Wednesday, October 31, 2012

Auto giant orders massive recall!

There's a hilarious video a few postings below (Fellow Canadians, how would you like to shred your "favourite" federal leader in the next election?) that automatically activates as soon as you visit CyberSmokeBlog. It's not long, about a minute, so you can either scroll down to shut off the volume or wait for it to play through before starting this one - it's too funny to take down!

Will Mitt get cock punched from the Rosebud Nursing Home?

Why are Canadian political campaign ads so b-o-r-i-n-g?

Good Day Readers:

You must admit the longer the United Sates presidential election goes on the funnier its political ads become. Why are ours so b-o-r-i-n-g? Could that explain such low voter turnout?

Clare L. Pieuk

Douglas Inquiry Update: Did the Federal Court of Canada and Canadian Judicial Council violate the Charter?

Good Day Readers:

A special thank you to CyberSmokeBlog west coast contributor Chris Budgell ( who sent us the link to this article under the subject line: And meanwhile at Chaos Headquarters ..... along with the comments, The Lori Douglas debacle continues. Sounds like the final scene from a few of my favourite movies. To which we'd add and on Halloween no less!

Mr. Budgell is a layperson legal researcher par excellence so much so our in-house moniker for him is "Mr. Google."

CSB is of the view, the way today's hearing was held raises serious Constitutional and Charter issues, thus, shortly it will be writing to Inquiry Counsel Mr. George Macintosh. The correspondence will be posted, as well as, any response received by the site.
We have had several past dealings with George Macintosh both online and off. You may recall this site's application for citizen intervener standing was turned down. Realistically, unless you are the complainant(s) your chances of being successful are zero and none.While at the Inquiry per se he has always been a gentleman in responding to questions during breaks. Enjoy talking with individuals who were around prior to the advent of the computer.

Please stay tuned.

Clare L. Pieuk

Inquiry into Manitoba judge's sex scandal stuck in legal limbo
By Christie Blatchford, Postmedia News
October 31, 3012

The federal inquiry into the conduct of Manitoba Associate Chief Justice Lori Douglas is mired in a procedural bog.

That sad truth became undeniable Tuesday as no fewer than 16 lawyers, including some representing the inquiry panel itself and the Canadian Judicial Council that ordered the hearing, took part in a conference call in the Federal Court of Canada before Madam Prothonotary Mireille Tabib.

A prothonotary is a judicial official, akin to a judge, in the Federal Court.

This one had her hands full.

Among the hornet's nest of motions before her was one for one organization (the Attorney General of Canada) to be removed as a respondent to other motions, one for another party (the original complainant who kick-started the whole business) to be added as a respondent and one (from the Superior Courts Judges Association) to be added as an intervener.

It was akin to hearing a joke - a bad one - about lawyers. Question: "How many lawyers does it take to skin a cat?" Answer: "Sixteen, one to do the skinning, 10 to argue if the cat is a victim or a party or a respondent, and five to debate the merits."

The hearing itself, only the ninth in the history of the CJC, was examining allegations that nine years ago, before she was named to the bench and as the lawyer she then was, Douglas participated in husband Jack King's sexual harassment of his then client Alex Chapman.

In 2002-03, King had posted intimate pictures of her on a hard-core website and tried to entice Chapman into having a sexual relationship with her; Douglas has always vigorously denied she had any idea what her husband was doing with their private pictures.

Back then, Chapman threatened to sue King and his law firm, settled the complaint for a $25,000 payout and signed a confidentiality agreement.

But in 2010, Chapman broke the agreement, took his allegations public via the CBC, and expanded them to include Douglas in a formal complaint to the CJC.

The inquiry was the result. The panel, composed of three judges and two lawyers and headed by Alberta Chief Justice Catherine Fraser, began hearing evidence last summer.

The inquiry adjourned, amid heated allegations from Douglas's lawyers that the panel was biased against her, at the end of July when it ran out of scheduled days.

There was optimistic discussion that it might resume this fall.

But in the weeks that followed, the hearing was embroiled in a huge battle over its very integrity, or what some parties allege is the lack of it.

In short order, no fewer than three parties had filed separate applications for judicial review in the Federal Court.

All challenged the panel's impartiality, but the most astonishing one was from Guy Pratte, the panel's so-called "independent counsel," who asked the high court to find the panel had directed its own lawyer, commission counsel George Macintosh, to be too aggressive in his questioning of select witnesses.
Exactly a week later, Pratte abruptly resigned.

