OMG VJH is back!

Your taxpayer financed Canadian Judicial Council now minus Justice Lorie Douglas. Notice the heavy layperson presence!

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post, "Judges judging judges sound familiar?"

Good Day to you Mr. Pieuk,

It has been a long while since I perused your pages and I admit I have been heartily engaged for the past few months.

Needless to say, your piece on judges judging judges caught my attention and I have some answers to your questions:

(1) What's taking the Canadian Judicial Council so long to render a decision which for most laypersons would be cut-and-dried?

It is likely that the CJC is desperately hoping the furor will die down and that they can quietly smack Justice Douglas on the bottom (which she will no doubt enjoy) and tell her to keep her private life private from here on. Aside from that I doubt they will take action, they are a rather spineless bunch who have no desire to set a precedent that would impact on their own conduct.

(2) While Queen's Bench Chief Justice Glenn Joyal has only said publicly in-limbo Associate Chief Justice (Family Division) Lorie Douglas has been assigned administrative duties, precisely what is she doing to earn her $254,600 taxpayer financed salary?

Probably nothing. I've heard she's hardly in the courthouse.

(3) Do taxpayers have any input in the selection of judges, determination of their salaries and benefits, as well as, changes thereof?

We have no input whatsoever, aside from electing the yahoo's that approve budgets, increases and expense accounts. We do have the right to ask and see copies of these documents, but by the time you wade through the red tape, the document is sorely out-of-date and has little effect.

(4) It has been said, "The CJC is a judges' best friend." Maybe so but why do we not have independent, third-person, privately funded organizations such as Judicial Watch and Human Rights Alert in the United States to challenge the judiciary for inappropriate decisions/behaviour?

For the same reason we do not have an independent agency watching over lawyers. If the legal community were held to the same high standards as other public professions, we wouldn't have any lawyers. It is those who interpret the laws, who know how to break them, and who are we to question those who interpret the laws?

(5) Why does The Association in Defence of the Wrongly Convicted financed by donations through its charitable Foundation appear to be the only independent, third-party organization in Canada serving this function?

Because no active, functioning public body is going to be able to find lawyers to go after corrupt lawyers and judges. To do so is career suicide, not too mention it would shine a light into corners of government that no one wants revealed.

I have a question for you.

If the CJC suddenly found itself in possession of cojones and recommended removal of Madame Justice Douglas - would parliament actually have the cojones to follow through?

Again, my apologies for my absence, I've been busy trying to rescue the family cottage at Delta, to no avail, and dealing with bureaucrats. Don't get me started on THAT topic.

I still seek, though not as dilligently,

VJH
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear VJH:

What a pleasant surprise! It has been so long we feared you'd fallen off the edge of the earth and, we would hasten to add, immediately gone to heaven. Sorry to hear about you loss. If there's one positive at least it wasn't your principal residence.

To respond to your comments:

(1) Completely agree - love your sense of humour! Here's our prediction. The Canadian Judicial Council will come up with a wordy, highfalutin ruling which, in the end, will mean nothing and bear little relationship to reality. It will be designed to protect their own. We see two possible outcomes:

(a) Once the dust sufficiently settles, Lorie Douglas will retain her Associate Chief Justice status (with its salary, perks and benefits) but will be hustled out of Family Division to be plugged-in elsewhere - with a meaningless reprimand much like the Law Society of Manitoba gave her husband Jack King although it would have you believe it was really, really serious punishment

(b) She is stripped (sorry for the terrible play on words), that is, of her Associate Chief Justice status but is allowed to remain on the Bench. We predict (a). Either way it will represent a slight slap on the wrist rather than a smack on the bottom

(2) We've heard nothing about her work attendance so can't comment. However, with all due respect we believe Queen's Bench Chief Justice Glenn Joyal was remiss in his vague, feeble explanation of what Justice Douglas is doing these days. After all it's only taxpayers like you and I who are picking up the salary tab. Accountability? We don't think so

(3) Again, completely agree. At least in the United States appointments to their Supreme Court must survive a public Senate Judicial Hearing Committee confirmation process. Not so here. "The Harper government" (code for Stephen Harper) makes the announcement and that's it. A couple years ago legislation was introduced allowing Parliament to debate potential Supreme Court of Canada candidates but even that is meaningless because a debate, notwithstanding, at the end of the day the Prime Minister still retains the right to make the final decision

We also like the American system were for certain judicial appointments candidates must run and be elected. There is also provision wherein a petition process can be used to rid the system of an ineffective, incompetent judge. "Those who pay should have a say." Why not try this as a pilot project for a few years in Maniotba to see what happens?

