Monday, June 25, 2012

Our day at the Douglas Inquiry?

CyberSmokeBlog's application for intervener standing
Good Day Readers:

As you can see our application got squashed but we fully expected it would. The good news is we've already set a single all time high for visitors to the sight in one day and there still is over 3-hours left. We do not discuss this metric publicly. Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! But it just gets better.

There was a clutch of reporters covering the Inquiry one of whom was veteran National Post journalist  Christie Blatchford.
Ms Blatchford mentioned in conversation she was aware of CyberSmokeBlog, liked its set up and humorous approach to presenting the news. That sure warmed the cockles of our heart! "Did you hear that Inquiry Committee and Counsel ..... well did you?"

Then there was Ms Molly Reynolds.
She along with lead Counsel Sheila Block form the backbone of ACJ Douglas' legal team. But there were two others seated at the counsel table behind them who appeared to be young lawyers or possibly articling students. The front "benchers" were seen to be passing instructions to the "back benchers" to do information searchs. Add up all these salaries and how much do you think this is costing taxpayers per hour readers?

While discussing our application for reason(s) know only to Ms Reynolds she asked to show the Inquiry Committee a copy  of one of our recent articles reproduced verbatim from The Winnipeg Free Press about the city's only Kink Club on McDermot Avenue. Remember that one?
Now you do. She then proceeded to provide the Committee with other copies of some of our postings. Next came a statement we'd made in a posting shortly after the initial pre-Inquiry hearing on May 19th how we'd survived the cut to fight another day or words to that effect.

The reference was to the fact both Independent Counsel Guy Pratte and Team Block-Reynolds had recommended our application be dismissed, however, since The Notice of Allegations had yet to be released we were able to successfully argue applicants did not have all the information required to tender a complete submission capable of success.

Seems we didn't have the right stuff. Wonder if we will when as taxpayers we are asked to pay for the Inquiry.

Then there was Independent Counsel Guy Pratte.

Cher Hazen who, like CyberSmokeBlog, was also rejected for the same reason - as a proposed intervener she was not sufficiently directly impacted by the outcome of the Inquiry. My goodness, this lady has appeared multiple times before ACJ Douglas in a child custody case. But she got Mr. Pratte good when she pointed out if there are not going to be any interveners perhaps the "Public" should be taken out of Inquiry.

Then Guy Pratte goes on to say, "..... the job of a senior judge is at stake ....." Oh really. And what about those women and their children who may have been negatively impacted by Associate Chief Chief Douglas while she was on the Bench?

And perhaps Mr. Pratte can explain how someone, anyone can be directly impacted when Ms Douglas has not sat on the Bench for two years.

We called upon the Inquiry Committee to recommend the Federal Minister of Justice order a complete and thorough independent review of all cases presided over by Lori Douglas. Chief Justice Fraser reminded us that this was not a matter for intervener candidates to consider. Perhaps so but, there, we said it again and are glad we did.
As for Alex Chapman, he could best be described as being on intervener life support. If the Inquiry is feeling particularly generous he may get limited standing to attend one of the four allegations being heard against Lori Douglas.

Clare L. Pieuk


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home