The CJC has refused to release his lengthy resignation letter, even to lawyers at the inquiry.

Since then, allegations have also surfaced that not only did the panel urge Macintosh to be too aggressive with witnesses whose evidence was favourable to Douglas, but also that it simultaneously tried to protect Chapman from too-harsh questioning.

As well, new motions have surfaced.

Chapman's lawyer, Rocco Galati, wants his client recognized as a full party at the inquiry. The federal attorney general, named as a respondent in the judicial review applications, wants off the record and for the CJC to be the named respondent, which the lawyers for the CJC oppose. The judges association wants to be added an as intervener.

Meanwhile, of course, Douglas remains in Winnipeg, unable to sit or work, her future in limbo.

Motions resume in Toronto on November 30.

"Ahooooo! ... Ahooooo!" Scary! Scary! Boys and Girls!

Good Day Readers:

Several years ago Toronto's Second City Television (Chicago-based version eventually evolved - Bill Murray, Gildner Radner, etc.) was one of the most popular shows on Canadian Television (1976-1984). As you can see below (Wikipedia) the troupe had an incredible repertoir of celebrities it could impersonate. Dave Thomas (brother of musician Ian Thomas) was the only comedian who could do a good Bob Hope impression.

Since it's Halloween, who could forget Count Floyd the vampire.

Clare L. Pieuk

Star Impersonations
John Candy Orson Welles
Julia Child
Luciano Pavarotti
Curly Howard
Richard Burton
Tip O'Neill
Jimmy the Greek
Hervé Villechaize
Alfred Hitchcock
Robin Duke Shelley Winters
Imogene Coca
Linda Ronstadt
Joe Flaherty Gregory Peck
Gavin MacLeod
Donald Sutherland
Peter O'Toole
Kirk Douglas
Charlton Heston
Henry Fonda
Bing Crosby
William F. Buckley, Jr.
Geraldo Rivera
Charles Bronson
Alan Alda
Gene Siskel
Richard Nixon
Jack Klugman
Slim Whitman
Larry Fine
Salvador Dalí
Eugene Levy Ricardo Montalbán
Henry Kissinger
Judd Hirsch
Bud Abbott
John Charles Daly
Floyd Lawson
Milton Berle
Neil Sedaka
Howard Cosell
Ralph Young
Perry Como
Gene Shalit
Andrea Martin Barbra Streisand
Liza Minnelli
Linda Lavin
Joni Mitchell
Joyce DeWitt
Indira Gandhi
Connie Francis
Bernadette Peters
Ethel Merman
Karen Black
Patty Duke
Marsha Mason
Brenda Vaccaro
Mother Teresa
Sophia Loren
Rick Moranis Merv Griffin
Woody Allen
Gordon Lightfoot
Ringo Starr
Dick Cavett
Phil Silvers
George Carlin
Brent Musburger
Michael McDonald
Al Waxman
David Brinkley
James Stewart
Elton John
Richard Dreyfuss
Neil Young
Catherine O'Hara Katharine Hepburn
Morgan Fairchild
Jane Fonda
Dorothy Kilgallen
Mary Tyler Moore
Elizabeth Taylor
Maggie Smith
Lucille Ball
Tammy Faye Bakker
Brooke Shields
Tony Rosato Lou Costello
Ella Fitzgerald
Lou Ferrigno
Edward Asner
Tony Orlando
Martin Short Jerry Lewis
Pierre Elliott Trudeau
Dustin Hoffman
David Steinberg
Robin Williams
Fred Rogers
Kenneth D. Taylor
Paul Anka
Hoyt Pollard
Jamie Farr
Scott Baio
Deney Terrio
Howie Mandel
Howie Meeker
Tony Sandler
Tom Hayden
Gore Vidal
Brian Linehan
Dave Thomas Bob Hope
Richard Harris
DeForest Kelley
Bennett Cerf
Michael Caine
G. Gordon Liddy
Roger Ebert
Neil Simon
Lee Iacocca
Carl Sagan
John Ritter
Walter Cronkite
Fred Travalena

Are you laughing yet ..... well are you?

Good Day Readers:

CBC Radio Winnipeg's morning show with Terry MacLeod and Marcy Markusa played this earlier to day. If it doesn't put a smile on your face don't know what will.

A special thank you to the lady from the CBC who tracked it down for us.

