place us in a conflict of interest position. Of course, the LSM could never allow that to happen because it was paramount the accused receive a fair hearing. Problem is, it's the complainants who are the issue The Society has it back asswards.
LSM appointed prosecutor David M. Skwark (FillmoreRiley) had at one point sent us an e-mail suggesting the June 3, 2011 meeting was a Pre-Hearing Conference and, as such, was like a Pre-Trial Conference in Queen's Bench where the public is not allowed to attend. That was the basis of learned friend Douglas Bedford's argument.
Here's why we disagree. In a classic textbook SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) in which we were a Co-Defendant, the attorney prosecuting the case for the publicly funded Manitoba Metis Federation (reference www.jus.gov.mb.ca - MMF et al. versus Terry Belhumeur et al. File Number CI 05-01-41955) was able to get a publication ban at the first Pre-Trial Conference (September 8, 2008). Before it ended there were almost 30 Pre-Trials many more than convicted serial killer Willy Pickton likely faced if you can believe it. We self-represented for all but the last one.
During these Pre-Trials, on several occasions both sides debated Motions they'd filed. Justice Karen I. Simonsen who presided over all except the final one (she was suddenly and unexpectedly, at least for us replaced by Justice McKelvey) had previously ruled in response to our question whether Motions were open to the public that they indeed were and by extension publishable. However, all other discussion was not.
Back to Blackie. Given the aforementioned, Douglas Bedford erred when he chaired the June 3, 2011 Pre-Hearing Conference and ruled we were to be excluded. Blackie had filed a Motion, therefore, at the minimum we should have been allowed to attend at least that part of the discussion.
The next LSM meeting in the Blackie case could take place this month. Regardless and whenever if there is any discussion related to a motion(s) Blackie has or will file, CyberSmokeBlog should be allowed to attend at least that part dealing with them. Ditto for his Charter challenge.
It is our contention our right as a Media Citizen Journalist to public access information has been violated by The Law Society of Manitoba. We are considering a complaint with the Federation of Law Societies of Canada. Each province has a representative on its National Council. While it would be a miracle if the FLSC were to intervene, nevertheless, it should at least be apprised of the situation.
So how say you VJH should we file a complaint with the Federation of Law Societies of Canada? Little miracles do happen. Look at today's announcement from The Canadian Judicial Council.
Sincerely,
Clare L. Pieuk
posted by Clare L. Pieuk at 9:56 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home