The Harper government and the politics of fear!

Good Day Readers:

Ever notice how the Harper government uses fear in an attempt to intimidate voters? Fast back to the 2011 election where they told everyone who'd listen a majority was needed to pass certain key legislation otherwise we'd all go to hell. Well, look what happened. You gave them that majority and Stephen Harper has proceeded to unveil his much vaunted "secret agenda" - blatant disregard for parliamentary traditions and procedures coupled with a gradual erosion of your privacy rights. And while at it don't forget individual constitutional and charter rights.

Perhaps the best example is "poster child" Vic Toews. As Public Safety Minister he tried to ram through his infamous Bills C-30 and 51 which provided for unprecedented warantless internet searches. When the public reacted with outrage if you disagreed you were on the side of pedophiles. Ever heard anything more asinine? And what about his well-documented personal life?

Even more asinine Stephen Harper subsequently appointed Vic Toews to the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench where he's cruising to retirement in a sleepy hollows confines with a platinum-edged pension and benefits package. Thank you taxpayers!

Fast forward to today where the Harper government is intent on overhauling the nation's security legislation. Few would disagree with two exceptions:

(1) We all know what inevitably happens when an individual, group or organization is given more power? Are there sufficient independent oversights? So far there doesn't appear to be but even scarier is the Harper government doesn't seem to care

(2) Will individual privacy rights be adequately protected?

What Stephen Harper fails to tell voters is your chances of being harmed by a terrorist act is about the same as that of walking down the street and having a piano fall on you.

Sincerely,
Clare L. Pieuk

The pictures!

A public safety advisory from the Harper government!

Yikes, he's back!

The Gargoyle: Greg Horton's public comments on Mike Duffy case deemed "pretty good" by top Mountie

Jordan Press
Wednesday, January 28, 2015

Nigel Wright was the Prime Minister's Chief of Staff who arranged a $90,000 cheque to help Senator Mike Duffy's expenses. (Christopher Pike/Postmedia Wire)

When the lead RCMP officer on the Mike Duffy investigation spoke publicly about the case, he caught his superiors by surprise.

Normally, RCMP investigators in an active criminal investigation would refer reporters’ questions to the force’s media relations department.

But on a morning in late April 2014, Sgt. Greg Horton stopped to talk with a reporter about why the RCMP chose not to charge Nigel Wright as part of the Duffy affair. Emails obtained by the Citizen under the access to information law shed some light on what happened behind the scenes after Horton’s first — and so far only — public comments about the Duffy case, and why his words didn’t land him in any trouble.

What happened publicly

Horton spoke briefly as he left the Ottawa courthouse in late April, telling Global News the decision to not charge Wright was well-documented and the reasons would become public, such as through court disclosures.

“Once the whole investigative process follows its path, then those reasons will be made public,” Horton was reported as saying. “Nothing will be hidden. It will all be publicly disclosed at some point.”

On the evening of April 28, NDP ethics critic Charlie Angus faxed RCMP commissioner Bob Paulson a letter asking for a full explanation of the reasoning not to charge Wright.

On April 29, the NDP publicly released the letter.

What happened behind the scenes

At 11:38 a.m. on April 29, the RCMP communications team flagged the NDP release and emailed it to Paulson and other senior officers. One of those who received the notice was Horton’s superior, assistant commissioner Gilles Michaud. Apparently, Michaud didn’t know Horton had spoken to the media.

“I just found this out!!!” Michaud wrote at 11:54 a.m. “I am checking into the circumstances in which he made comments…I will get back to you with details.”

At 12:03 p.m., Paulson wrote back. Coincidentally, he had just finished writing a response to Angus. He wanted Michaud’s input. Paulson also sent a copy of the letter to deputy commissioner Mike Cabana for input, and copied his chief of staff, Supt. Steven Dunn, on the email.

At 12:10 p.m., Michaud wrote back to see the original letter from Angus. Michaud said this about Horton: “I will speak with him tomorrow! He made those comments as he was leaving the courthouse.”

Three minutes later, Paulson wrote to Dunn: “Fyi – I sent one” — a reference to the response to Angus — “to your name sake at ps” — a reference to Public Safety Canada.

Then Paulson turned back to Horton.