Clare L. Pieuk

"Well do you Federal Department of Justice?" You go girl!
Road Kill Radio Founder Kari D. Simpson

Good Day Readers:

Ms Simpson is calling for a Parliamentary Inquiry into the conduct of British Columbia Supreme Court Justice Mary Marvyn Koenigsberg in Simpson versus Mair & WIC.
If an inquiry is convened it will have all the elements of a D Grade movie about British Columbia's legal establishment - all the elements save for a first degree murder rivalling anything you've seen to date in the Douglas Inquiry save for the salacious pictures.

Kari Simpson has done her homework in spades. Her letter to Prime Minister Harper (July 6, 2012) documenting her arguments for an inquiry spans 32-pages. That to Supreme Court of Canada Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin (October 6, 2012) 4-pages. Suffice it to say this lady is not backing down she's got huge conones in spades!

Clare L. Pieuk

Tuesday, October 30, 2012

Federal Department of Justice


Further to my discussion with Carole (contact information given as

I have been directed to provide this information to I have been told that this is where complaints are vetted.

Be advised that to date I have not received a response from ANYONE. "ANYONE" includes the Prime Minister, the Federal Justice Minister, Chief Justice of Canada Mclachin, the Canadian Judicial Council and going back to 2009 the late Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of British Columbia Donald Brenner and others.

The matter must be resolved.

I want to be advised if the Justice Minister intends to investigate this matter or if he is refusing to address the violations of my rights and the apparent judicial corruption and cover-up that are transpiring within the courts.

I want to know the status of my case with the Justice Department and the name of the person or persons reviewing the more than necessary amount of documentation I have already provided.

I appreciate that the Minister for Justice could be found to be in conflict if he had knowledge of the facts involving Koenigsberg's J and is complicit in "over-looking" such facts when he assigned her vacated Vancouver seat to another Judge. The details about this event are in my letter that is attached to this correspondence, a letter that was sent by registered mail and confirmed as being received.

If the Minister is determined to be in conflict or perceive conflict and can not participate in the Department's review/investigation of these serious matters I want to know the name and position of the individual thereafter assigned.

I have also attached my recent correspondence to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. It is self-evident I have also posted below links to information I have already previously sent to Minister Nicholson but to ensure your receipt I am providing them again to you.

The link referencing "Sabourin" is my recent letter to Norman Sabourin Executive Director and Senior General Counsel for the CJC, detailing the obvious conflict of the CJC in my case and requesting that the CJC jointly petition the Minister or someone else if there is a perceived conflict, to investigate or convene a Parliamentary Inquiry.

The link identified as "Summery Brief" will take you to the Brief I prepared for the Prime Minister and also copied to the Justice Minister. It is not an exhaustive account of the events but suffices in presenting damning indictment of the unlawful judicial shenanigans that have played out in this matter.

The last link is my letter to the Prime Minister. Hollowing the letter is another copy of the Summery Brief but also included in that information is my letter to the late Chief Justice Brenner about his assignment of Koenigsberg, J to my case.

Please confirm as to whether or not the Justice Department is willing to investigate the serious matters identified herein by November 8, 2012.

If you need more information or clarification please contact me directly.

Tuesday, October 30, 2012

The day "Justice Roadkill" committed his own road kill!

William Ian Cornell Binnie

Good Day Readers:

It seems Canada's legal establishment speaking figuratively, of course, has an incestuous relationship in that the same names keep coming up again and again and .....

The the previous posting by Vancouver-based contributor Chris Budgell (The Train Wreck and The CCCL ..... a first novel by Christeropher J. Budgell) contains a link to William Bennie. Mr. Budgell, an outstanding lay[person legal researcher and no stranger to the province's legal system - not to mention the Canadian Judicial Council, has been a self-rep for years. In 2008 he won an important victory successfully challenging certain sections of the province's Labour Relations Act in appearances before the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

More recently, he filed an application in the Federal Court of Canada for a judicial review of the CJC's summary dismissal of two complaints he registered against federally appointed Justices (alleged conflict of interest).

Chis Budgell is camera shy but can be seen furtively undertaking research in legal libaries. Should you spot him be sure to say, "Hello from CyberSmokeBlog.

Which brings us to Kari D. Simpson another Vancouverite who, like Mr. Budgell, has no formal legal training but is also a superb legal researcher and writer. Both think like attorneys - someone should tell them they're not. While CyberSmokeBlog is not Philadelphia lawyers, nevertheless, it recognizes outstanding talent.

Justice Roadkill wrote the 2008 Supreme Court of Canada decision in Simpson versus Mair & WIC stating in part::
If you look at some of these public affairs programs, of course they are intended to sir up and you can't say everybody believes everything they say. But when what they say is highly damaging to a particular individual, and you really say, "we're sorry, you are road kill in this debate, but it is an important debate?"

