The flu

One Response to The flu

1. prima facie says:

   February 1, 2008 at 8:52 pm

   LAWYERS GONE WILD and an UNTRUSTWORTHY JUSTICE SYSTEM, protected by an equally CORRUPT “mainstream NEWS MEDIA”, in turn, manipulated by MONOPOLIES, POWER, SELF-PRESERVATION, greed, cronyism, favouritism, etc., etc.$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
   True or false: YOU DECIDE……..

   For various disclosed and undisclosed reasons, Perry Dunlop has reiterated, among other things, the following, “It was a cover-up in 1993 and it is still a cover-up today “2008””. Furthermore, Perry Dunlop has stated he is “broke”, “cannot afford a lawyer” and he does not “trust in nor have any faith in, the Ontario Justice System”. In part, as a consequence of the aforementioned, Perry Dunlop states, he will not be attending the “Cornwall Public Inquiry”, he considers the “Inquiry Mandate” to be flawed and Mr. Dunlop, reiterates that, he will not attend the “Ontario Divisional Court”, to answer for, “civil contempt” charges and sentencing; instead, as a consequence for his decisions, he has chosen to accept whatever “punishment” is deemed to be appropriate and “Ordered” by “Divisional Court.”. He is NOT a “flight risk”.

   I have “inferred” and it is my opinion, through my observations and through statements made by Perry Dunlop, among other things, that, “Commissioner Glaude”, the “Cornwall Public Inquiry et al”, intentionally, deceitfully, maliciously and perhaps unlawfully, secretly designed, with one or more others, a scheme, which when acted upon, and was represented to Perry Dunlop and other “legal jurisdictions” in Ontario and Canada, was successful in coercing and compelling Perry Dunlop into attending proceedings at, the “Cornwall Public Inquiry”, while under duress.
   ADDITIONALL: I believe “Counsel for the “Applicant” Commissioner Glaude, is attempting a “repeat performance”, at “Divisional Court” in Toronto, Ontario, CANADA.

   WHEN I reflect on all of this, combined with other information, I wonder, what do “people in general” think, when they hear these statements from Perry Dunlop and his wife, Helen. Do they listen to “press interpretations” and “labeling” or what?
   I ask myself, what kind of experiences, education, information, upbringing, profession, associations, connections or other resources, are utilized by “people” and relied upon, that ultimately, influence “people’s” opinions, beliefs and “public opinion.”

   AS mentioned in my previous blog-comments, I attended the “Divisional Court” hearing, with other “Perry Dunlop” supporters, on January 28, 2008. As previously mentioned, NO “mainstream news media” attended this VERY IMPORTANT hearing, which had ONLY RECENTLY received widespread Provincial and National reporting. NO attendance by the “mainstream news media”, but they all had “very similar” stories published for “the world” to see/read/hear.
   Instead, the “mainstream” relied on “other” sources to write their stories about “the event”. I believe the “stories” reported were, in large part, biased representations of the “Applicants’” perspective, as supplied by (Commissioner Glaude-Peter Engelmann). Hardly a “fair” representation of what actually “occurred” at “Divisional Court”.

   Among many “points”, the “mainstream” failed to mention the many CHALLENGES “Divisional Court” made, directed at the “legal shortcomings” in the “Applicants” pleadings, which included, the many interpretations of “law”, interpretations of “fact”, interpretations of “points and authorities”, interpretations of “case law-jurisprudence”, etc., etc. I as a “laymen” was tempted to stand up and YELL OUT LOUD for a DISMISSAL.

   IN ADDITION, the “mainstream” was not present, so they couldn’t report that the “Applicants” failed to follow applicable procedure/laws and rules, in the “process” and “serving” of “pleadings” and other related documents, with the court and with “the parties”, as required?

   FURTHERMORE; the “mainstream” was NOT present, so the “mainstream” couldn’t report to the WORLD and therefore, the WORLD remains “ignorant of” the VERY IMPORTANT and “revealing” discussions, “Divisional Court”, engaged Commissioner Glaude’s Counsel with, surrounding “civil contempt versus criminal contempt.”

   IN ADDITION to the civil contempt charges against Perry Dunlop, Commissioner Glaude is seeking “criminal contempt” charges against Perry Dunlop. Additionally, Commissioner Glaude asserts, “THE WHOLE” process will be “purged” if Perry Dunlop changes his mind and testifies. Blackmail, intimidation, threatening, coercion, malice, conspiracy???? BUT, “Divisional Court” implies, the “Applicants” may be wrong, “Criminal contempt” is much more serious and sentences are longer than civil contempt.