“I looked at Horton’s comments (and) they weren’t so bad. Pretty good actually,” Paulson wrote to Michaud and Cabana at 12:19 p.m.

“If you guys agree, we’ll get a version of this response of mine out and see what happens. I’m standing by to hear from you.”

What changed in Paulson’s letter to Angus

The final letter Paulson sent to Angus, which was released publicly, had some changes from his first draft.

– In a paragraph outlining the RCMP work “without fear, favour, or affection,” Paulson originally added this to the end: “Not always an easy task, I can tell you. I will not therefore answer the specific questions you had for me in your letter.”

– In a paragraph outlining how the RCMP decide to lay charges, Paulson wrote to Angus that investigators needed to have a “reasonable” belief that someone committed a criminal offence. The original obtained by the Citizen reads “reasonable and probable.”

jpress@ottawacitizen.com

Twitter.com/jpress

A billionaire, "Randy Andy" and a laundry basket full of xex toys!

Good Day Readers:

The unfolding sex scandal involving an American billionaire, prominent Harvard University law professor Alan Dershowitz, Prince Andrew no less et. al. has to take the cake for sleaziness. In the latest court filed document by accuser Virginia Roberts (reproduced at end of posting) yet more big, fat, juicy, salacious accusations are documented. You have to give pause to wonder where all this will end.

So who to believe? Conventional wisdom suggest the truth will be found somewhere between the position of both sides.

Financier Jeffrey Epstein's girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell minus her laundry basket full of sex toys.

Sincerely,
Clare L. Pieuk

Alleged 'sex slave' Virginia Roberts says she didn't have sex with former President Bill Clinton, but in explosive court filing, details 11-person orgy with Prince Andrew and others

Roberts, the alleged sex slave of billionaire Jeffrey Epstein, doubles down on claims she had sex six times with renouned lawyer Alan Dershowitz. She says Dershowitz stood casually talking to freaky financier as she performed oral sex on Epstein

By Dareh Gregorian
New York Daily News
Wednesday, January 21, 2015

Virginia Roberts detailed an 11-person orgy with Prince Andrew (both pictured) in court papers.

She did not have sexual relations with that man, President Clinton — but billionaire Jeffrey Epstein’s alleged “sex slave” is now swearing under oath and in excruciating detail about underaged sexual trysts with Prince Andrew and others.

In papers filed Wednesday in Florida federal court, “Jane Doe No. 3,” Virginia Roberts, detailed an 11-person orgy in 2001 with the British prince, who’s been dubbed “Randy Andy.”

Or, as Roberts called him, just “Andy.”

Roberts, now 31, also doubled down on her claims that she had sex with renowned lawyer Alan Dershowitz, swearing in court papers that she had sex with him six times - and that he once stood casually chatting with Epstein as she was performing oral sex on the freaky financier.

Meanwhile, Epstein’s girlfriend, socialite Ghislaine Maxwell, had “forceful” sex with underaged girls — including Roberts — almost daily, the explosive filing says.

One person Roberts said she didn’t have sex with while working for Epstein between 1999 and 2002 was his then-pal, Bill Clinton.

“I have seen reports saying or implying that I had sex with former President Bill Clinton on Little St James Island,” an island Epstein owns in the U.S. Virgin Islands.

“Clinton was present on the island at a time when I was also present on the island, but I have never had sexual relations with Clinton, nor have I ever claimed to have had such relations. I have never seen him have sexual relations with anyone," Roberts wrote.

Roberts filed the affidavit after weeks of being called a liar by Buckingham Palace, Dershowitz, and Maxwell.

In the filing, she stands her ground - and demands they and other unnamed movers and shakers who preyed on her be prosecuted.

"I am telling the truth and will not let these attacks prevent me from exposing the truth of how I was trafficked for sex to many powerful people. These powerful people seem to think that they don't have to follow the same rules as everyone else. That is wrong," she said.

Dershowitz told the Daily News that Roberts is the one who should be prosecuted - for perjury.

"Crooked finger Bill"

Roberts says she didn't have sex with former President Bill Clinton while both were in U.S. Virgin Island. (Getty Images)

“The notion I was standing around chatting with Jeffrey while she’s giving him oral sex is so preposterous - it's absurd,” Dershowitz said.

“They're all lies, perjurious lies - I never even met this woman!”

