Continuing Breakdown In The RCMP...

One may only speculate if Harper avoided investigation of particular RCMP wrong doing in order to prevent investigation into the mid- (last) election announcement by the RCMP that it was entering upon a criminal investigation of Ralph Goodale's (cabinet) action on Income Trust policy. That was an investigation, by the way, that dribbled away into less than nothing, but is said to have significantly affected the election in favour of the Stephen Harper forces. Whatever the case in that matter, a careful (and very brief) look at the Kelly Marie Richard scandal opens up absolutely key questions about the health of Canadian democracy. Readers will decide if they think a full Public Inquiry into her situation should be conducted. I think it should - and give the reasons below. January 3, 2008 Organized Irresponsibility: The Kelly Marie Richard Fight For Courts of Integrity The following Report of extensive alleged institutional, corporate, and personal wrong-doing in the obstruction of justice and the alleged gross misuse of courts, the RCMP, legal entities, and professional associations involves matters of such critical importance to the freedom of Canadians that it is being sent to all MPs in the House of Commons and all MLAs in the Province of Alberta. The Report is written by a member of the Committee for the Defence of Kelly Marie Richard, a Committee concerned about her freedoms and her pursuit of justice - and, in addition, equally concerned with the meaning of her case for the freedoms, the tranquility, and the safety of the larger population in Canada. It is, as well, basis for requesting the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, and the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Alberta to undertake a full Public Inquiry into all aspects of the allegations involved. In addition, the Report exists and is sent as a formal Complaint to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, Beverley McLachlin, as head of the Canadian Judicial Council and, as well, is sent to the Canadian Judicial Council at its address in Ottawa. In almost all cases - in my experience - the most key people in oversight and public accountability institutions refuse and/or reject the responsibility covered by the literal scope of their mandates and by the moral authority given to them in trust. The "complaint" part of this Report will follow what is, as introduction, essential accompanying information. At the same time, ALL of the Report constitutes the basis for the request for a Public Inquiry into every aspect of the allegations recorded here and elsewhere in the documents and records and complaints connected to the dental malpractice action. The matter of the Report began more than five years ago as the "simple" incident of a mother and her two sons receiving orthodontic treatments from "experts" in Calgary, Alberta. Those "treatments", it is alleged by the three patients (with supporting reports by several dental professionals), were seriously harmful and damaging. The three sought expert care, and they sought the assistance of the professional associations of Alberta dentists. Because, they allege, of the severity of the damage done to them, they foresaw beginning a civil malpractice case against the two dental experts involved in order to recover costs of medical/dental care and to be recompensed for the alleged serious damage done to them. In the Canada people believe exists, the three (a) would have received the care they required in Alberta. They (b) would have filed a civil claim in Alberta courts. The case (c) would have been heard fairly by an impartial judge. They would (d) have won or lost their case on the evidence presented. The matter (e) would have taken only a little time - the essentials being straightforward and based largely on scientific medical information and records. Those things did not happen. The "case" exploded. Of that there is not the slightest doubt. It exists six years later - as I write - never having reached trial, in swamp-dark suspension, having dragged through a ridiculous number of "examination for discovery" dates and a series of "case management" meetings operating, Ms. Richard alleges, apparently, as a mini-trial (of the Plaintiffs) and running beyond a reasonable length of time. The case trails allegations of active or passive wrong-doing by the dental association of Alberta and by dental experts in B.C., by certain Alberta psychological experts, CGI - the huge private corporation which, it is alleged, undertakes all litigation for ING the insurer for dental malpractice -, certain Alberta lawyers, certain Alberta judges, some officers of the RCMP, some officers of the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP, and parts or aspects of the higher judicial structure, itself, in Alberta. One of the most extraordinary aspects has been - from the beginning - a persistent and highly suspicious attempt to have Kelly Marie Richard, mother and guardian of her two boys, somehow, anyhow, named "mad" and/or mentally unstable and/or incompetent -incapable of either managing the case or testifying in it. Here I must record that I taught university and other students for several decades, from entry level to the Ph.D, working at times with students under great and continuing stress for reasons related to and totally unrelated to their university work. I had, as a professional, to weigh their situation from day to day and from week to week in order to assure myself, the university, and the students themselves of their safety and (especially