   NOW, get this, as Sylvia has reported on http://www.theinquiry.ca , the “Applicants” , that is , counsel for Commissioner Glaude, queried the “court” on the possibility of “bending the RULES, specifically RULE 60, or making a “NEW RULE”, so as to facilitate the “process” in “ordering” the warrant, “executing” the warrant for arrest and “serving” the warrant” on Perry Dunlop, thereby, manipulating OTHER legal jurisdictions and consequently, compelling his transfer back to Ontario and before the “Court” and/or “Inquiry.”
   I say, CAN YOU BELIEVE IT!!! Mark my words, you ask, IS THIS ALL ABOUT PERRY DUNLOP. YES!!!. As Commissioner Glaude asserted in his “PLEADINGS”, he is concerned about “anarchy” and Perry Dunlop must be made an “example of.” Anarchy?? Get Real!!
   Make no mistake about it, in my opinion, $$$$$$$$$$$“LAWYERS GONE WILD”, “Commissioner Glaude”, “The Attorney Generals Office”, the “accused” et al, are the “Authors” OF THIS MESS, NO ONE ELSE!!!.YES, unfortunately for “alleged victims” and “victims” and ALL supporters/survivors of victims, “the system” in Ontario, is after Perry Dunlop; because he “was” an inside Police Officer, who “blew the whistle.”
   “EVERYTHING IS UP TO INTERPRETATION”, control, power and $$$$$$$$$$$$$

   FOR YOU “PEARHEADS” and other reader’s who know who I am, you certainly know the various legal proceedings and civil/social issues, I have engaged myself in and been involved with, as a non-lawyer, layperson. YOU know how I feel about the Canadian Justice System in general and the Ontario Justice System, specifically; therefore, you also know, that I have documented statements of claims, complaints, assertions, appeals, etc., similar to what “Philip Slayton” writes about in his book, “Lawyers Gone Bad”and that my “documents” date to, long before, “whistleblower-lawyer” “Philip Slayton”, wrote and published, “ Lawyers Gone Bad”, “December, 2007.” “Viking Canada” “Published by the Penguin Group (Canada) “ISBN-13; 978-0-670-06504-2”, “ISBN-10; 0-670-06504-8”.
   TO BE PERFECTLY CLEAR, at this time and date, I have no complaint or claim, whatsoever, against Philip Slayton or his copyrighted.”
   I am also aware, many lawyers, law firms, law societies, bar associations, and similar, vigorously attempted to “block” the publication of “Lawyers Gone Bad” by: Philip Slayton, as referenced herein. In his book, “Philip Slayton” writes in part, that lawyers protect each other and “govern themselves.”

   He writes that complaints against lawyers in Canada are very high. I ask, what does this imply? For example. I have made several complaints against lawyers, law firms, etc., in different venues, including Ontario. As I discovered, the Ontario legal profession polices and regulates itself. In his book, “Lawyers Gone Bad,” “Philip Slayton” writes, “In most common law jurisdictions, for example, but not in Canada, disciplinary powers are exercised partly or completely by a body distinct from the law societies.”

   In “ONE” of my cases and after months of what I see as “the run around” and following the directions given to me by “Law Society” Officials/Lawyers, etc, all my lawyers, complained about, were basically “exonerated”, from any wrongdoing. Voluminous, “possible excuses” for their “conduct” was provided to me. They suggested, I get retain an Ontario lawyer. Additionally, I have experienced, complaints against “Court Officials” are “excused or “rationalized away”. Also, I believe, people with perceived “transgressions”, including, errors in “Court” or filing/records department errors, etc., are immune from prosecution. Citizen’s have no recourse, if “files are lost or misplaced or altered”, for example.

   FURTHER to “Philip Slayton’s” book, “Lawyers Gone Bad”, “Viking Canada” “Published by the Penguin Group”, as previously “described and referenced” he writes, “”Formal canons of professional conduct typically dance around the issue of how
   “ zealous” a lawyer should be in rendering his services.” “In Ontario, for example, one law society rule says, “When advising a client, a lawyer shall not knowingly assist in or encourage any dishonesty, fraud, crime, or illegal conduct.”” “Another rule, given in the context of advocacy, requires that a lawyer represent the client “resolutely and honourably within the limits of the law.”” “The official commentary on this bland rule of advocacy, however, puts forward an aggressive spin:” “The lawyer has a duty to the client to raise fearlessly every issue, advance every argument, and ask every question, however distasteful, which the lawyer thinks will help the client’s case.”.

   MY COMMENT: So, as everything else, everything is “open” to interpretation.
   I wonder how “witnesses” were treated, or, pre-conditioned, before testifying at the “Cornwall Public Inquiry?” Were any witnesses aggressively encouraged to “recant” or “expand”, “amend”, or “forget”, etc., etc. facts, before giving their testimony?
   Did any witnesses feel intimidated or were they “housed” in various venues, other than their own homes, throughout the community, to help facilitate preparation for their testimony? If so, who do we complain to? Commissioner Glaude? Law Societies?

