CRITIC'S CORNER

Critic Corner Archive


May 1, 2008

Georgia Straight

Charlie Smith

Resident objects to cellphone towers in West End

Cell-Towers in the West End

A West End tenant has written to Vancouver mayor Sam Sullivan to object to the installation of seven cellphone-transmission antennas on the roof of her building. In her April 24 letter to Sullivan, Tina Zanetti stated that she discovered that two separate permits had been issued to Mott Electric earlier this year without any notification to area residents about the “health hazards associated with electromagnetic radiation”.

Zanetti, a resident of 1395 Beach Avenue, noted in her letter that cellphone towers are regulated by the federal government. She accused the city of being “completely reckless” in its handling of this issue. Zanetti demanded that the mayor impose a stop-work order and immediately notify West End residents of this in writing. She also wants a notice published in a newspaper for the purpose of holding a public forum on the issue.

Sullivan aide Dana Bertrand wrote to Zanetti on April 25 to say that these permits are granted “on a regular basis (almost daily) and notice to surrounding buildings is not required”. Bertrand added that health standards are being met.

Sullivan was a member of Vancouver city council in July 1997, when the city’s board of variance revoked building and development permits for a Microcell wireless transmission tower and antenna. The board, which hears appeals of planning decisions, ruled in favour of parents who objected to the facility being installed next door to a school, in a cross at Fraserview Assembly Church, now known as Harvest City Church. Microcell voluntarily turned off the antenna several months later.

Martin Weatherall, a resident of Bright, Ontario, filed a petition last year to the federal auditor general concerning the harmful effects of electromagnetic radiation from cellphone towers. Health Canada’s radiation-protection bureau limits maximum exposure to a “Safety Code 6” guideline, which is 50 times less than the level defined as the lowest that could produce harmful effects.

Health Minister Tony Clement wrote a reply to the auditor general stating that there is no “scientifically justifiable” reason to issue health warnings.

“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human exposure to RF fields below the limits outlined in Safety Code 6 produce any adverse human health effects,” Clement wrote.

In his reply to the auditor general, Environment Minister John Baird wrote: “At the present time, Environment Canada has no regulations in place to protect the environment from the effects of electro magnetic radiation.”

----------------

Since Tina Zanetti wrote to the Mayor's Office, the project has accelerated on the roof of 1395 Beach Avenue, in Vancouver, B.C.

There are serious concerns since the city is keeping everything a secret from the residents in the West End regarding the antennas.

The City Deputy Electrical Safety Manager & Supervisor of Field Operations Electrical Inspections Branch, Mr. John McMahon, on April 29, 08, in an email advised Ms. Zanetti that he won’t release any information regarding the project at 1395 Beach Avenue and if she wants to have particulars on the project, including the power capacity of the antennas, she is advised to make a request via the FOI.

Ms. Zanetti was further told that her “facts related to the increased power capacity are not accurate and have no direct relationship to the radio wave power required for this project”. However Mr. McMahon is not prepared to tell Ms. Zanetti the power capacity which may even be higher than what her friend with a PhD in electric engineering told her.

Further, Mr. John McMahon is not prepared to give Ms. Zanetti the name of the electrical designer involved with the project at 1395 Beach Avenue, which he claims is a professional engineer, thus leading any reasonable person to conclude that there are no qualified people involved in the project at 1395 Beach Avenue.

The City of Vancouver, together with Bonniehon Enterprises, the Minister of Industry of Canada, Bell Mobility and Mott Electric are all engaged in criminal activity regarding the cell phone tower at 1395 Beach Ave. by relying on law legislated by the Minister of Industry to harm residents of this country regarding microwave radiation which has now found its way in the West End of Vancouver. At all times, each one of them, knowingly have engaged intentionally in fraudulent business practice by deliberately failing to give notice to the residents of the property and to the residents near by. Further each one of them, intentionally are misrepresenting the true facts regarding the power capacity of the seven (7) roof antennas directed to residents of other buildings.

Letter to Mayor Sam Sullivan

More about the owner of 1395 Beach Ave.

------------------------------------------------------------

Click on the following link and read on how a Judge of the British Columbia Supreme Court has ordered a publication ban, to prevent anyone knowing about his order, to publish any information that is in the best interest of the public interest. The Order is intended to prevent anyone to publish any information about Realtor Noella Neale of Re/Max, even if the information was obtained from public bodies.

Note that the reporter who wrote about Noella Neale after the order was granted, is herself in breach of the Order.

Real Estate Fraud and Property Theft

In the meantime, the Supreme Court of Canada has agreed to hear an appeal of an Ottawa Citizen libel case that could greatly expand legal protection for journalists who responsibly report stories in the public interest. Canwest Global Communications Corp. was also granted leave.

Public interests should be more important than reputations of any individuals, including and not limited to, police officers, judges, lawyers, doctors, and Realtors such as Noella Neale who is a Realtor selling homes for less than market value.

The decision of the SCC should determine in what direction this country is heading and what protections will be given to journalist who publish stories that are in the public interest.

It will also determine whether the gag order the judge made to protect Realtor Noella Neale is unconstitutional.