mental) good health. I have examined many long and complicated documents created by Kelly Marie Richard and I have corresponded with her at some length. I have detected some signs of stress in her; I have never detected anything else than a crystal clear, lucid, and sane person at work. Stress, indeed, is often - among sane, intelligent people - an aid in the production of detailed and organized material. That seems to be the case with her and is expecially interesting since she alleges she has worked under severe harassment and in the face of criminal obstruction while suffering real, continuing pain and anguish from the alleged orthodontic maltreatment. In what follows, I have seen convincing documentation for many of the allegations. I would not produce this Report if I were not convinced that a real basis exists, and a deep need for public examination of the whole matter needs to be undertaken to achieve justice for Ms. Richard and her sons and to assure the preservation and maintenance of the freedoms Canadians enjoy. Before Ms. Richard and her sons filed a Statement of Claim to begin a civil case against two dental experts who treated them, she alleges (1) the Alberta Dental Association refused (a) to treat her for emergency pain or (b) to assure she had on-going care with a practitioner or practitioners. At the same time as she wrote to the Alberta Dental Association she wrote, also, (2) to the Alberta Health Minister, Gary Mar, explaining the refusal of assistance from A.D.A. and requesting help. Ms. Richard alleges that an Alberta Children's Services investigation was initiated a few days later into her fitness to care for her two sons in junior high school. She alleges the children were harassed, threatened with being taken from their mother, and that she herself was threatened in phone calls, some of which concerned the urging of her not to file a law suit. Her ex-husband, she alleges, was telephoned and asked inappropriate questions - some about her mental health. Both she and her ex-husband asked for help to find treatment, she alleges - and were refused. When she informed Alberta Children's Services that she had recorded their telephone calls, and sent them a few copies of recorded calls, they quickly closed the file, writing that Ms. Richard was an excellent mother. She alleges (3) that Doctor Duncan Brown, Calgary, telephoned her, had her visit, placed in her hand a one-page letter referring her to Doctor Stuart Donaldson, D.D.S. for immediate consultation concerning her jaw and teeth, etc. damage. By chance, she had Dr. Donaldson's receptionist make a copy of the one-page referral, or it would most likely have disappeared as evidence. Dr. Donaldson, Ms Richard alleges, took the letter from the receptionist and did not correct the D.D.S. designation on it. She learned later that (a) Dr. Donaldson is a psychology professional. She learned (b) that he is not D.D.S., and has no dental training whatever. He placed a psychological question sheet in front of her which she ignored. She alleges she answered no questions of a psychological nature ever and that she did not realize he was not a dental expert until after her brief contact with him. She alleges Dr. Donaldson was working for CGI, the large private corporation which undertook, through the law firm Macleod Dixon, and principally, lawyer Alan Rudakoff, to conduct all litigation in defence against the (at that time not yet) filed civil claim against the two Calgary orthodontists (insured by ING against malpractice suits, ING engaging CGI to conduct all litigation for it). She alleges, moreover, that she and her ex-husband had two brief meetings with Dr. Donaldson, at all times believing he was a dental professional, that he called a walk-in doctor he knew she was going to consult, told the walk-in doctor that he - Stuart Donaldson - was her psychologist and that she was in psychotherapy with him, was being difficult, and needed incapacitating psychotropic medication. She alleges (4) the family sought help from a B.C. dental professional whom, she alleges, informed her that he would not treat her and her sons - after committing to treat them - because the Alberta Dental Association cautioned him not to treat Ms. Richard and her sons because to do so would support a law suit. Ms. Richard alleges she has that conversation recorded on audio tape. Eventually, she was referred to a dental specialist in the U.S.A. who treated her because, she alleges, she could not obtain treatment in Alberta or British Columbia. Before any civil claim had been filed, Ms. Richard alleges (5) that her confidential Alberta government Health and Wellness files were entered (by CGI she alleges, which has huge contracts with Alberta and federal government ministries and agencies); and she alleges the files were significantly violated in order to injure or incapacitate a civil action. As a result, when she discovered the alleged entry, she (6) reported her alleged findings and her beliefs to the Calgary RCMP Commercial Crime branch in March 2006. That branch, she alleges, almost immediately violated confidentiality, carried information about her report to the CGI lawyer, Alan Rudakoff, misinformed her about the kind of wrong-doing involved in illegal entry to and violation of confidential government records, and refused to undertake any investigation. Promptly, she alleges (7) the CGI lawyer, Alan Rudakoff, declared that he wanted her to be subjected to psychiatric testing as a result of her request to Calgary RCMP Commercial Crime that they investigate allegations of confidential