Roberts’ affidavit says Maxwell recruited her to work for Epstein back in 1999, when she was 15 years old.

The pervy pair "trained me to do what they wanted, including sexual activities and the use of sexual toys. The training was in New York and Florida, at Epstein's mansions. It was basically every day and was like going to school. I also had to have sex with Epstein many times. I was trained to be 'everything a man wanted to be,'” she said.

Maxwell, the daughter of late newspaper magnate Robert Maxwell, was “heavily involved” in recruiting young girls for Epstein - and herself, Roberts claimed.

“Maxwell was all about sex all the time. She had sex with underage girls virtually ever day when I was around her, and she was very forceful,” Roberts said.

"I first had sexual activities with her when I was approximately 15 at the Palm Beach mansion. I had many sexual activities with her over the next several years in Epstein's various residences plus other exotic locations,” she said.

“I also observed Maxwell have sex with dozens of underage girls,” Roberts said. “Many times she made me sleep with other girls, some of whom were very young, for purposes of taking sexual pictures."

Dershowitz, she claimed, “was around Epstein frequently. Dershowitz was so comfortable with the sex that was going on that he would come and chat with Epstein while I was giving oral sex to Epstein.”

She said she was set up with Dershowitz herself not long after Epstein hired her for massages.

"Epstein's code word for sexual encounters was that it was a 'massage.' At times the interaction between Epstein and the girls would start in a massage room setting, (but) it was always a sexual encounter and never just a massage," Roberts said.

Jeffrey Epstein

Alan Dershowitz

She said she had sex with Dershowitz “at least” six times.

“The first time was when I was about 16, early on in my servitude to Epstein, and it continued until I was 19. The first time we had sex took place in New York in Epstein's home,” she said.

A court filing accompanying the affidavit included statements from two former Epstein employees who said Dershowitz was a frequent visitor to Epstein’s Palm Beach home. Asked if Dershowitz ever got a massage there, one, Juan Alessi, said, “Yes.”

A "massage was like a treat for everybody," he said, and the room where Dershowitz got his "contained a lot of vibrators - Maxwell had a laundry basket . . . full of those toys' in that room," the filing says.

Dershowitz said the statements are “all lies,” and “I never got a massage from anybody. It’s made up out of whole cloth.”

Alessi said another visitor to the Palm Beach house was Prince Andrew, who once came with his then-wife, Sarah (Fergie) Ferguson.

Roberts said she had her first tryst with the fifth in line to the British throne in the spring of 2001.

"I had sex with him three times, including one orgy. I knew he was a member of the British Royal Family, but I just called him 'Andy,'” Roberts said.

Epstein, she said, had taken her to London, and told her “I was meeting a 'major prince.' Epstein told me ‘to exceed' everything I had been taught. He emphasized that whatever Prince Andrew wanted, I was to make sure he got,” she said. She was 17 at the time.

After the tryst, Epstein grilled her about how it went.

“I told Epstein about Andy's sexual interests in feet. Epstein thought it was very funny,” she said. “Epstein appeared to be collecting private information about Andy.”

Roberts said Clinton was a gentlemen on Epstein's estate in U.S. Virgin Islands contradicting recent reports. (Chris Bott/Splash News)

Epstein paid her $15,000 for her services. They returned to New York, and not long after, Epstein called Roberts to his office, where he, Maxwell, and the prince were, she said.

"I was surprised to see him again. Epstein and Maxwell were making lewd jokes about 'Randy Andy.' I had the impression that he had come there to see Epstein and have sex with me,” she said.

She obliged, in a room she referred to as the ‘dungeon.’”

The next time she saw him was later that year, on Epstein’s 78-acre estate in the Virgin Islands.

It was an orgy, with the prince, Epstein, and “eight other young girls,” she said.

"The other girls all seemed and appeared to be under the age of 18 and didn't really speak English. Epstein laughed about the fact they couldn't really communicate, saying that they are the 'easiest' girls to get along with,” Roberts said.

She said that wasn’t the only orgy she saw or particpated in while working for the mysterious moneyman.

The suit says many ofthe girls were supplied by modeling agency head Jean Luc Brunel.