Kari Simpson was called a lot of nasty names by Rafe Mair - the list is long and ugly - but she had never been referred to as road kill.For those who know the facts, of this case and know Kari Simpson, well, she will never be road kill. This story is just beginning.

And with that RoadKill Radio was born (
RoadKill Founder Kari D. Simpson
It seems "Justice Roadkill" has committee a little of his own road kill.
Judge Joe Brown: "Oy vey Justice Roadkill!"

Clare L. Pieuk
Supreme Court's Binnie Apologizes for Gay Slur
Remark in speech about 'faggoty dressup party' draws fire

By Kirk Makin, Justice Reporter
Friday, March 13, 1998

The Supreme Court of Canada's newest judge moved swiftly yesterday to defuse an uproar in the legal community over his public use of a phrase derogatory to homosexuals.

In a letter of apology to the Dean of Osgood Hall Law School, Mr. Justice Ian Binnie apologized for using the phrase "faggoty dressup party" during a speech to a school gathering last Saturday.

The incident took place at a large dinner to initiate new members of the Osgood Hall "Inn" (Branch) of a 130-year-old international legal fraternity, Phil Delta Phi.

During his keynote speech to about 200 law students, judges and other legal luminaries, Judge Binnie made jocular reference to an instruction found in a booklet laying out some fraternity initiation rituals.

"The use of the fraternity flag, wigs, candles and dramatic lighening will vary depending on the setting, character and tradition of the Inn," he quoted the pamphlet as saying.

Judge Binnie then remarked that upon seeing the instruction, he had wondered whether he would be attending some kind of "faggoty dressup party."

A woman in the audience recalled yesterday that there was an immediate stir among those in attendance. "There was some nervous laughter and a lot of people whispering back and forth, 'Did he really say that?" ' said in an interview.

In his letter to Dean Marilyn Pilkington, Judge Binnie explained that when he noticed the phrase in the booklet, it brought to mind a Globe and Mail theatre review many years ago in which the critic had characterized a production of Macbeth as "a faggoty dressup party."

He said the comment just "popped out" of his mouth, and he doesn't subscribe to the pejorative attitude that lies behind such words.

"Sometimes as here, expressions that stick in your mind lose their original edge and significance with the passage of time," wrote the judge, who was appointed to the Bench in January from his private law practice with the megafirm McCarthy Tetrault.

The woman who was present at the dinner - she asked to remain anonymous - said there has been considerable discussion among those who heard the remark about whether Judge Binnie's comment betrayed a hidden bias against gays.

"It may be an indication that he doesn't really perceive gays and lesbians to be a disadvantaged group in Canada," she said. That is a subject that is currently being contested in the Supreme Court.

She said she didn't think he would use a racial slur, "but if a member of the Supreme Court believes it is okay in an after-dinner speech to make a derogatory comment about gays, it means he doesn't think it is wrong to discriminate against people on grounds of sexual orientation."

New Democratic Party MP Svend Robinson, a leading gay-rights activist said in an interview yesterday that he was very upset when he heard of Judge Binnie's remark.

"The words are deeply offensive, and for a Supreme Court Judge to use that kind of language is totally inappropriate," Mr. Robinson said.

He said he called Ms. Pilkington on Wednesday and asked her to let Judge Binnie know it was imperative that he publicly apologize for the remark, "She said she would communicate the message to him," Mr. Robinson said.

He said he initially considered lodging a complaint about Judge Binnie with the Canadian Judicial Council, but has dropped the idea. "I have to give him credit," Mr. Robinson said, "He acted very quickly and apologized. I think the matter is closed."

Nevertheless, Mr. Robinson said, the matter should sound a loud warning to Judge Binie that he has departed his former life as a private lawyer with a reputation for delivering thigh-slapping, irreverent speeches.

"This will be a strong lesson in how the world of the Supreme Court of Canada is very different than the world of McCsrthy's," he said. "If anything, it is going to heighten his sensitivity to the profound importance of language."

Mr. Robinson said the remark would hardly have come at a more sensitive time. New week, the court is scheduled to hear arguments on a case involving the disposition of assets after the breakup of a gay partnership.

"The timing is terrible, coming on the eve of the court hearing, " Mr. Robinson said.

He also noted that immediately after Judge Binnie's appointment, there were concerns expressed in some corners of the gay community about him. As a litigator, Judge Binnie had represented a fundamentalist Christian group that sought to oppose a gay-rights issue before the court.