record tampering by CGI. Alarmed, Ms. Richard then filed a complaint about Calgary RCMP Commercial Crime with the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP. Ms. Richard alleges (8) an officer in the office complained of telephoned her, claimed to be acting for the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP, misrepresented her complaint, and harassed her and caused her - out of fear - to withdraw her complaint. Neither the RCMP nor the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP (9) have made a move to correct the apparent harassment and violation of her freedoms in which she alleges they engaged. The Statement of Claim for dental malpractice was filed on October 14, 2003. The litigation process was entered then but Ms. Richard alleges that the Defence (Macleod Dixon for CGI) avoided any progress for years, while her family was struggling to survive and to pay for very expensive treatment which they were forced to take in the U.S.A., she alleges, because of alleged refusal of treatment in Alberta and British Columbia. Ms. Richard alleges a request was made for case management only after she had reported that she had discovered the alleged entry and violation of her confidential Alberta government Health and Wellness records and had asked in March 2006 for RCMP investigation. At that moment (10), she alleges, Alan Rudakoff of Macleod Dixon applied to have the dental malpractice suit assigned to case management. Ms. Richard alleges the case management process before Justice Paul Chrumka was undertaken to place her in a position to be forced into psychiatric examination by prejudiced examiners. She alleges that as fact, partly because lawyer Alan Rudakoff was pressing - and continued to press - to have her placed under a psychiatrist. (She left Calgary, finally, to live with relations in Ontario, partly, she alleges, to prevent the court - at the instancing of Defence counsel (Alan Rudakoff for CGI) - from forcing her into the power of a psychiatrist or psychiatrists.) In matters concerning the case management process Ms. Richard alleges (11) the lawyer acting for her and her sons - since the beginning of the law suit - was won to the side of the Defence, worked inadequately, filed a seriously flawed affidavit, delayed filing, etc., and had to be immediately dismissed when she and her sons learned and believed (to their satisfaction) he had been alienated from their interests - by, she alleges - his own admission. Her deepest concern on the matter, she alleges, involved a meeting their lawyer Stephen Nelson had, along with a judge (she believes was Paul Chrumka) about stopping her from filing documentation which she alleges exposes Alan Rudakoff's and Justice Chrumka's serious misconduct. Stephen Nelson, she alleges, refused to file the document. Important reference is made to Stephen Nelson a little later. He is referred to here so that he will be recognized in later reference to him. The introduction of this Report ends here, and the formal complaint against judges of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench begins. The reason Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada Beverley McLachlin is directly addressed, and the reason the request for a full Public Inquiry is made in this Report become clear. Ms. Richard made an extensive complaint on the matter of the judges of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench in Calgary to the Canadian Judicial Council. Her complaint was turned away on grounds that may satisfy the personnel of the Canadian Judicial Council (CJC) but which would not, I believe, satisfy many reasonable, prudent, and concerned Canadians. The information I have written thus far appeared to be of no interest to the CJC. If the actions of judges in a Canadian higher court are allegedly connected to on-going attempts to damage a person or persons, the CJC - it appears - is uninterested. It has a tight, hidebound, bureaucratic, rule-laden, miniscule space in which it may review higher court judges, a space with which the CJC seems to be complacently at ease. The Canadian Judicial Council is, in effect, broken. It requires massive overhaul because the higher courts of Canada are becoming increasingly separated from the life and needs of the larger population. In many cases the courts are too expensive. They are increasingly secretive. They are increasingly the playthings of wealthy interest groups. They are increasingly closed shops serving dubious governments, dubious police forces, dubious and powerful law firms, dubious private corporations. For several years - to instance a parallel situation - commentators have been describing the break-down of the RCMP and of the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP - with very little notice being taken. Finally, high level head office RCMP misuse of power, publicly scandalous "murders" of RCMP detainees, and a filmed, unnecessary death of a wholly innocent man about which the RCMP is widely believed to have lied publicly without hesitation have brought SOME review of the RCMP. The recent David Brown led Task Force on Governance and Culture Change in the RCMP, describes a hopelessly broken institution requiring massive structural changes and a Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP declared, in effect, to be almost useless. Those two wounded animals, incidentally, received notice of grievances by Kelly Marie Richard and, she alleges, violated them. The third, as yet publicly unexamined wounded animal, the Canadian Judicial Council, to which she took a third grievance, was