“Epstein, Brunel and Maxwell loved orgies with kids - that is, having sexual interactions with many young teenagers at the same time," Roberts said - sometimes as many as ten.

Roberts parted ways with Epstein in 2002, when he sent her to Thailand to study massage. She met and married a man there.

Epstein, 61, pleaded guilty in 2008 to soliciting sex from a minor and spent 13 months in prison. Roberts and three other victims are fighting to overturn a secret non-prosecution agreement he signed with the feds, which identified as many as 40 underaged victims. The deal also spared his “co-conspirators” from prosecution, and Roberts’ attorneys say those co-conspirators include Maxwell, Prince Andrew, Brunel, and Dershowitz.

"I will continue to cooperate fully in the investigation and prosecution of Epstein, Maxwell, or any of their friends who participated in the sexual abuse of minors,” Robert said.

As for Dershowitz calling her a liar, she fired back: "He is lying by denying athat he had sex with me. That man is the same man that I had sex with at least six times."

RELATED STORIES Prince Andrew denies

  Prince Andrew Affidavit

A Kafkaesque legal system with graffiti scribbled on the wall of a bathroom stall!

The Before

The After

A nightmare of false acccusation that could happen to you

If you are called a criminal in a lawsuit to which you aren't a party, you may have no legal recourse to defend yourself.

By Alan M. Dershowitz

Wednesday, January 14, 2015

Photo: Getty Images

Imagine the following situation: You’re a 76-year-old man, happily married for nearly 30 years, with three children and two grandchildren. You’ve recently retired after 50 years of teaching at Harvard Law School. You have an unblemished personal record, though your legal and political views are controversial. You wake up on the day before New Year’s Eve to learn that two lawyers have filed a legal document that, in passing, asserts that 15 years ago you had sex on numerous occasions and in numerous locations with an underage female.

The accusation doesn’t mention the alleged victim’s name—she’s referred to as Jane Doe #3, and the court document includes no affidavit by her. But her name doesn’t really matter, because you have never had sex with anyone other than your wife during the relevant time period. The accusations against you are totally false, and you can prove it.

Well, that is my situation: I’m the one who has been falsely accused. But let’s continue to imagine it was you:

Your first instinct is to call your lawyer and have him file a denial to the court in which the accusation was made. But your lawyer informs you that you can’t do that because you’re not a party to the lawsuit (against the United States government seeking to vacate the plea bargain your client struck seven years earlier) and have no standing to file any papers.

Not to worry, you imagine, because the lawyers who accused you of these heinous crimes will certainly have to prove them in court, which they will be unable to do, because they’re not true.

No, your lawyer tells you. They didn’t ask for a hearing or any other opportunity to prove the truth of what they alleged. So the accusation will remain on the public record without anyone having to prove it or you having any opportunity to disprove it.

Well, at least you can sue for defamation the two lawyers and the woman who made the false charges. No, you can’t, your lawyer tells you. They leveled the accusation in a court document, which protects them against the defamation lawsuit as a result of the so-called litigation privilege.

How did the accusation get from a court filing in an obscure courthouse in Florida to the first page of many newspapers and the first item on many television broadcasts? Obviously, it was leaked; who is going to be checking court filings the day before New Year’s Eve? But the mere leak of a publicly filed court document cannot lead to a legal claim, your lawyer tells you.

You can’t just let the false story spread without responding. Moreover, you have documentary proof that you could not have been in the places and at the time Jane Doe #3 said she had sex with you. Can you at least respond in the media? Not without some risk of being sued for defamation, your lawyer tells you.

You have no choice but to take that risk, so you make your denials and counteraccusations on live television. You challenge the two lawyers who filed the court document to repeat the false charges in the media, so you can sue them. They remain silent. You challenge the woman, now 31-years-old, to bring rape charges against you and you offer to waive any statute of limitations, because the filing of a false rape charge is itself a serious crime—though it is rarely prosecuted. She doesn’t accept your challenge.

And then, sure enough, the lawyers who made the false accusation— Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell —sue you for defaming them—though they claim you can’t sue them for falsely accusing you of a crime.

Welcome to the Kafkaesque world of American justice. But Kafka was writing fiction when he described the ordeal faced by Josef K in his famous novel, “The Trial.” What I have described is real. It is happening to me right now. And if it can happen to me, it can happen to anyone.