Welcome to This is your life William Ian Cornell Binnie!
Host Ralph Edwards

Just in from Chris Budgell:

Binnie is the first name and Wittmann the last name on this CCCL list (

I've just noticed Wagner's name above Wittmann's. Richard Wagner was recently appointed to the SCC, and in this article it says he was a founding member of the CCCL in 1998 (

I haven't really been following the story of that inquiry in Montreal. Who is running it?

France Charbonneau, Quebec Superior Court Justice

Wikipedia provides directions to his current digs.

Got comments/questions for Chris Budgell? He can be contacted at

The Train Wreck and The CCCL ..... a first novel by Christopher J. Budgell

Good Day Readers:

CyberSmokeBlog is indeed fortunate to have Vancouver-based Chris Budgell as a regular contributor. Although a layperson, his legal research while struggling for justice in the British Columbia courts and later the Canadian Judicial Council is beyond top drawer. From the links provided below, his ongoing communication with the CJC reads more like Alice in Wonderland which is why CSB would suggest if he does write an e-book perhaps a more appropriate title might be, Travels with the Canadian Judicial Council - An Alice in Wonderland Case Study.
Highly recommend you check out the links provided by Mr. Budgell they're fascinating and it's only going to get better in the weeks and months ahead guaran "you know what" teed. Should he decide to write an e-book we think it will have the makings of a Giller Prize Canada's most prestigious literary award for English fiction.

Clare L. Pieuk

Dear Mr. Pieuk:

As you know, Neil Whittman is the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench Chief justice and Canadian Judicial Council member who set the Douglas Inquiry train wreck in motion during January 2011 just after he, according to a letter sent to me by the CJC:

had dismissed my first complaint.

In searching his name, I came upon an interesting organization called, The Canadian College of Construction Lawyers:

The first name on this list is that of a recently retired Supreme Court of Canada Justice

and the fourth that of Canada's Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin. There are several lists of names here worth pursuing. And when I found this site my first thought was of the ongoing corruption inquiry in Montreal. It makes sense that the vast and powerful construction industry has a lot of expensive lawyers on tap.

This site is more evidence that the judges, as much as the rest of the legal establishment, maintain close connections with such powerful interests - a web connectivity of which the public is unaware.

This, in my view, is absolutely wrong. For the Judges to have a legitimate claim of "independence" they must divorce themselves from such connections, as soon as, they are appointed to the Bench. And given that the appointment is "for life," they should not be free to retire or resign whenever it suits them and then resume their former careers. But as we see SCC Justices routinely do this.



Thank you for your very, very insightful comments the last of which (bold) we couldn't agree more!

Here's another connection. for you. Justice William Binnie, to whom you linked, since retired from the land's highest court was the Justice who wrote the decision in the 2008 defamation case Simpson versus Mair & WIC using the phrase "roadkill" to describe Ms Simpson's experience that subsequently spawned the highly successful RoadKill Radio ( that is now going after British Columbia's legal establishment with a vengance. Based on her research and writings one should never, ever underestimate this lady!

As the late Frank Sinatra once said, "Massive success is the best revenge." If I were British Columbia's legal establishment, as well as, "The Supremes" I'd be concerned I'd be very concerned!


The lesson!

Good Day Readers:

Always carry a spare car and apartment key in the change pouch of your wallet or purse separate from your main ring (of keys). Over the years it has saved our you know whats on more than one occasion. Who among us has not experienced a hand barely leaving a car door handle realizing the keys are still inside?

Clare L. Pieuk
Drunk lawyer crushes her arm trying to get into her Chelsea apartment

Kate Kowsh and Rebecca Harshbarger
Sunday, October 28, 2012

Boy, was she trashed!

A completely hammered Manhattan lawyer who got locked out of her Chelsea apartment yesterday nearly lost her arm when she jumped down the garbage chute to get back inside.

The hare-brained bid began when attorney Maggie Baumer came home from a long night on the town at around 6 a.m., only to find herself stuck without the keys to her first-floor apartment on West 21st Street.

A source in the building said the buzzed Baumer had given her keys to a friend.

Instead of calling the pal, Baumer rang every bell until someone let her into the building, according to her super.
Don't try this: Maggie Baumer (inset) was severely injured when she went down this trash shoot which was taped shut yesterday. (R. Umar Abbasi)

But she got a little too creative with her plan to get into the apartment.

Baumer figured that sliding down the trash chute would get her to the building’s basement. From there, sources said, she planned to go through the cellar and enter the building’s garden, where she would be able to open a window in her own apartment and climb inside.