Published: Friday, April 04, 2008

Supreme Court to hear newspaper's libel appeal

Ottawa Citizen Case

Don Butler, Canwest News Service

National Post Article

OTTAWA - The Supreme Court of Canada has agreed to hear an appeal of an Ottawa Citizen libel case that could greatly expand legal protection for journalists who responsibly report stories in the public interest.

Yesterday, the court granted the Ottawa Citizen and its corporate owner, Canwest Global Communications Corp., leave to appeal a decision by the Ontario Court of Appeal in the case of former Ontario Provincial Police officer Danno Cusson. The outcome "will affect the work of journalists across the country," said Citizen lawyer Richard Dearden. "This appeal will decide what protections will be given to media who responsibly publish stories that are in the public interest."

The Citizen has argued the case raises significant issues about the balance between protecting reputation and freedom of the press. Ron Caza, Mr. Cusson's lawyer, agreed the stakes are high, saying "very serious consequences" will flow from the Supreme Court's finding.

Last year, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld a 2006 jury verdict that awarded Mr. Cusson $125,000 in damages for Citizen articles that raised questions about his conduct as a police officer in Ottawa and New York City during the two weeks following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. At the same time, the court created a new qualified privilege defence for stories dealing with matters of public interest, as long as the journalists who researched and wrote them did so responsibly.

In effect, the appeal court said, the new defence shifts the law of defamation away from its rigid focus on protecting reputations to a freer and more open discussion of matters of public interest. Because it was created by an Ontario court, the new "responsible journalism public interest" defence only applies in this province.

The Supreme Court could extend it to all journalists in Canada if it rules in favour of the Citizen, Mr. Dearden said.

Though the Ontario Court of Appeal created the new defence, it ruled it did not apply in Mr. Cusson's case because Citizen lawyers didn't argue it at the original trial.

If the Supreme Court finds the new defence should have been available to the Citizen, it's possible the jury verdict in Mr. Cusson's case could be overturned, Mr. Dearden said.

Mr. Caza was disappointed the court had agreed to hear the Citizen appeal. "We were hoping for Mr. Cusson that, having been successful both at trial and at the Court of Appeal, he'd be able to close the door on this matter."

That said, the court will be determining some "very important issues," Mr. Caza said.

One of them, he said, is to what extent the new defence would "have a negative impact, in fact a chilling effect, on individuals and their ability or willingness to protect their reputations."

This will be the first time since the Charter of Rights came into force in 1982 that the Supreme Court will rule on the availability of the defence of qualified privilege to the media for publication to "the world at large."

Traditionally, an occasion of qualified privilege exists when someone has an interest or duty -- legal, social or moral -- to communicate information to another person, who has a corresponding interest or duty to receive it. Several Supreme Court decisions in the 1950s and 1960s denied the media that traditional qualified privilege defence for statements published to the public generally.

However, since then, several lower court rulings have accepted the defence for media stories in certain circumstances. At the Cusson trial, presiding Judge Robert Maranger accepted the traditional qualified privilege defence for one of the stories complained of, but disallowed it for the others, saying there was no "compelling moral or social duty" to publish them.

The Citizen appeal asks the Supreme Court to consider whether the judge erred in making that ruling. Specifically, it asks the court whether the common law of defamation governing the availability of the traditional qualified privilege defence for media is inconsistent with the Charter of Rights.

------------------------------------

March 31, 2008

Now the following comment is from John Carten, a former member of the bar, who wrote to the the Security Exchange Commission in Washington D.C. in 2002.

Carten's email to the SEC, illustrates how the province of British Columbia is so much more blatant than any other provinces in Canada regarding money laundering committed by insiders-proffessionals.

It is a fact that while residents of B.C. live in a rain forest, it is nonetheless the third most expensive place to live in the Western World. First one is London, England, second is New York and third, is Vancouver, B.C.

It is indeed a reminder that until the bar and the judicary continue not being accountable for the crimes they commit either off the bench or on the bench, money laundering for proceeds of crimes will spread like a forest fire, unable to contain it.

Carten has recently filed an action in the Federal Court in Vancouver, B.C. for damages, naming some officers and employees of GovCan and others acting as agents to assist GovCan, which includes, former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, and Paul Martin, and Federal appointed judges and the Majesty the Queen and agents and officers for the AG of British Columbia. The Statement of Claim will be published on Justice4you, as soon as all the Defendants file their defence and as soon as Carten agrees to have his action posted on this website.

We are standing taller by those who have gone before us and done the work John Carten has done.

From: John Carten

Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 11:50 AM

To: rule-comments@sec.gov

Subject: File No 57-45-02 Submission on Professional Conduct for Attorneys

December 17, 2002

Securities Exchange Commission

Washington, D.C.

Attention Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Re: Professional Conduct for Attornies - A Dissenting Canadian

I am prompted to write you as a result of reading an article in the December 17, 2002, issue of the Globe and Mail, published in Canada, and having observed remarks attributed to Mr. Simon Potter speaking on behalf of the Canadian Bar Association in relation to the implementation of Professional Conduct Standards for Attornies by the SEC.

According to the Globe and Mail, "Mr.Potter said, the SEC "may rest assured" that Canadian lawyers are already subject to strict ethical rules".