incapable of dealing with matters of real merit in her complaint. The Canadian Judicial Council requires massive structural changes - as does RCMP and CPC. The structure of higher courts also needs massive structural changes. Presently, chief justices may become despots in unexamined fiefdoms. The increasingly closed nature of so-called "public tribunals" invites insider manipulation and abuse of process. Appeals against such behaviour by courts and judges are delivered to an institution structurally unable to deal with them, called the Canadian Judicial Council. It is to that institution, the Canadian Judicial Council, that this complaint is also directed. Kelly Marie Richard alleges that the lawyers (Macleod Dixon) chose to ask for case management of her case and that of her two sons (Action No. O301-16147) without any consultation with them as Plaintiffs. She alleges she has never seen a single document requesting (by Defence) case management or the granting of it (by a judge). Case management is an Alberta process of, designedly, a semi-formal nature undertaken with a view to bringing parties together in order to survey differences, make trial less cumbersome, and - if possible, though unlikely - resolve matters so that trial might become unnecessary. In civil disputes settlement outside of court is almost alsways considered preferable by society. Ms. Richard reports that the process of case management has been overseen, mostly, by Justice Paul Chrumka, then by Justice W.E. Wilson, and for the next meeting Justice C.S. Brooker, all at the behest of Alberta's Asociate Chief Justice N.C. Wittman. She reports that there have been, to date, twelve case management conferences held as if "trial" in courtrooms. She alleges that though she was suffering severe pain and physical distress from alleged orthodontic injury, she was never consulted about dates and times, which were "arranged" by CGI lawyer Alan Rudakoff and Justice Chrumka, that the need for medical treatment, travel, distance, and employment were never fairly considered by CGI lawyers and Justice Chrumka, and were, instead, used as reasons to harass her and her sons - even to the point of providing bases for Defence counsel to ask one or other of the Plaintiffs be held in contempt of court. Case management is undertaken to review matters specifically relating to the Statement of Claim filed by the Plaintiffs and to attempt to expedite matters in order to facilitate a more effective and efficient trial. Ms. Richard alleges that twelve case management conferences were employed to harass, embarrass, inconvenience, and cause anguish to the Plaintiffs - with the full cooperation of Justice Chrumka. On May 16, 2006, the first case management conference was held before Justice Paul Chrumka. In it Alan Rudakoff admitted being contacted by the RCMP Commercial Crime section and provided information (of a private and confidential nature which he should not have been given). Ms Richard alleges, as well, he falsely reported the facts of the Statement of Claim in the dental malpractice suit, falsely reported her behaviour in examinations for discovery meetings, falsely reported the role and involvement of what Rudakoff called "the insurance adjuster"(CGI), falsely reported the formal matter of her complaint to RCMP Calgary Commercial Crime section, falsely reported that the RCMP investigated, falsely reported that the RCMP "dismissed the complaint as being sheer poppycock and so advised the Plaintiff", falsely declared that examinations for discovery and case management had to deal with matters nowhere mentioned in the Statement of Claim, falsely reported that Ms. Richard was a potential physical threat, in fact :"we don't know what she is capable of". Ms. Richard alleges, further, that Alan Rudakoff falsely reported the places where examinations for discovery were held, falsely stated she produced "more and more documents" at examinations for discovery when she alleges she never brought documents to discovery. Mr. Rudakoff then declared: "She's exhibiting what appears to be fairly psychotic behaviour and we want to know if she is capable of giving evidence and whether her evidence has any meaning to us. We are attempting to obtain evidence from a psychiatrist right now to put before you…." Ms. Richard alleges Alan Rudakoff falsely stated she would consider no resolution process in relation to her claim. And more. In reply, her lawyer Stephen Nelson recorded she had "never made threats to anybody","has never broken the law in any way","has always taken the legal route","she has always tried to use proper channels to alleviate her concerns". He was interrupted by Justice Chrumka commenting that it "is not legal if you make false accusations" and said "she leaves herself open to prosecution, for malicious remarks…." Justice Chrumka continued to suggest actions that could be taken against her, without possessing a shred of evidence to prove his position. The judge, of course, placed her in a very difficult position. Major suspicions she has recorded officially have never been investigated for her by responsible authorities. The judge is suggesting that to utter those suspicions makes her "open to prosecution for malicious remarks". Mr Rudakoff closed by saying "with respect to this psychiatric independent medical examination motion, we will be in contact with your office once we are satisfied we have the evidence…." As a result of what Ms. Richard alleges are a series of falsehoods presented by Alan Rudakoff, Justice Chrumka ordered - without a scrap of solid evidence, and without