She entered the chute with her hands in front of her — and her arm got caught in the compactor, triggering a motion detector, authorities said.

A piston crushed her arm, cutting almost all the way through, according to an FDNY source. “It was barely hanging,” the source said.

At least 17 firefighters responded to the grisly scene, shutting off the power and giving her morphine to cope with the pain, authorities said.

It took about an hour to pull her out, authorities added. She was rushed to Bellevue Hospital, where she underwent surgery.

Baumer has lived in the building for four years. She is a Tufts grad who works as a lawyer for Goldstein and Lee.

Monday, October 29, 2012

The Question: "Does Manitoba have a taxpayer financed judicial brotherhood/brethren?" You be the judge and jury how say you?

Ron Gray introduces us to “The Brotherhood,”the collection of lawyers and judges who worked together to circumvent justice and shield each other from public scrutiny. Like any close-knit professional group, the Canadian legal profession backs its own in the face of difficulties – and boy were are difficulties: a lawyer as a defendant, a presiding judge involved in her own legal battle who steps over the line of legal behaviour, lax lawyers failing to follow the rules of the court, a lawyer who refuses to carry out her client’s wishes, and judges repeating defamatory comments as if they were truth! Is this Canadian justice? You bet!

Good Day Readers:

Until quite recently CyberSmokeBlog was unaware of a case involving British Columbia Supreme Court Justice Mary Marvyn Koenigsberg, that is, until Vancouver-based good friend and Associate Chris Budgell brought it to CSB's attention. He too has a fascinating story to tell involving his trials and tribulations with that province's "judicial system" including the Canadian Judicial Council. As a result this site has embarked on a fascinating research project involving Manitoba's judiciary.

After watching the above video and attending every minute to date of the Douglas Inquiry ... humm ... could Manitoba possibly also have a judicial brotherhood/brethren?

Last Friday we attended a half day Manitoba Court of Appeal hearing for Karyn Lynn Delichte versus Brendan Noel Rogers (File Number: FD04-01-73022 - child custody case) a file we stumbled upon quite by accident using the Department of Justice's online file registry wondering what "Polaroid Jack King of Douglas Inquiry fame was now doing these days given he was not disbarred.

Reading Delichte versus Rogers at The Law Courts Building, yes two large cardboard boxes worth, it got more intriguing by the minute. Ms Delichte (pronounced "Delight") a Winnipeger is studying for her PhD (Psychology) at The University of California while Mr. Rogers a former Winnipeg Blue Bomber linebacker (The team sure could have used him this year!) is a Certified Financial Advisor for RBC in the city.

The case dates back to March of 2004, has an incredible 400 plus court filings (some quite lengthy) and been  "touched" by 5 Masters and 11 Justices over the years. Instinctively, it quickly became apparent this litigation had to be the Poster Child for what's wrong with Family Court not just in Manitoba but elsewhere. Succinctly stated, it's badly in need of a major overhaul.

Our suspicions were confirmed Friday (October 26th). Karyn Delichte, a self-rep for the past several years, presented compelling arguments in support of her contention Justice Robert Doyle had failed to properly implement directions he received from the Appellant Division regarding access to the two children in a previous appeal she won against him. The hearing hinged on His Honour's Court Order issued in August of 2011. Ms. Delichte was seeking variance to that Order.

CyberSmokeBlog has sat through many a trial and legal procedures in both Queen's Bench and Provincial Court. Without question her presentation was by far the best including those by yours truly. In fact, it was superior to to many proffered by "co-called" lawyers. Prior to attending Friday's session we'd watched the above video. Upon hearing Appeal Judge Freda Steel deliver the decision on behalf of the other two Judges it was ..... humm .....

CSB took copious notes so as soon as the written decision is available it will be posted on this site along with detailed comments and analysis.

For more videos regarding the case of Justice Koenigsberg visit

Clare L. Pieuk
RKR Founder Kari D. Simpson

The book to which Ron Gray refers to in his video. Haven't read but Bob Woodward is good he is very good!
Jeffrey Toobin is CNN's Legal Affairs Analyst. Interesting read partially finished. Always take a book with you to the Manitoba Law Courts Buildings. The system works on Judges time not yours. .
Case studies compiled by Canadian retired attorney Philip Slayton. Case studies of Canadian lawyers who have royally ..... up and managed to get themselves disbarred. Read.
Left to right, Messrs "I Pad My Bills; "I'm Dishonest; and "I Sleep With My Clients" followed by "Ms I Take Bribes" and finally "Mr. Justice? Ha!" 