I now stand accused of crimes I did not commit, by an unnamed woman who I don’t know and never met. I am also being sued for defaming my accusers. I still have no opportunity to respond in court to the false charges, though I am now seeking to intervene in the lawsuit in which the accusation was filed. I have submitted a sworn statement denying the accusations with great specificity. The court has not yet decided whether to accept my motion.

feel like a victim of a drive-by shooting or the object of scribbled graffiti on the wall of a bathroom stall. I may never have the opportunity to prove my innocence, or to have my accusers prove the false charges, in any court of law. But because I am relatively well known—a double-edge sword in these situations—I can at least fight back in the court of public opinion, though at the very high cost—in legal fees, loss of insurance coverage and the possibility of a large monetary judgment against me.

Imagine the same thing happening to a person who did not have the resources to fight back.

There is a gaping hole in our legal system that allows lawyers to bring irrelevant accusations against innocent nonparties in court papers that insulate them from any consequences, and to deny the falsely accused any opportunity to respond.

The law must be changed to shatter this hall of mirrors I face and others might. There must be consequences for those who file accusations with no offer to prove them and no legal responsibility if they are categorically—and disprovably—false.

I will not rest until this gaping hole is filled with reasonable safeguards, so that what is happening to me can never happen to another innocent person.

Mr. Dershowitz is a professor of law emeritus at Harvard Law School and the author of “Terror Tunnels: The Case for Israel’s Just War Against Hamas” ( Rosetta Books, 2014).

Norman Sabourin brings "Disneyland Over the Rideau" to the Canadian Judicial Council!

Good Day Readers:

When you read the Ottawa Citizen article (Around town: Earnscliffe opens its doors to fete Sir John A) it looked and sounded like one big halloween party for adults. Given Sir John A's love of imbibing, hopefully, guests were plyed with plenty of drinks. The Rideau Club connection helps explain the derivation of the Canadian Judicial Council's current business model that's woefully out of touch with reality. Perhaps Mr. Sabourin should get a group membership rate for all members of the CJC.

Sincerely,
Clare L. Pieuk

Sarah Jennings with Norman Sabourin, Board President of the Rideau Club, at a reception held at Earnscliffe on Saturday, January 10, 2015. (Caroline Phillips/Ottawa Citizen)

Gill Drake and her husband, British High Commissioner Howard Drake, were presented gifts from Rideau Club Board President Norman Sabourin. (Caroline Phillips/Ottawa Citizen)

The horny Justice of the Peace!

Justice of the Peace found guilty of sexual harassment

Judicial review panel finds Errol Massiah harassed and ogled female staff at Whitby courthouse. He was disciplined for similar behaviour in 2012.

By Olivia Carville/Staff Reporter
Wednesday, January 14, 2015

Complainants allege that Justice of the peace Errol Massiah would inhale then exhale while making sexist comments towards women and "scanning their entire being" with his eyes a judicial panel heard.

For the second time in less than three years, Justice of the Peace Errol Massiah has been found guilty by his professional body of sexual harassment and “ogling” female court staff.

Massiah was found guilty on Monday of judicial misconduct by a Justices of the Peace Review Council — the same council that disciplined him in 2012 for sexually harassing female staff in a different courthouse. In both hearings, Massiah denied the allegations and legally challenged the council’s jurisdiction, but his arguments were dismissed.

The complaints from both hearings stem from May 2007, the month when Massiah was appointed a justice of the peace, up until 2010.

Thirteen witnesses took the stand against Massiah in the most recent hearing, accusing him of leering at, touching and making sexually offensive comments to female court clerks, prosecutors and defendants at the Durham Provincial Offences Court in Whitby.

Complainants alleged that Massiah would inhale and then exhale while making sexist comments towards women and “scanning their entire being” with his eyes, the hearing panel heard.

One female provincial prosecutor (a publication ban prohibits printing her name) told the hearing panel that Massiah had leaned toward her, with his mouth close to her ear, and said: “Oooh, lady in red.” On a separate occasion, he said: “Mrs. HH looking goooood” as she walked past him into the courthouse.

“He raped me up and down with his eyes. I wanted to turn on him and say, ‘What are you doing?’… and then I thought that (…) would be suicide for my career,” she told the panel.

