Tuesday, September 15, 2009

Can you spot the inconsistency?

Good Day Readers:
On July 27, 2009 a 9-page affidavit was filed with Queen's Bench Registry by MMF Executive Director Oliver Boulette.
It was notarized by Federation lawyer Murray Trachtenberg.

www.ptlaw.mb.ca; mtrachtenberg@ptlaw.mb.ca

At paragraph 21 page 7 it states:
As noted in Exhibit "G" Mr. Pieuk is seeking expense documents for the period March 27, 2003 to October 20, 2004. I am not certain at present if all of these documents still exist. If they do, they will be in storage and a considerable amount of time will have to be spent to locate and retrieve them.
Exhibit G to which Mr. Boulette refers is contained in Tab G attached to his affidavit (total package 77 pages) and was a letter we wrote to Counselor Trachtenberg dated September 2, 2007 requesting:
(1) Copies of every expense claim submitted by each Plaintiff for the above noted period
(2) Written evidence of any and all payment(s) for each expense claim proffered to the Manitoba Metis Federation by the Plaintiffs for the aforementioned dates
On September 4, 2007 Mr. Trachtenberg wrote to us saying in part:
The documentation you have requested is irrelevant to the matters raised in the pleadings. They will not be produced.
So which is it? It seems to us if you are suing someone every scrap of relevant evidence should be saved.
Then at paragraph 22 page 7 of his affidavit Oliver Boulette goes on to say:
I am informed by Mr. Trachtenberg and do verily believe, that if a truth defence is allowed by way of an amendment now, it will be necessary to review and examine and possibly disclose additional documents from the financial records of the MMF related to the allegations in the election petition. I am also informed by Mr. Trachtenberg and do verily believe that it will be necessary to reconvene further examinations for discovery of both Messer Pieuk and Belhumeur which will certainly delay the trial of this matter scheduled for next year. I am further informed by Mr. Trachtenberg and do verily believe that if the truth of the defamatory allegations becomes an issue for trial, the number of witnesses called by the plaintiffs may increase and the amount of time each plaintiff is required to testify will certainly increase.
At a Motion Hearing held in open court on August 21, 2009 we argued to amend our original Statement of Defence. A decision has been reserved until a Second Motion for release of internal MMF documents surrendered to Counselor Trachtenberg under Court Order in May of 2006 has been rendered.
Terry Belhumeur still hasn't filed a proposed amended Statement of Defence which is being prepared by Winnipeg lawyer Regan Thatcher.
Clare L. Pieuk


Post a Comment

<< Home