With respect, I suggest that while Mr. Potter may be correct "in theory" he is incorrect "in practice".

As a result on my personal involvement acting for the victims of a stock market swindle carried out with the assistance of Canadian lawyers, I can assure the Securities Exchange Commission that Canadian lawyers do engage in fraudulent activities. Unfortunately, professional policing bodies in Canada and the local police, who have the responsibility of enforcing the Criminal Code, turn a blind to much of this professional fraud.

The City of Vancouver, where I presently live, has developed an international reputation for stock market fraud, money laundering and other forms of cross border crime due to friendly treatment of individuals engaged in such activities by our courts and our legal profession.

As an example, I am pleased to attach a copy of a Police Report that I prepared and filed with the local police forces requesting and investigation and prosewcution of a case of fraud, perjury and obstruciton of justice by a government employed lawyer who resorted to the use of fraud to cover up criminal wrong doing by members of the legal profession.

For several months, I had attempted to persuade the Law Society of British Columbia to investigate the actions of the lawyer who carried out these crimes but the investigator assigned to the case refused to interview any of the several witnesses I had identified for him and who would likely have provided evidence against the lawyer in question.

The complaint was mailed to the RCMP and the Victoria City Police on December 12, 2002, after the Law Society of British Columbia advised me they were intending to close the investigation without interviewing any of the witnesses.

Accordingly, I urge the Securities Exchange Commission to implement rule changes which would apply to Canadian lawyers who are largely unpoliced..

Yours very truly,

JOHN FREDERICK CARTEN, B.A., L.L.B.

--------------------------------------------

February 26, 2008

MONEYCHANGERS DESTROYING AMERICA, AND CHRISTIANS DON'T SEE IT

By Pastor Chuck Baldwin

NewsWithViews.com

"And the Jews' passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem, And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting: And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables." John 2:13-15 (KJV)

The moneychangers of Jesus' day were the equivalent of the international bankers of our day. With the consent and approbation of the Jewish leaders, these bankers set up shop in the Temple.

Their purpose was to exchange whatever currency the Jewish worshipper brought with him or her into Jewish currency, which would then be used to purchase whatever sacrifice the worshipper required. Of course, the exchange rates benefited only the bankers and Jewish leaders (and Caesar, who collected a tax on the exchange, of course). For everyone else, the system was nothing more than legalized extortion.

When Jesus saw what the bankers were doing, He was incensed. And throughout the Gospel narratives, this is the only occasion where Jesus is recorded as resorting to violence. He made a scourge (or whip) and drove the bankers out of the Temple by force and destroyed their tables, along with their records, receipts, etc.

It is too bad that today's pastors and Christians do not share Jesus' disdain for the current generation of moneychangers, because it is the moneychangers who are in the process of destroying these United States of America--and our pastors and Christians either do not see it, or, if they do see it, do not seem to care.

It is modern moneychangers who bully and bribe our spineless and greedy politicians (from both parties) into passing so-called "free trade" deals such as NAFTA, CAFTA, and the FTAA, which have all but destroyed America's manufacturing base and have put millions of American workers out of their jobs. It is the moneychangers who are the driving force behind the burgeoning North American Union, which sacrifices America's national sovereignty and independence.

Over the weekend, Dr. Jerry Corsi reported that a new North American Army has been created, without the approval of Congress or any mention by the American media. In World Net Daily, Corsi reports, "In a ceremony that received virtually no attention in the American media, the United States and Canada signed a military agreement Feb. 14 allowing the armed forces from one nation to support the armed forces of the other nation during a domestic civil emergency, even one that does not involve a cross-border crisis.

"The agreement, defined as a Civil Assistance Plan, was not submitted to Congress for approval, nor did Congress pass any law or treaty specifically authorizing this military agreement to combine the operations of the armed forces of the United States and Canada in the event of a wide range of domestic civil disturbances ranging from violent storms, to health epidemics, to civil riots or terrorist attacks.

"In Canada, the agreement paving the way for the militaries of the U.S. and Canada to cross each other's borders to fight domestic emergencies was not announced either by the Harper government or the Canadian military, prompting sharp protest."

Corsi further writes, "The military Civil Assistance Plan can be seen as a further incremental step being taken toward creating a North American armed forces available to be deployed in domestic North American emergency situations.

"The agreement was signed at U.S. Army North headquarters, Fort Sam Houston, Texas, by U.S. Air Force Gen. Gene Renuart, commander of NORAD and U.S. Northern Command, or USNORTHCOM, and by Canadian Air Force Lt. Gen. Marc Dumais, commander of Canada Command."

For the most part, the American media is blind, mute, and dumb regarding any of the issues relating to the merger of the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. The only notable media personality to give this matter any significant attention is CNN's Lou Dobbs. Obviously, the same moneychangers who control Congress also largely control the mainstream media.

The last three American Presidents, too, have been willing pawns in the hands of the moneychangers. Remember, it was Bill Clinton and Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole who collaborated to shove NAFTA down our throats. It was Bush 41 who first publicly promoted a "New World Order." But it has been George W. Bush who has done more to appease the globalist plans of the moneychangers than any President since Woodrow Wilson.

