Tuesday, May 01, 2012

Dear Mr. Pieuk:

I have followed your blog for a while now, ever since I googled my name and it came up in one of your postings.

My name is (CSB Reader), I don't think I need to say more on that subject. Suffice it to say, were Justice Douglas to remain on the Bench, and in particular, on the Family Court Bench, and I had to appear in front of her again, I would demand her recusal myself.

Considering the sordid details of my personal battle to keep an innocent child from being corrupted by a person of her ilk, I would take the position that an individual who is excited by pain and suffering cannot determine when another is being emotionally and/or physically damaged by pain and suffering. They simply do not hold the same standard of care as the general public and a judge is supposed to be able to apply the standard of the community to decisions involving moral conduct. A person who rejects these is not appropriate to apply them.

At present, my custody matters are at a standstill and access has not taken place for over 2 1/2 years. I am content to have this continue and fear that my attendance at the hearing would trigger renewed interest by the other party, or I would attend myself to see this woman removed from the Bench. I cannot take that risk.

If you can find a question in there, that is balanced, feel free to make use of the information, after all, as I've learned from your blog, my case is public record.

I do not consent to the use of my name as a person posing a question, and ask that if you must, you refer to me as a CSB Reader.

Good luck with your presentation and I hope you get to participate.

Dear Reader:

Thank you very much for contacting CyberSmokeBlog. Vaguely recall some information you sent at the time the Douglas-King-Chapman situation surfaced back in approximately July of 2010 when CBC Manitoba broke the story.

Given the sensitivity of your situation, one possibility you might wish to consider is preparing a written confidential briefing document (for lack of a better term) outlining the details of your experience for Inquiry Counsel simultaneously requesting you be allowed to appear in-camera thereby protecting your identity while giving testimony and responding to questions.

The Federal Courtroom where the first meeting will take place has seating for approximately 60 maximum 70. Our sense is it's going to attract a lot of people. Unlike the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, we certainly hope officials have the presence of mind to establish an audio-video link to a nearby room to handle what will likely be an overflow.

Clare L. Pieuk


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home