Fascinating August 6, 2007 interview with Philip Slayton about Lawyers Gone Bad and other legal issues . Recommended read. CyberSmokeBlog's Favourite quotes:

Then there's this gem from the South China Morning Post about a client who asked for a breakdown of his legal bill, which included a charge for "recognizing you in the street, crossing a busy road to talk to you to discuss your affairs, and recrossing the road after discovering it was not you." (at page 18 paragraph 4)

And .....

On the subject of Law Societies and why sometimes they're referred to as Flaw Societies:

So you have the the investigator, the prosecutor and the judge all essentially representing the same institution. I thought in this country we had a fundamental principle, that the person who investigates and prosecutes  isn't the same person who judges. (at page 20 paragraph 5)

Haven't read can't comment.

Saturday, October 27, 2012

See Hulk's muscle everybody!

Caveman: "Jeezus Hulkman you idiot they're talking about your "thing!"
Hulk Hogan denied restraining order against Gawker
Nancy Dillon
Monday, October 22, 2012
Hulk Hogan pictured at the United States Courthouse for a news conference ...

A federal judged has ruled can keep offering ringside seats for Hulk Hogan’s sex tape – at least until November 8.

The judge denied Hogan’s request for a temporary restraining order that would have forced removal of the sex tape from Gawker’s website pending a hearing next month.

“Plaintiff has failed to show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result before Defendants can be heard in opposition,” U.S. District Judge James Whittemore wrote in his ruling.

Friday, October 26, 2012

How say you Canadian Judicial Council?

Norman Sabourin Executive Director and Senior General Counsel
British Columbia Supreme Court Justice Mary Marvyn Koenigsberg
Lubomyr Prytulak

October 26, 2012
Kari Simpson asks conflicted Canadian Judicial Council to jointly petition the Justice Minister for Public Inquiry
Langley, British Columbia, October 26, 2012 (RoadKill Radio) - Kari Simpson, founder of and the plaintiff in one of Canada's most notorious cases of judicial corruption, in tightening the squeeze on Canada's so-called justice system, demanding accountability and a Parliamentary Inquiry.

In a letter today to Norman Sabourin, Executive Director of the Canadian Judicial Council, Simpson invites the CJC to jointly petition the Justice Minister, asking him to convene an inquiry into the troubling matters related to her 2004 lawsuit, Simpson versus Mair & WIC. Simpson points out the obvious conflict of interest the CJC would have in investigating this matter. She states:

It would be a fruitless campaign to convince any reasonable-minded Canadian that the allegations I assert could be heard by an unbiased investigator or panel of the CJC's choosing - not when the CJC itself is alleged to be culpable.

The case central to Simpson's complaint involves one of the leading defamation cases in Canada. The trial judge in that matter, Justice Mary Marvyn Koenigsberg, failed to disclose to the parties that she was not qualified to preside over the case as a result of her own personal legal problems that included her spouse being sued for defamation, vilification, libel, and promotion of religious hatred - ironically the same fact pattern involved in the Simpson versus Mair

To make matters worse, Justice Koenigsberg engaged in an unlawful activity, the fraudulent conveyance of a personal asset worth close to a million dollars at the time, in an attempt to thwart a legal claim against the property while presiding over the Simpson Case. (A Summary Brief of the events can be found here). Be warned, while it reads like a movie of the week, the accounts contained herein are true. The names have not been changed as there is no one to protect as innocent.)

The most troubling aspect of this case is the fact that numerous lawyers and judges know about these facts and failed to act in a matter that would inspire confidence and trust among Canadians. instead, it appears the judicial wagons circled, and the unwritten code of silence was invoked, Simpson says. In her letter to the CJC, Simpson states:

I trust that after your review of this information, you will agree that while the events of fraud, corruption, defamation, obstruction of justice, violation of my rights and defilement of the judicial machinery aren't as carnally salacious as the Justice Lori Douglas matter, they are, in fact, far more serious and damaging to the administration of justice; and when proven true, they will deliver a certain death blow to the theory that judges can be trusted to police themselves.

Simpson also provided the CJC Executive Director with a prepared petition, addressed to The Honourable Rob Nicholson - a petition upon which her own signature is already penned.

The petition also cites serious and disconcerting conduct that the justices named are alleged to have engaged in - conduct that, if proven true, should result in a major overhaul of the so-called justice system, and how Canada's judges are monitored.