   In fact, I believe, certain lawyers, who are representing “clients” with standing at the Cornwall Public Inquiry, have sat as chairperson or other, on various “criminal law” or other committees, at “law societies” or other, when citizen’s had serious concerns about their professional “conduct”. In the past year, the “Law Society of Upper Canada” has modified their website, in an effort to, as they say, “make it more user friendly”. HOWEVER, I have found access to some areas, very important areas, which gave a wider profile of some of the lawyers, to be deleted or access is denied.
   In “Lawyers Gone Bad”, by: “Philip Slayton”, he writes, “…few lawyers fall dramatically and publicly, or at all.”

   In Ontario, lawyers are driven by profitability. According to “Lawyers Gone Bad” by: “Philip Slayton”, “Students are encouraged to anticipate wealth and power; they are told how to serve the rich, for it is only the rich who can afford lawyers; they are taught rules, technique, and toughness, and learn to avoid emotional involvement or moral judgement.” “Access to justice is not on the agenda.”

   IN ADDITON: “Philip Slayton” writes in, “Lawyers Gone Bad”, “How much justice can the average Canadian afford? None. For financial reasons, he is denied use of the legal system and courts, key institutions of government and democracy.” “It is as if the right to vote in a general election were given only to those with an income above a certain level. “ “Do not look to the legal profession to solve this problem.” “The answer will not be found within legal culture.”

   PHILIP SLAYTON, has not said anything I didn’t already know, suspect or have experienced personally. I have documentation to support my statement.

   WHAT I am overwhelmed with, is the fact Mr. Slayton decided to become a “whistleblower” so to say. I am overwhelmed, he wrote the book and was able to publish it…..not without many impediments, as I’m sure some of you have seen or heard about, in the two or three news “bites”. MOST of you still “have no idea” what I am referring to. You see, our devoted and well informed “mainstream” news media (sarcasm), reported little about his book, “Lawyers Gone Bad” and certainly have no interest in “investigating” his assertions; gee!!! I wonder, is the “mainstream” complicit in suppressing “some” news stories, while at the same time, “spinning” the “positions” of others? NO FAIR and BALANCED here.

   I believe, lawyers today can command up to, $300/hour for a junior lawyer and over $1,000/hr and much higher, for a more seasoned, well known lawyer, not counting other fees, disbursements and a retainer, starting at $10,000.
   Recently, a renowned lawyer in Canada, declined to even talk to me about the “issues”
   I presented to him. Another requested a $25,000. retainer, before I entered his office.

   Can anyone begin to understand that, Perry Dunlop, has as much chance as a snowball in hell, on getting “his story” told, let alone “justice” for himself, his family or others who have trusted him. Does anyone else not understand that Perry Dunlop has as much chance as a snowball in hell on surviving the “onslaught” of Bishop Paul-Andre Durocher’s, esteemed legal team, or, the attacks of the likes of Mr. Neville…oh yes, Mr. Neville.? Get Real!! The facts are the facts!!

   AND, our “mainstream” news media asks Perry, “…why don’t you just go and tell your story.” Dear God, what a bunch of hand-picked, “no minds”.

   With all the real and/or perceived “transgressions”, etc., etc., I BELIEVE, THIS “Perry Dunlop” issue is NOW a “Charter Rights and Freedoms”, “Canadian Constitution” issue. So get on with it!!!
   Help Commissioner Glaude “save face”, re-assign the “Dunlop file”, appoint a “BIG NAME” lawyer(s) and move on.
   Send Commissioner Glaude back to “wrap” up his “Inquiry”, publish his report, get the “Order Of Canada” and return to Sudbury.

   Final Note: “DISCLAIMER”

   To the best of my belief and understanding, I do not know “Philip Slayton” the “Author” of “Lawyers Gone Bad” , former corporate lawyer and dean of law, personally, professionally, socially or other.
   Mr. Philip Slayton has not been “party to” or consultant for, this “blog-comment”, nor has he authorized me or denied me the right to reference “in quotations”, some of his writings. ADDITIONALLY, I am not currently receiving, nor do I anticipate receiving, any compensation, favour or other benefit, as payment for, referencing “Philip Slayton” or “Lawyers Gone Bad”. I have NO association with “Philip Slayton.”
   FURTHERMORE:
   I have NO idea if Philip Slayton has any knowledge or other, regarding any of the information I have written about in this “blog-comment-posting” or otherwise.
   I have purchased and read this book, “Lawyers Gone Bad” by “Philip Slayton” and I have referred to and “quoted” some of the writings therein, simply as a further illustration, of what my personal beliefs, experiences and opinions are, relating to the “Ontario Justice System.” ALSO, I am “exploring”, what I believe to be, some of the causes, to what I perceive Perry Dunlop, his wife Helen and their daughters, must be experiencing today.

   ALTHOUGH, I think everyone should read, “Lawyers Gone Bad” by “Philip Slayton”, selling in bookstores now. “VIKING CANADA” “Published by the Penguin Group” (ISBN-13; 978-0-670-06504-2, ISBN-10; 0-670-06504-8)

   Sent February 01, 2008 at 1549hrs.

   Log in to Reply