Sunday, July 29, 2012

Is Jack King out in left field without a glove?

Good Day Readers:

Here at CyberSmokeBlog we are not Philadelphia lawyers nor experts on family court. In the case of the former we have no formal legal training whatsoever while our exposure to Manitoba Queen's Bench Family Division is about 5-minutes. A manslaughter trial we were covering adjourned so looking for a place to land at The Law Courts we stumbled into the courtroom of Justice Frank Aquila.

Even at that we tail ended the hearing. After His Honour departed a gentleman (we're assuming the father) began giving it to his lawyer for not raising certain issues during the proceeding - that's the sum, net and total of our experience.

Jack King's comments in an April 2009 radio interview in which he suggested parental alienation was a "hot and sexy topic" has raised the hackles of several mothers who have and/or are still struggling with divorce-child custody cases before Queen's Bench Family Division.

In testimony earlier this week, Ian Histed the lawyer who negotiated the $25,000 confidentiality agreement on behalf of complainant Alex Chapman observed when Mr. King visited him in his office he (Jack King) was of the view "it was a lot of fuss over nothing seeing himself as a libertine and his actions as a lifestyle choice."

As if that weren't enough, Jack King had already testified under oath that his actions were" ..... bizarre, ridiculous, stupid, self-indulgent and grotesque. My judgment in this regard had left me. My understanding of fantasy is it originates in one's mind but it doesn't necessarily stay there." Talk about a classic, textbook case of simultaneously putting not one but both your feet in your mouth and chewing them. Inconsistent evidence? You be the Inquiry Committee.

We also seem to recall him saying he wish he'd blacked out the face of Lori Douglas in the photographs he  arranged to have posted on the site Dark Cavern. A rookie mistake Mr. King!

The horror stories these mothers are telling are really quite heart wrenching so we wonder, "Can all these mothers be wrong all the time?" You be the judge and jury.

Beginning with the initial hearing of the Douglas Inquiry (May 19, 2012) what has started to coalesce is, for lack of a better term, an ad hoc group of mothers who are serving as informal advisers to CSB given it's complete lack of knowledge and firsthand experience with QBFD. Who better than these ladies to tell us about a system which, at least to us, appears hopelessly antiquated, out-of-date and in need of an immediate major overhaul?

The Golden Rule

Any e-mail submitted to this site critical of Queen's Bench Family Division must be fair, balanced, well-researched and, therefore, accurate. Court related document(s) you would like posted must be registered and filed so it's public domain information.

Potentially defamatory or libelous comment will be deleted or re-worded. Under existing Canadian law, the registered owner of a website or blog is responsible for any and all material published on a site's main page. For imported defamation, where the contentious comments appear in a link, they are not. We will not jeopardize CyberSmokeBlog for the benefit of one contributor.

Should you wish to have information posted concerning your case you can self-identify, use a pseudonym or the marker "Anonymous." However, please, please please indicate whether you are using a pseudonym or self-identifying and do not wish to have your actual name published. We are terrible, terrible, terrible at reading minds. The e-mail you're about to read was delayed because the contributor failed to follow this simple, basic rule so we had to contact them for clarification.

Finally, one small consideration we ask. Should you send us an e-mail for publication if at all possible please, please, please ensure it's written using Times New Roman 12 point. For reasons we do not understand and cannot explain, it matters not, anything else when copied and pasted to the main page results in text that will be different from what's already there and, frankly, looks like hell and must be transcribed by hand. The posting you're about to read arrived in Ariel 12 point. Thank you!

Clare L. Pieuk


There was some previous discussion at the Inquiry of re-convening it in September and November, however, on Friday lead Independent Counsel Guy Pratte indicated the earliest he could attend would be in December. It is highly unlikely a complete transcript of witness testimony will be available on the Council's webpage until everyone has appeared.

In other words, Mr. King's verbatim comments will not be accessible in official written form until sometime in December.

Read on.

