Friday, January 23, 2015

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.

Sincerely,
Clare L. Pieuk

Tuesday, January 20, 2015

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).

Monday, January 19, 2015

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)

Wednesday, January 14, 2015

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.”

  • Tuesday, January 13, 2015

    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.

    Monday, January 12, 2015


    Friday, January 09, 2015

    "Has the Queen seen this Prince Andrew?"