Four complainants claimed Massiah invited them into his chambers when he was in varying states of undress. This inappropriate and offensive conduct resulted in “a poisoned work environment” for female staff, according to the panel’s written decision.

Some prosecutors and court staff said they lost confidence in Massiah as a judicial officer after observing his conduct toward “young, attractive female” defendants in court. It was alleged he would leer at female defendants, look them up and down in a sexual manner and give them the “once over” as they walked away.

Massiah rejected all of the allegations during his testimony at the hearing.

His lawyer, Ernest Guiste, told the Star on Tuesday that Massiah was “very disappointed in the decision.” Guiste would not comment further, saying the disciplinary process was still ongoing.

The panel said Massiah’s denials were “unconvincing.”

“His testimony, and his demeanour while testifying, painted a picture of a man who is arrogant and who perceived himself to be appealing to women,” the decision read.

Massiah previously worked as an investigator for the Ontario Human Rights Commission. Opposing counsel argued this should have familiarized him with the legal principles prohibiting sexual harassment in the workplace.

In the 2012 hearing, Massiah faced similar accusations from Oshawa court staff, with one court clerk claiming he said: “Damn girl, where did that figure come from?” and another: “Any time you want to see me with my shirt off, just let me know.”

Massiah was suspended for 10 days without pay and ordered to attend gender sensitivity training courses. His $123,000 legal bill was picked up by taxpayers.

In October 2013, after the second hearing into Massiah’s conduct was launched, he challenged the panel’s earlier decision in the Supreme Court. His application was dismissed and he was ordered to pay $35,000 to cover the council’s legal costs, court documents show.

Massiah filed six motions during the recent hearing, with one claiming the panel had no jurisdiction to continue and that there had been abuses in the process.

Through Guiste, Massiah argued that he had learned his lesson after the first hearing and the training he was ordered to undertake had addressed any similar inappropriate conduct. His motion was dismissed and the panel decided his arguments had no merit in law.

Justices of the peace, who preside mainly over provincial offence matters such as bail hearings and search warrants, are expected to conduct themselves in an exemplary fashion, not just in court but outside of it as well, the panel said.

Massiah has yet to be disciplined for his actions in the latest hearing. His disposition is scheduled for March, when he could face either a warning, further training courses, suspension for up to 30 days or a recommendation to the attorney general that he be removed from office.

Once the hearing process is complete, Massiah may ask the panel for his legal costs to be paid out of the public purse again. The council estimates these costs will be more than $120,000.

Justice’s remarks to women

Ten offensive comments JP Errol Massiah allegedly made to female court staff, prosecutors and defendants at two GTA courthouses:

”Have you lost weight? Those pants really look good on you.”

“Any time you want to see me with my shirt off, just let me know.”

“Oh, I’m glad we are off the record so I can tell you how good you look today.”

“It’s not that you haven’t seen anything like it before. Mine is just brown.”

“I like two-tone blonds.”

“Oh look at you, pregnant and you still look good.”

“Looking goooooood.”

“Damn girl, where did that figure come from?”

“Oooh, lady in red.”

“Mmmm … do you ever look good today.”

You need to educate judges on how the social media works!

Good Day Readers:

This latest incident of judicial misconduct brings back thoughts of the pre-Douglas Inquiry where a Manitoba Judicial Selection Committee was of the mind set that because the notorius pictures had been removed from the internet, all materials returned under the terms of a confidentiality agreement plus none had appeared for over a couple years everybody was home safe - right? Wrong! The poor lads had apparently never heard of downloads how many of which there were we'll never know. CyberSmokeBlog dare says a savvy social media/internet user could likely find the pictures to this day. There are programs out there that do that sort of thing.

What the Ontario Judicial Council and Canadian Judicial Council need do is educate the judiciary on how the social media/internet works you know a 101 level course.

Sincerely,
C;are L. Pieuk

Ottawa judge to retire after Facebook post in which she mocked another judge with cancer

Andrew Seymour
Tuesday, January 13, 2015

Ottawa Justice Diane Nicholas is retiring.

An outspoken Ottawa judge who criticized a cancer-suffering colleague and another senior judge on Facebook has apologized and decided to retire rather than face a disciplinary hearing.