Dear CyberSmokeBlog,

Recently, a fellow Canadian mother told me about your blog. I had intended to write you on the weekend but was completely sidetracked by thunderstorms, my health and a father's rights type group trying to collect some of my Facebook friends for an "event" they are planning in Manitoba.

Then, I wanted to check you out a bit. Why so wary? Same as an animal in the wild who has been attacked and survived. I am in contact with many mothers across several countries who have lost custody of children to child abusers and to wife beaters. Some have had their children murdered.

Those mothers who are new to this horrific reality are frequently "sucked into" groups that are, in fact, a cover for abusers. These abusers try to have mothers/women on their side - gives them credibility. After years of learning from other mothers and children, I now know what to look for most of the time.

One such group is Canada Court Watch. There may be some who are "genuine" but others also are grandparents who support their abuser sons (in going for custody), some are abusers determined to demonize their ex, some are psychologists who have swallowed bogus and dangerous theories that destroy children like Garnder's parenal alienation - false memory types, false allegations etc.

I have just had a quick look at your blog and see that there is an awareness of this kind of dangerous nonsense. Essentially, it is not the failure of family courts it is a failure of our entire country. Women who tend to become mothers are second class citizens - we have only had a vote for a millisecond of history. Children don't even have a vote/voice.

There are whose who argue convincingly that the law is not failing children but is doing exactly what the law was meant to do protect property. It's a view that sees women and children as property, then daring to remove those possessions from the ownership is punishment.

It isn't just Manitoba but the entire country, however, matters may be worse in this province for a number of factors. I happen to be a white middle class (in terms of formal education) but I know that if I had been born First Nations or Metis or Asian (the list goes on) I may have had it worse.

Why am I writing you? I am delighted that a Canadian is blogging and writing about what happens in "family law." I hope you continue. Wasn't it in Manitoba where Justice Dewar babbled about "sex in the air" concerning a rape case?

There are many mothers on my Facebook Page who have survived (just barely) an abuser . Some have had their children murdered, some are active with blogs although they tend to be Americans (more people, more access to computers etc.).

I intend to promote your blog on my Facebook Page. It was you who found the Delichte file was it not? The 134 filings and 14 Justices - reprehensible.

Keep on with CyberSmokeBlog - Bravo!


P. S. I was one who lost everything but my life to an abuser. He tried I lived hence my interest.

All it takes for evil to succeed is for good people to do nothing ..... Edmund Burk, Ireland 1729-1797

Dear Anonymous:

Thank you for contacting CyberSmokeBlog. We trust we checked out to your satisfaction but, of course, you realize it's a two way street. CSB is very fortunate indeed to have some excellent, excellent individuals associated with it including single mothers fighting custody cases - they keep us exceedingly well-informed on the current issues.

You came back as highly credible. Further, we are also aware you appeared before a Special Joint Parliamentary Committee studying the issue of child custody and access. Since you requested anonymity we chose not to display the link sent to us otherwise it would have identified you.
Yes it was Justice Robert Dewar who made those intemperate, beyond asinine comments for which he was publicly rebuked by the Canadian Judicial Council and asked to apologize which he has since done.

Regarding the Delichte File (Karyn L. Delichte versus Brendan N. Rogers File Number FD0404-01-73022), in light of the Douglas Inquiry we stumbled upon it quite by accident while researching Jack King in the online Queen's Bench File Registry wondering what he was up to these days given he was not disbarred by the Manitoba Law Society for his role in posting sexually explicit photographs of his wife and eventual Associate Chief Justice Family Division Lori Douglas.

As this is being written there's another file that has pricked out interest involving Ms. Douglas in a custody case while she was practicing for BigLaw Thompson Dorfman Sweatman. We hope to be able to say more about that in the near future.

Oh, and one more thing. The Delichte File is not 134 filings. According to the Disposition Sheet it's a mind boggling 394 beginning in March of 2004 and continuing to the present day. We have every reason to believe there will be more filings.

Clare L. Pieuk


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home