G.W. Bush has used the rubric of "the war on terrorism" to dismantle not only the personal liberties of the American people (most notably with his Gestapo-like Patriot Act), but also the constitutional principles of national sovereignty and independence.

For example, back in 2006, G.W. Bush eviscerated one of America's most sacred doctrines protecting liberty and independence: the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which disallowed U.S. military troops from being used against U.S. citizens. (Of course, this did not stop Bill Clinton and Janet Reno from using U.S. troops against U.S. citizens at Waco, Texas. And thanks to G.W. Bush, the crime was permanently covered up.)

The expunging of Posse Comitatus becomes even more jeopardous when one considers the current merger of U.S. and Canadian military forces. Dr. Corsi explains:

"In an exclusive interview with WND during Vigilant Shield 2008, Gen. Renuart affirmed USNORTHCOM would deploy U.S. troops on U.S. soil should the president declare a domestic emergency in which the Department of Defense ordered USNORTHCOM involvement.

"In May 2007, WND reported President Bush, on his own authority, signed National Security Presidential Directive 51, also known as Homeland Security Presidential Directive 20, authorizing the president to declare a national emergency and take over all functions of federal, state, local, territorial and tribal governments, without necessarily obtaining the approval of Congress to do so."

See Jerry Corsi's complete report.

Are readers getting this? George W. Bush, on his own signature, with no approval from Congress and no input from the American people, has seized unlimited power for the Presidency; he has dismantled the constitutional protections of the American people; he has ignored the courts; he has begun creating the merger of the U.S., Canada, and Mexico, including the merger of the U.S. and Canadian militaries; and he has refused to enforce U.S. immigration laws, thus facilitating a borderless North America. And all of this has been done at the behest of David Rockefeller and his cabal of moneychangers at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

When Jesus saw the moneychangers in the Temple, He drove them off with violence. Yet, today's pastors and Christians cannot even seem to see what these same moneychangers are doing to America. They support candidates simply because they have an "R" behind their names, vainly imagining that these candidates are somehow better than the ones with a "D" behind their names. The truth is, however, John McCain and Mike Huckabee are as beholden to the moneychangers as are Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Why can't Christians see this? Why are they so blind?

The one man who made it through the Republican Presidential primaries who was not only not beholden to the moneychangers, but who was vehemently opposed to them, was Congressman Ron Paul. But most pastors and leaders of the Religious Right, not seeing or understanding the evil being done by the moneychangers, not only did not support Ron Paul, but they actively supported (and continue to support) the moneychangers' puppet candidates.

I'm sure if Jesus had taken time to sit down and dialogue with those First Century moneychangers, they could have come up with very nice, flowery speeches as to how they were doing the Jewish people a service; how they were patriotic Romans and/or pious Hebrews. But Jesus did not need to dialogue with them: He knew what they were. And He knew what He needed to do; and He did it.

What Jesus did is exactly what every pastor, Christian, conservative, and every other real American should do: rise up against these moneychangers and drive them out of power! But we cannot accomplish this until we see them for what they really are: power-mad extortionists who seek to enrich themselves at the expense of America's freedom and independence. Do you think our fellow pastors and Christians will ever see it?

© 2008 Chuck Baldwin - All Rights Reserved

------------------------------------------------------------

Judges Digging Their Own Pit

By Ron Branson - National J.A.I.L. CIC

VictoryUSA@jail4judges.org

As corruption abounds more and more in the judiciary, so does the inclination to expose the actions of such judges. There is a saying that people who live in glass houses should not throw stones. Since judges are protected by judicial immunity for all that they do, they are inclined to pull the stops out, for they say within themselves.

"What the heck, no one can sue me." While this may be true from what has become our established legal principles that one cannot sue a judge, judicial immunity does not protect judges from criticism from the media.

In fact, judges are quite vulnerable outside of their courts, and can be ripped into as a deer by a pack of jackals. Obviously, then, this challenges the judges to maintain the hide of a rhinoceros and at least appear impervious.

But what happens when these "rhinoceroses '" start yelling "Ouch," and want to go to court and sue? Back in 1998 ABC News aired a videotape of interviewees who claimed that California Judge Bruce Dodds consulted his crystal ball in deciding his cases.

Judge Dodds became upset and went to court and sued ABC Network for their report. The end did not turn out well for Judge Dodds. It presented quite a stir and an embarrassment. His federal lawsuit in Los Angeles was quickly dismissed, and he appealed.

As little respect that I have for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, they did get this one right. They ruled that a judge could not sue ABC for libel based on reports that he used a crystal ball to make his decisions.

This case is versed at

Case Law

The court stated, "Wise judges, even when wounded by unfair assaults, have learned that the best policy is ordinarily to dismiss the attacks as part of the baggage of their jobs.

Abusive criticism simply goes with the territory. Often it is best not to dignify the assaults or to fall into the traps set by one's critics," Reinhardt wrote.

But due to the increasingly unaccountable actions of these judicially-anointed potentates these days, the exposure heat has been turned up on the judges which has gotten them steaming upset and hopping mad. They are abandoning the principles advised by the Ninth Circuit that essentially restates the maxim, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."