Ontario Court Justice Dianne Nicholas officially stepped down from the bench on Dec. 31. It was two weeks before she was scheduled to appear before the Ontario Judicial Council over remarks Nicholas said she inadvertently posted on the Facebook page of a local assistant Crown attorney in October 2012.

As a result of her retirement, the Ontario Judicial Council no longer has the jurisdiction to hold a hearing or discipline Nicholas.

“What I said was completely wrong,” Nicholas told the Citizen on Monday. “I regret it, I shouldn’t have said it, I apologized immediately.”

In the online post, Nicholas identified a fellow judge and regional senior justice by their initials and complained that one had given a woman a reduced sentence because she had a certain kind of cancer that “is hardly a killer . . . in fact the very same f’n cancer that (the sentencing judge) has herself… .!!!!”

"I was horrified when I found out that I posted that. It was never meant to be public."

Nicholas also lamented that between the two judges, the situation for sentences with driving offences “is getting ridiculous,” because their sentences were “far below the mark.” The contents of Nicholas’s post were part of an agreed statement of facts presented during a hearing in May 2014 into the judge’s conduct.

The Facebook post was seen by friends of the assistant Crown attorney, about 50 of whom were lawyers, and were “widely discussed” among defence lawyers, prosecutors, police and clerks at the courthouse.

Word of the remarks eventually reached the judges’ chambers and created what was described as a “toxic atmosphere,” according to Ontario Judicial Council documents. Two judges refused to work with Nicholas.

The Defence Counsel Association of Ottawa also expressed concerns about whether Nicholas could still be impartial in cases involving criminal driving offences.

Nicholas said Monday she regretted the post.

“I was horrified when I found out that I posted that. It was never meant to be public. It was at a time of great stress in my life. . . . I never intended to post it,” said Nicholas.

Nicholas, who has been off work since Oct. 22, 2012, said she went on long-term disability because of mental health issues.

She said she decided to retire on her doctor’s advice rather than face a lengthy and stressful disciplinary hearing.

Nicholas said the other judge was “absolutely right” to be upset about the cancer comment.
She said she doesn’t remember posting the comments, which she said were made during a difficult time in her life.

“Had I not been really exhausted and overworked and in a depression, I obviously wouldn’t have made those comments,” she said.

"It’s been a very sad way for me to end my career."

Nicholas — who had been a judge for 23 years — was facing anything from a warning or reprimand to suspension with or without pay, or removal from office, had the disciplinary hearing proceeded.
According to Nicholas, she offered to take any penalty short of dismissal — including suspension with pay — in order to resolve the case.

She has now agreed never to work as a judge again. Retired judges can return to work after the age of 65 to work in a per diem capacity, but Nicholas undertook she wouldn’t seek to do that.

“It’s been a very sad way for me to end my career,” said Nicholas. “It’s been painful and stressful and the only way I could end it was by retiring.”

Nicholas said her mental health has worsened since she made the online remarks.

“I do have a disability. I’m receiving disability benefits and I have been told I can never return to work,” said Nicholas.

Nicholas said she had been receiving 66 per cent of her salary while off work on long-term disability. Nicholas’ salary in 2011, the last full year she worked, was $258,236, according to Ontario’s salary disclosure list. She will continue to receive a disability pension along with a penalty on her pension as a result of retiring early, she said.

Nicholas had admitted judicial misconduct in a previous incident in 2004 after making inappropriate comments in open court and to her neighbours two years earlier.

In that instance, Nicholas knew the brother of a woman who was appearing before her. She said she knew the man, who was once her daughter’s soccer coach, and that he was a “loser” who had become romantically involved with the mother of another player on the soccer team and that she was “not a big fan of that.”

The woman was alienated from her brother and agreed to allow the case to remain before Nicholas, but the judge later told neighbours that the woman had pleaded guilty to welfare fraud. The woman heard about it from her niece, who had heard it from the neighbour’s children and a complaint was made to the judicial council.

Nicholas agreed and acknowledged that her conduct was inappropriate and indiscreet and that her misconduct was a serious matter.

The judicial council at that time accepted her “sincere apology” and allowed her to continue sitting as judge after determining the matter could be dealt with by reprimand, apology or re-education.

"Has the Queen seen this Prince Andrew?"