"Judicial independence should be used to protect the courts from government interference," says Simpson, "but not as a shield to hide judicial malfeasance."


Kari Simpson (604) 514-1614

The Delichte File

Good Day Readers:

Spent the morning at Manitoba Court of Appeal in Karyn L. Delichte (pronounced "Delight") versus Brendan N. Rogers File Number: FD04-01-73022. CyberSmokeBlog is focusing on this particular case because it believes it is the poster child for what's wrong in Family Court not just in Manitoba but everywhere. Long story short, it's in crisis badly in need of a major overhaul.

Ms Delichte, a Winnipeger, is in a PhD candidate (Psychology) at the University of California while Mr. Brendan Rogers, a former Winnipeg Blue Bomber (linebacker), is a Certified Financial Advisor with RBC Winnipeg.
Why a poster child? The case: dates to March of 2004; has an incredible 400 filings; 11 Justices and 5 Masters have been involved.

Karyn Delichte spent much of the morning arguing her appeal which, by the way, was better than a lot of lawyers CSB has observed over the years in both Queen's Bench and Provincial Court. If you didn't know you would have thought she was a veteran attorney.

Brendan Rogers was represented by Jack Anthony King (of Douglas Inquiry fame) and a second unidentified solicitor. Mr. King spoke briefly at the end in response to three questions asked by Judge Freda M. Steel.
CyberSmokeBlog was advised Mr. Rogers was seated in the gallery with a lady identified as a friend.

After a brief recess, the Panel returned and Judge Steel read the decision. CSB kept copious notes. As soon as the written decision has been filed with the Appellate Court, CyberSmokeBlog will post it along with its analysis/comments.

Clare L. Pieuk

Thursday, October 25, 2012

"Rape is rape" ..... Barack Obama

You need to shut your face convicted felon Lord Black of Crossharbour!

Security violations cost Conrad Black $6.1 million
Paul Waldie
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
Conrad Black speaks in Toronto on June 22, 2012 (Chris Young/The Canadian Press)

Conrad Black’s scathing critique of the American justice system in his book A Matter of Principle has come back to haunt him in a Chicago court.

A U.S. federal judge has cited comments Lord Black made in the book in ordering the former media tycoon to pay $6.1-million in penalties for violating U.S. securities laws during his time at Chicago-based Hollinger International Inc.

“Black has advanced no reason to believe that he now has any respect for the securities laws or any regret for the losses or costs his violations have caused,” wrote Judge William T. Hart of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. “He is intransigent in his denunciation of the courts and the justice system. See Conrad Black, A Matter of Principle.”

Lord Black said he plans to appeal the ruling.

“The government lost its claim for more, and my book, which is having a fire launch here in the U.K., was attached as an exhibit, and we will appeal the rubbish of the basic finding,” he said in an e-mail from London.

The Securities and Exchange Commission also seized on Lord Black’s book, arguing in court filings that the comments were so outrageous he should be ordered to pay an additional $4.1-million in penalties, on top of the $6.1-million. “Impenitence of this magnitude is deserving of significant penalties,” the SEC argued, referring to the text that was published last year.

The SEC has been after Lord Black since 2004, when it charged him with violating securities laws while at Hollinger. The civil case has been running off and on in the same federal courthouse where Lord Black battled criminal charges involving fraud at Hollinger. He was ultimately convicted of one count each of fraud and obstruction of justice and spent roughly three years in prison.

The SEC won a judgment against him in 2008, which included banning him from serving as an officer or director of a U.S. public company. Judge Hart awaited the final outcome of appeals in the criminal case before imposing the financial penalty on October 9.

During its submissions to Judge Hart on the penalties, the SEC cited A Matter of Principle, arguing it showed Lord Black had “grown even less contrite with time.”

The commission quoted passages of the book, noting that at one point Lord Black cast himself as a victim of the “fetid, ward-heeling political bazaar of the Chicago Federal Courthouse, made no less sinister by the Little Red Riding Hood demeanour of [federal Judge Amy] St. Eve and the stertorous and insolent biases of [appeal court Judge Richard] Posner.” It also added that “notwithstanding such perceived indignities, Black magnanimously offers to ‘forgive America for wrongly imprisoning me and victimizing my shareholders.’ ”

Lord Black’s lawyers countered by arguing the SEC was quoting selectively from the book and that it had nothing to do with the civil case. They noted that not only had Lord Black gone to jail, he has also been barred from entering the U.S. for 30 years and he has spent nearly $30-million on fines, legal bills and other penalties.