Judges are starting to go into other courts and sue their accusers and are terribly embarrassing the judicial system with every kind of judicial conflict heretofore unheard of. For instance, we are told in the article below, "...many addressing [Judge] Thomas as "Your Honor," even though he was the plaintiff, not the judge in the case.

But when lawyers for the newspapers sought to cross-examine the justices about the disciplinary case that was the subject of the newspaper's columns, they refused, invoking what was later upheld on appeal as a "judicial deliberation privilege."

Obviously, if a judge is going to bring a lawsuit against a media defendant, they cannot then claim a type of immunity because they are judges, when the media attorney goes to cross-examine them on their lawsuit they brought.

Long ago the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Windsor v. McVeigh, 93 U.S. 274 (1876) dealt in its most harshest of terms with this perspective. The government, in seeking to deny a defendant the right to defend, argued "It is alleged he was in the position of an alien enemy, and could have no locus standi in that forum.

If assailed there, he could defend there. The liability and right are inseparable." In other words, there can be no such thing as a forum in which one may be assailed, but in which the other side cannot maintain a right to a defense.

-Ron Branson

--------------------------------

Following is an article from reporter David Baines of the Vancouver Sun, written on May 4th, 2007.

Baines often writes about fraudsters and lawyers committing breach of trust.

Baines does not however raise the question as to why lawyers caught in fraudulent scams are not criminally charged in British Columbia. Further, when there is new development on the person Baines writes about, often times he does not let his readers know. A good example is with the Matter of the Bankruptcy of Martin Wirick, wherein readers are under the impression that Wirick has not been discharged from his bankruptcy, when in fact he is a free man, thanks to the lawyer allegedly acting for the law society.

Nothing else was reported thereafter the following article in respect to lawyer Ron Perrick by Bains:

Judge overrules lawyer's $926,916 fee

David Baines

Vancouver Sun

Friday, May 04, 2007

North Vancouver lawyer and sports agent Ron Perrick committed a breach of trust when he scooped nearly $1 million of client money from his trust account to pay his fees without telling his client, a B.C. Court judge has ruled.

It wasn't until months later that the client learned Perrick had taken a total of $926,916, an amount that the client contends is outrageous and not justifiable.

When it comes to fee disputes and lawyer conduct, the judgment rendered by B.C. Supreme Court judge Eric Rice on Jan. 23 is one of the most unequivocal and damning I have ever read:

"Mr. Perrick removed the funds without permission before rendering a statement of account according to the rules of the Law Society," the judge stated.

"Mr. Perrick knew that he was not authorized to take out funds. He knew or ought to have known that taking them was contrary to the rules and constituted a breach of trust.

"Further, he concealed his actions. Despite many numerous and urgent requests between February and October 2006, Mr. Perrick never revealed that he had taken the money. To this day he has not revealed what he has done with the money.

"By virtue of those wrongful acts, his breaches of the Law Society rules and his breaches of duty as trustee of the funds, the plaintiff has been unlawfully deprived of $926,916."

Even then, it took Perrick three months to return the money, which is now tied up in court, still beyond the reach of his clients.

Not surprisingly, the law society is on the case: "Absolutely we are looking into this," said society spokesman Brad Daisley. "It raises serious issues that we need to look at."

Perrick, 61, is a native of Duncan. He obtained his law degree from the University of Saskatchewan before returning to B.C. to practise. He became best known as a sports agent -- among his clients were CFL quarterback Matt Dunigan and NHL players Greg Adams, Cliff Ronning and Rod Brind'Amour.

The case arises from the sale of a commercial property in the 1300-block of Seymour Street, owned by the two sons and two daughters of the late John Watson, the founder of Sundance Trampolines. (Readers who commute downtown via the Granville Street bridge may recall the "Sundance Trampolines" sign on the building, just east of the Seymour St. exit ramp.)

In April 2003, the four siblings -- through a B.C. numbered company -- hired Perrick to help sell the building. Negotiations went on for nearly four years. Meanwhile, the property value increased dramatically. Finally, on Feb. 9, 2006, it was sold for $5.75 million to Concert Real Estate Corp. Concert paid the money to Perrick, who deposited the funds in his trust account.

On Feb. 17, 2006, one of the siblings, Dianne King, sent a fax to Perrick asking how the money would be disbursed. On Feb. 26, another sibling, Rosalee McRae, asked how and when the funds would be distributed, and what Perrick's fee would be.

Perrick did not respond. Instead, without telling his clients or getting their consent, he withdrew $350,000 on the closing date, another $49,000 the next day, $342,000 on Feb. 27 (the day after McRae's inquiry), and $145,000 on April 18.

Judge Rice said the clients claim they didn't authorize the fee or the removal of the funds. Perrick, on the other hand, "maintains that the fees were approved, in a general way at least, although he conceded that he was not authorized to remove the funds."

In any event, said Rice, the issue before him was the process, not the amount. In that regard, the judge said Perrick removed the funds "before issuing any statement of account, and knowing that charging so much was probably not going to be acceptable to his client."

It wasn't until June 15, 2006 -- more than four months after the closing date -- that Perrick submitted a bill. It was backdated to Feb. 9, the closing date, making it seem like the bill was drafted before the funds were removed.