Lawyers suing lawyers ..... love it! "I never had sex with that woman what was her name ..... oh yes, Miss Lewinsky!"

Bradley Edwards

Paul Cassell

University Professor Paul Cassell fires back at Dershowitz, files defamation suit

By Pat Reavy
Tuesday, January 6, 2015

SALT LAKE CITY — A day after famed attorney Alan Dershowitz went on national TV calling for the disbarment of University of Utah law professor and former federal Judge Paul Cassell, Cassell and his co-counsel have countered with a defamation lawsuit.

On Tuesday, Cassell and Florida attorney Brad Edwards filed a defamation lawsuit in the 17th Judicial Circuit Court in Broward County, Florida, claiming Dershowitz engaged in "character assassination" against them in national media interviews, and acted in "willful, wanton, reckless, and intentional disregard" of the two attorneys.

For six years, Cassell and Edwards have represented two women, known only as Jane Does No. 1 and 2, in a civil lawsuit against the U.S. government. The suit stems from a criminal investigation involving Jeffrey Epstein, a billionaire Wall Street investor accused of prostituting underage girls.

Epstein was convicted on relatively minor state charges and served just over a year in jail starting in 2008. He is now a registered sex offender. Dershowitz was a member of Epstein's defense team.

On Friday, Cassell and Edwards filed documents in a Florida federal court asking that two more women, listed only as Jane Doe #3 and Jane Doe #4, be allowed to join the lawsuit already filed by Jane Does #1 and #2.



The women claim they were underage sex slaves for Epstein more than a decade ago. Jane Doe #3 claims she was also forced to have sex with several high-profile people including Dershowitz and the Duke of York, Britain's Prince Andrew. Neither are named as defendants in any criminal charges or civil suits.

Both Dershowitz and Andrew have emphatically denied the claims. While the Duke of York has responded in prepared statements issued from Buckingham Palace, Dershowitz made the rounds on television outlets such as the "Today" show and CNN.

The suit by Cassell and Edwards calls Dershowitz's TV appearances a "massive public media assault on the reputation and character" of the two attorneys.

In their suit, the attorneys say Dershowitz spoke "without ever conducting any investigation of the credibility of the accusations, and of having acted unethically to the extent that their willful misconduct warranted and required disbarment."

The attorneys contend that Dershowitz's statements "were false and known by him to be false at the time they were made."

"Alternatively, Dershowitz made the statements in reckless disregard of their truth or falsity, intending that the statements would provide support for Dershowitz's false protestations of his own innocence and direct attention away from Dershowitz's personal knowledge of and involvement in Epstein's criminal conduct and the subsequent coverup of that misconduct. Dershowitz's statements were and are defamatory per se directly attacking the fitness of the plaintiffs to engage in the honored profession of the practice of law," the two attorneys wrote.

Dershowitz's statements were and are defamatory per se directly attacking the fitness of the plaintiffs to engage in the honored profession of the practice of law. – Bradley J. Edwards and Paul G. Cassell

Cassell released a statement from Jane Doe No. 3 on Monday that said she is "looking forward to vindicating my rights as an innocent victim and pursuing all available recourse. It appears that I am now being unjustly victimized again. These types of aggressive attacks on me are exactly the reason why sexual abuse victims typically remain silent and the reason why I did for a long time. That trend should change. I'm not going to be bullied back into silence."

Dershowitz, meanwhile, told "Today" host Matt Lauer that adding his name to the motions filed on Friday was the legal equivalent to writing something on a bathroom wall and walking away. On Monday, Dershowitz threatened defamation suits of his own.

"The woman has said she wants a full investigation, I welcome a full investigation. I'm not trying to silence her. I've challenged her to repeat the statement to the press so that I can sue for defamation. She has repeated the statements about the prince. She has studiously refused to produce the statements about me. I have challenged her to file rape criminal charges against me because if she does she exposes herself to criminal prosecution," he said.

"I have challenged the lawyers to repeat these statements in public so there can be a defamation hearing. They want to just throw the stink bomb and then avoid any responsibility. They will not get away with this. … The truth will come out and it will show these two unethical lawyers should be disbarred. I am completely, absolutely innocent of any and all charges."

Harper government .... invite Prince Andrew on a fully taxpayer paid tour of Canada to get him away from this mess!