(4) Law Societies in Canada, including the LSM, are severely flawed because their processes are completely internal. That is to say they serve as the police (investigating a complaint), prosecutor and judge. If the Law Society were serious about implementing meaningful change, for example, they'd look at the business models used in Britain, the United States and several other countries

It's akin to going to court only to find the police officer who investigated your case is also prosecuting and judging it. Talk about simultaneously wearing three conflicting hats!

(5) Here's a perfect example to illustrate your point. Several years ago I knew a lady who caught her husband cheating. She warned him if it happened again that was it. Well, guess what? As fate would have it we attended the same meeting during which she appeared somewhat uncomfortable so afterward we inquired as to why. Turned out the lawyer representing the organization had handled her divorce at least in the beginning

At some point, her about to be ex-husband offered this lawyer more money so he switched sides. She had difficulty finding another solicitor in the same city who would take her case. It was suggested she ask Osgoode Hall (York University, Toronto) for a referral. Had she gone that route it would have meant fronting additional out of town travel expenses. Get this. She even had some difficulty getting her initial attorney to turn over her file when she was able to finally find alternate representation. There is no reason whatsoever to doubt her account. The incident took place in London, Ontario during the early 1980s

Regarding your question, "no" for the reason outlined in paragraph 1 of our response to your comment (3).
"Enemy to those who make him an enemy ..... friend to those who have no friend - that's Blackie!

Blackie's case currently before the Law Society of Manitoba is well worth watching closely VJH. He's fighting it every step of the way and giving the LSM a good run for it's money. Much like The Society's botched handling of the Douglas-King-Chapman sexcapade, this one also has the potential to blow up in its face.

On the subject of cojones Blackie has them in spades! He has filed a Charter challenge against the LSM. Early last month we showed up, along with a Crown Prosecutor from Manitoba Justice's Constitutional Law Branch, to attend the sixth meeting - this case is far from discipline hearing ready - only to be barred. After it was over, Mr. Douglas A. Bedford, a lawyer with Manitoba Hydro, came down to explain why we had been excluded. Problem is, he was wrong, wrong and wrong again!

In what sounded at times like a broken record, he went on and on and on ad nauseam about how we could "possibly" be called as a witness at Blackie's disciplinary hearing whenever that takes place. Being a Media Citizen Journalist would place us in a conflict of interest position. Of course, the LSM could never allow that to happen because it was paramount the accused receive a fair hearing. Problem is, it's the complainants who are the issue The Society has it back asswards.

LSM appointed prosecutor David M. Skwark (FillmoreRiley) had at one point sent us an e-mail suggesting the June 3, 2011 meeting was a Pre-Hearing Conference and, as such, was like a Pre-Trial Conference in Queen's Bench where the public is not allowed to attend. That was the basis of learned friend Douglas Bedford's argument.

Here's why we disagree. In a classic textbook SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) in which we were a Co-Defendant, the attorney prosecuting the case for the publicly funded Manitoba Metis Federation (reference www.jus.gov.mb.ca - MMF et al. versus Terry Belhumeur et al. File Number CI 05-01-41955) was able to get a publication ban at the first Pre-Trial Conference (September 8, 2008). Before it ended there were almost 30 Pre-Trials many more than convicted serial killer Willy Pickton likely faced if you can believe it. We self-represented for all but the last one.

During these Pre-Trials, on several occasions both sides debated Motions they'd file. Justice Karen I. Simonsen who presided over all except the final one (she was suddenly and unexpectedly, at least for us replaced by Justice McKelvey) had previously ruled in response to our question whether Motions were open to the public that they indeed were and by extension publishable. However, all other discussion was not.

Back to Blackie. Given the aforementioned, Douglas Bedford erred when he chaired the June 3, 2011 Pre-Hearing Conference and ruled we were to be excluded. Blackie had filed a Motion, therefore, at the minimum we should have been allowed to attend at least that part of the discussion.

The next LSM meeting in the Blackie case could take place this month. Regardless and whenever if there is any discussion related to a motion(s) Blackie has or will file, CyberSmokeBlog should be allowed to attend at least that part dealing with them. Ditto for his Charter challenge.

It is our contention our right as a Media Citizen Journalist to public access information has been violated by The Law Society of Manitoba. We are considering a complaint with the Federation of Law Societies of Canada. Each province has a representative on its National Council. While it would be a miracle if the FLSC were to intervene, nevertheless, it should at least be apprised of the situation.

We welcome your thoughts VJH and those of our other readers.

Sincerely,
Clare L. Pieuk

P. S. Had a lawyer once suggest to us the two must powerful lobbys in the province are judges and the Law Society of Manitoba.

P. P. S. By the way, Mr. Bedford appeared to be under informed about the Manitoba Metis Federation's lawsuit. He was unaware how it ended.