The actual bill is 34 pages long and itemizes dozens of phone calls and various other tasks that Perrick claims he performed, with no reference to the hours worked, or an hourly rate or contingency fee, or the amount of disbursements that he paid on the client's behalf.

Judge Rice notes that the siblings' lawyer, Robert Ward of Edwards Kenny & Bray, pressed for Perrick's timesheets and for confirmation of whether the money was in their trust account, but to no avail.

"Mr. Perrick never responded to any of the requests regarding the trust funds, and he never did advise the plaintiff that the trust funds had been taken by the defendants," the judge noted.

It wasn't until Ward filed a lawsuit and examined Perrick under oath that the clients learned he had withdrawn nearly $1 million of their money from his trust account.

"In this case I find there is no question that [Perrick and his law corporation] withdrew for their own use trust funds without any legal right," the judge concluded.

He ordered Perrick to return the funds, but Perrick did not. Ward called him into an examination to try to determine where the money was, but Perrick refused to answer any questions and walked away. It wasn't until three weeks ago that he finally paid the money into court.

While Rice concluded that Perrick committed a breach of trust, he made it clear that he was simply ruling on the process by which the funds were taken, not whether a fee of that magnitude was justified. That issue will be reviewed at a later date. Until then, the money remains out of the clients' reach.

If that wasn't enough grief to heap on his clients, Perrick counter-sued them and their lawyer. Ward called it a "frivolous and vexatious counterclaim ... brought solely for the purpose of neutralizing counsel and intimidating" his clients.

Perrick eventually abandoned his counter-claim, but not before causing his clients more needless anxiety and cost. Ward is asking the court to assess special costs against Perrick.

In all these actions, Perrick acted for himself. Since then, he has hired Bryan Baynham of Harper Grey LLP. Hopefully, this will speed up a resolution.

"Mr. Perrick recognizes that when he acted as his own lawyer, it didn't reflect very well on him," Baynham said in an interview Thursday.

There is an old saying: A lawyer who acts for himself has a fool for a client. Judging by the tarpit that Perrick has gotten himself into, this is a case in point.

dbaines@png.canwest.com

Ron Perrick Law Corp. et al,

It was learned recently, after Baines wrote his story that on June 11, 2007 Justice Rice of the BC Supreme Court, reversed his decision in the matter of

380876 B.C. Ltd. v Ron Perrick Law Corp et al.,

What made Justice Rice change his decision is wholly questionable, since the judge overturned his own entered Order, and this should have been reported by the Vancouver Sun, by virtue of the impression Baines gave to his readers on May 4th, 2007, wherein readers are left believing that justice was rendered, when truth be told, the Vancouver Sun has a pattern of not letting their readers know the conclusion of a case.

Ron Perrick is another example of where the public believes justice was rendered.

With over 11,000 lawyers, in the province of British Columbia alone, many commit crimes and are not cited nor are they criminally charged for it. In fact, the head of the RCMP in the province of British Columbia is a member of the bar, thus lawyers appear to pay for protection.

----------------------------------------------------

SHOULD LAWYERS BECOME JUDGES?

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper has spoken out about his opposition to "judicial activism”.

His speech about "judicial temperament" and how judges should only enforce law and not create new laws is one that should get the attention of all citizens across the country by virtue of the fact that too many judges make their own rules as they go along.

We are reminded of Justice Peter Leask, former defence lawyer, who was appointed in 2005 by the liberal government and who on Wednesday, March 14, 2007, caused the newspaper to write about his conduct on the bench during a final argument given by the federal prosecutor Ernie Froess, in a case involving Glen Jonathan Hehn, a full patch member of the elite Nomads of the Hells Angels, who had been charged with trafficking wherein one-kilo cocaine bricks worth a total of $1.5 million were seized from the vehicle and at the storage locker of the accused.

When Froess argued that the locker where the large volume of cocaine was located was rented by Hehn, the judge immediately came to the defence of the accused by saying:

"But to be really clear, he'd have had to have been out of his fuckin' mind to store it in his own locker, all right? I mean, that's for sure he wouldn't do that. Let's not spend any time on that theory."

Subsequently rather than writing about the real issue regarding the judge’s conduct, the media created a frenzy regarding Leask’s foul language in court.

The media should have written the following:

--- A judge must be characterized by absolute neutrality with respect to the parties and issues before him. If the judge becomes an advocate behind the bench and makes the argument for one of the parties, he no longer is impartial and therefore must recuse himself from the case immediately ---

In Canada judges of the Superior and Appellate Courts are appointed by the Federal Government. Only Provincial Judges are appointed by the Provincial Attorney General.

In the USA judges are elected. In both countries all Federal judges and State trial and appellate court judges are required to be lawyers.

Unfortunately, most lawyers do not have the knowledge and skills needed to handle the issues passing through our courts.

Lawyers do not receive additional training when they become judges except for a few brief cram courses after they are appointed to the bench -- most often as a reward for political loyalty, rather than demonstrated competence -- new judges are on their own.

More bluntly, if your average veterinarian was as poorly trained as your average judge, you wouldn't let Fido within 100 feet of him.

In France, there is L’École de la Magistrature -- Judge School -- wherein someone who has a diploma of at least equal to four years of studies after the baccalaureat, or of a diploma delivered by an institute of political studies, or to be former pupil of a higher teacher training school, may attend L'École de la Magistrature.

First however he or she must go through three different rigorous tests for the purpose of admission. The three contests determines the intellect of the person and his or her wisdom regarding life. Prior at being admitted to L’ École de la Magistrature there are six conditions that are common to the three contests and recruitment on titles of listeners of justice:

To be of French nationality;

To enjoy its civic rights and to be of good morality;

To be in regular position taking into consideration code of the national service;

To meet the conditions of physical capacity necessary to the exercise of the functions;

To meet the conditions of age;

To deposit a candidates' file within the time limits;

L’École de la Magistrature

There is much that can be said about judge school and whereas some would argue that it would not eliminate all of the current problems we have in this country regarding the justice system, it would nonetheless reduce the apprehension of bias that many citizen witness from judges in Canada and in the United States.

The separation between the bar and the judiciary would be the first obvious sign.

Peter Leask is a casualty of our system and even if people keep complaining about judges, we must all come to terms with the fact that judges in North America are lawyers first, therefore they do not have a mind of a judge and do not have the capacity to be a judge since the vast majority of lawyers are trained in an adversarial system with winners and losers, -- their first instinct is to argue the case, wherein judges, as in France, are listeners of justice.

Thus, the Prime Minister of Canada and the Minister of Justice ought to take notice and seriously consider implementing a school for judges as in France and other countries, and perhaps then judges won’t be required to apologize to the public in a courtroom, like Peter Leask did on Friday, March 16, 2007 before members of the public.

In any event, swearing and using foul language by the judge appears to have been all smoke and mirrors, since the true story was the fact that His Lordship made the case for the defence in order to acquit a member of organize crime from the charge of trafficking.

Justice4you

-----------------------

B.C. judge sorry for swearing

'The language I used had no place in the courtroom,' he tells special sitting

ROD MICKLEBURGH

VANCOUVER -- A contrite B.C. Supreme Court judge made an extraordinary, emotional public apology yesterday for making a number of profanity-laced observations during a criminal trial this week.

In an admission believed to be without precedent in the annals of B.C. courts, if not those of the entire country, Mr. Justice Peter Leask called his behaviour inexcusable and vowed not to repeat it.

"The language I used had no place in the courtroom and I was wrong to use it as I did," he told a rare, specially convened sitting of the court, packed with lawyers, news media and members of the public.

With a trembling voice and a catch in his throat, Judge Leask, a veteran former defence lawyer appointed to the bench 18 months ago, said that he wished "to make an unreserved apology. . . . I deeply regret my actions."

One long-time Supreme Court judge said that he could not recall anything similar to Judge Leask's apology in such a setting. "There have been special sittings of the court before, but nothing like this."

Judge Leask aroused a storm of public controversy by twice using the f-word, plus an "oh shit" and a "goddamned," as he questioned prosecutor Ernie Froess during closing arguments in a drug-trafficking trial.

At one point, he observed that the accused, whom he eventually acquitted, would "have had to have been out of his fuckin' mind to store it in his own locker," referring to cocaine.

Later, musing about the thoughts of another individual already convicted in the case, Judge Leask said: " . . . he can minimize his risk of detection and apprehension by just aborting the whole fucking thing, right?"

Some young students were present in the courtroom during the judge's remarks.

In his apology, which he read out in a simple business suit, Judge Leask specifically included "any schoolchildren" who were in court at the time.

He also extended his regrets to other members of the public who were there, all lawyers in the province, court staff "and all members of this court, past and present, as well as the members of other courts of this province."

Among those present yesterday for the judge's apology was 10-year old Adam Veitch, brought to the court by his father. Afterwards, the youngster said that Judge Leask had done the right thing.

"I think it was, like, good that he apologized for what he said. You shouldn't swear, because there were a lot of kids there, and it can get back to you in a bad way," Adam said.

B.C. Attorney-General Wally Oppal welcomed Judge Leask's frank and unreserved apology. "It really tells us the kind of person he is. . . . He quite correctly realized that his language was not appropriate in the circumstances."

Both lawyers in the drug-trafficking case, however, said they had not been offended by the judge's language and did not feel it was necessary for him to apologize.

"Really, at the end of the day, I'm embarrassed," defence lawyer Neil Cobb said. "As someone who's spent 45 years defending the poor and the downtrodden, he didn't deserve this maelstrom. . . . I felt terrible hearing him say that he was sorry."

Asked whether it was appropriate for schoolchildren to hear such language in court, Mr. Cobb replied: "My son is 13 years old, and he's got more offensive language than that on half the songs on his iPod."

Mr. Froess said he had not been offended by Judge Leask's choice of words either, nor did he mind the judge's seemingly incessant interruptions of his closing argument.

"He told me the issues he was concerned about and it's my job to respond to those concerns," Mr. Froess said. "His apology was obviously heartfelt and very genuine, and I think that puts the matter to rest."

The special sitting of the court was convened by Chief Justice Donald Brenner at Judge Leask's request.

Judge Leask became particularly emotional as he expressed concerns that his conduct had damaged the reputation of the courts.

"It pains me greatly, and I am [especially] anxious that my colleagues recognize my contrition," he said.

Well-known defence lawyer Terry La Liberté, who attended the special session, said he was impressed by Judge Leask's apology, calling his profanities an aberration for someone with a previously impeccable reputation.

"Perhaps he was tired . . . but we are all human beings," Mr. La Liberté said. "We all make mistakes, and if you have the fortitude to stand up and apologize, I think the public accepts that."

------------------------------------------

The following article is a matter that we have posted on this site several months ago, wherein Tony Merchant referred to as Merchant-izing Misery, is now being investigated by the BC Law Society.

We would encourage you to read the Globe's article and to know more about Merchant-izing Misery click on:

Merchant-izing Misery

Lawyer fined for 'abusive' act

JACQUIE MCNISH AND BOYD ERMAN

From Thursday', March 8, 2007, Globe and Mail

One of Canada's most aggressive class-action lawyers is being investigated by the Law Society of British Columbia after a provincial court ordered his law firm to pay $300,000 in damages to a Vancouver Island couple for "outrageous and scandalous" conduct.

Mr. Justice Barry Davies of the Supreme Court of B.C. ordered Merchant Law Group, a Regina-based firm founded by controversial lawyer and former Liberal politician Tony Merchant, to pay the damages because of "duplicitous" actions by him and an associate. The judge found that Mr. Merchant and Earl Shaw, a former lawyer employed by the firm, improperly claimed about $250,000 in fees from injured truck driver Clifford Chudy and his wife, Linda, after they received an $860,000 settlement from insurers in 2002.

The judge's decision included a rare award against a lawyer of $50,000 in punitive damages to "denounce" the conduct of Mr. Merchant and Mr. Shaw as a deterrent against further "abusive action."

Darren Williams, a lawyer for Mr. Merchant, said he plans to appeal the decision.

Spokesman for the Law Society of B.C. said the Supreme Court's decision has "raised enough concerns" to prompt an investigation.

Victor Dietz, president of the Law Society of Saskatchewan, said it is reviewing Mr. Merchant's conduct "with the likelihood that there will be an investigation."

Mr. Merchant began attracting controversy shortly after he began practising law in Saskatchewan in 1968.

The Law Society of Saskatchewan has rebuked, fined or suspended him five times since 1972 for a variety of concerns, including his legal commentaries on radio broadcasts and what they described as misleading solicitation letters to potential clients.

Mr. Merchant has appealed a two-week suspension handed down by the law society last year after he was convicted of unbecoming conduct related to the withdrawal of a client's trust funds.

In recent weeks he has come under fire for a $25-million to $40-million fee payment he stands to receive for representing native survivors of abuse in the federal government's $5-billion residential school settlement.

Last month, a small group of aboriginals staged a protest against the fees outside Mr. Merchant's Regina office.

Mr. Merchant, who grew up in Saskatoon, is also a high-profile political figure in the province. He is a former federal and provincial politician and a leading western backer of former prime minister Jean Chrétien. His wife, Pana Pappas Merchant, was appointed a federal senator in 2002.

"He is a unique book," said Saskatoon lawyer Douglas Richardson, a fellow Liberal supporter who has known Mr. Merchant for more than 20 years.

"There's no doubt about it. There's only one Tony. There's no mould, before or since."

Outside Saskatchewan, Mr. Merchant is known as an aggressive litigator who has launched several high-profile class actions against such embattled companies as Hollinger Inc. and a variety of drug makers.

For the Chudys, the court decision against Mr. Merchant's law firm marks the final leg of a legal and personal odyssey that began in 1995 in northern Alberta, when Mr. Chudy was seriously injured after his tractor trailer hit a bad patch of road and crashed into a ditch.

Initially the Chudys hired Mr. Shaw to represent them in a lawsuit against the province of Alberta for poor road conditions, but the case shifted to Mr. Merchant's firm in 2001 after Mr. Shaw lost his licence, declared bankruptcy and was hired as a paralegal by the Saskatchewan law firm.

After the Chudys received their settlement from insurers in 2002, Judge Davies found that Mr. Shaw and Mr. Merchant breached their duty by "misrepresenting" to the couple that they owed a $230,000 contingency fee to Merchant Law, which had very little involvement in the case.

The Chudys paid the fee, but when they began questioning the payment and asked for their legal file, Mr. Merchant responded by sending a letter demanding a fee of $16,000 for sending the file.

Judge Davies ruled that Mr. Merchant's demand was "a disingenuous attempt to cover up the fact that he did not want the plaintiffs to have the file and he was prepared to go to unethical lengths to avoid delivering it."

Mrs. Chudy said she and her husband are "enormously grateful" for the decision. "It has restored our faith in the justice system." She said she was also discouraged about the legal profession after several other lawyers declined to represent them in their suit against the pair because "they did not want to muddy their hands."

Veteran Vancouver lawyer Irwin Nathanson said he agreed to represent the Chudys because "I thought people should not think that this is how the legal profession performs on behalf of clients. I wanted to show them how lawyers ought to act."