consulting Ms. Richard - "that there be a security person present at the discoveries. That security person should be in uniform, that sometimes has a calming effect on people". Mr. Alan Rudakoff, it must be underscored, used confidential information from the RCMP, information he should not have possessed, is alleged to have falsified that information, is alleged to have falsified the use the RCMP made of it (they did not investigate), is alleged to have falsified the RCMP conclusion "they dismissed the complaint as being sheer poppycock and so advised the Plaintiff". Mr. Rudakoff then used that "material" to move to a claim of Ms. Richard's "outrageous behaviour", a need for a uniformed guard at examination for discovery meetings, and to allegations of Ms. Richar's mental instability. He moved directly to say: "But this sort of disturbing activity by the Plaintiff raises suspicion in the minds of the defence counsel and our clients as to what other sorts of outrageous behaviour in which she is going to engage and what she might be capable of…." Justice Chrumka made not a single demurrer and moved quickly to install a uniformed guard at all succeeding examinations for discovery meetings. On February 7, 2007, the Plaintiffs allege they possessed information which led them to the immediate dismissal of their lawyer, Stephen Nelson who they allege informed them he was now serving Alan Rudakoff, lawyer for the Defendants (CGI). On February 8, Ms. Richard confirmed the fact of Stephen Nelson's dismissal electronically with Stephen Nelson, Alan Rudkoff, and Justice Chrumka. On February 8, Stephen Nelson apparently declared, she alleges, that he was withdrawing from his relation with the Plaintiffs. That action normally imposes an obligation upon such a lawyer to continue representing his client for a certain number of days if he is ordered to do so (obviously for the protection of the client). But Ms. Richard alleges she dismissed Nelson, as of immediately, before he sought to withdraw his services and she fully informed Defence and judge of his immediate dismissal. Ms. Richard alleges she also applied for a postponement of the February 9 case management meeting to organize (now unrepresented) material and to seek counsel to instruct. Without informing her, she alleges, the February 9 meeting was held, her request for postponement ignored, and Stephen Nelson - without any question by Justice Chrumka concerning whether he was dismissed or withdrawing - was ordered to represent her, and he did so. Not only, she alleges, did he not represent the Plaintiffs but she alleges he earlier told her he was now working for the Defence and, indeed, refused to file an affidavit for her presenting criticism of Alan Rudakoff and Justice Chrumka. If her allegarions are true, all further processes held under case management moving from that meeting must, I believe, be declared void and the matter investigated. If Justice Paul Chrumka is at fault in the matter - and there seems to be reason to believe he may be - then investigation would have to include a serious review of the reasons for his appointment, and that would involve a review of the role played by Associate Chief Justice N.C. Wittman who, allegedly, appointed Chrumka. After the first case management meeting, Alan Rudakoff (Macleod Dixon) acting for the Defendants (CGI), allegedly sought an "opinion" from a Dr. Kenneth Hashman, Southern Alberta Forensic Psychiatric Centre, usually involved with heavy, forensic psychiatry matters - an "opinion" about Ms. Richard which he, Rudakoff, could carry to Justice Paul Chrumka. Ms. Richard alleges Dr. Hashman never met her. Obviously, if that is true, he never examined her. He wrote, however, a letter for Alan Rudakoff in which he reported that he could not provide diagnostic impressions but, nonetheless, he made hypothetical guesses. Dr. Hashman reports that he was acting upon information from Alan Rudakoff. If that is true, the letter from Dr. Hashman is worthless. It was accepted by Justice Chrumka. Ms. Richard alleges that she requested a copy of the information received from Alan Rudakoff by Dr. Hashman as a basis for his report upon which he made hypothetical observations, and she alleges Justice Chrumka upheld the decision by Alan Rudakoff to refuse to let her have a copy of that information. The "information" supplied to Dr. Hashman and the hypothetical assessment he made of Ms. Richard were used subsequently by the court to order that Ms. Richard undergo psychiatric examination. Ms. Richard reports that thirteen days were scheduled for Defence to conduct examinations for discovery and many more were granted but cancelled. Eleven were completed. She alleges they were many, many more than were needed and alleges they were used largely to harass and destabilize her, a uniformed guard being present by order of Justice Chrumka to protect against her possible violent behaviour - an assumption based upon worthless and scandalous "information". She alleges, further, that the Plaintiffs were granted insufficient time to conduct examination for discovery, that she was not ever paid "conduct money" by the Defence - paid to make possible appearance at discoveries - as set out by the court. She alleges further that one of the Defendants, Dr. Hoffman, ignored with impunity the order to appear for examination for discovery before a fixed date and his breach of the order was ignored by the judge. At this point it is reasonable to examine some events a little more closely because they point to the major questions with which this Report is concerned. Ms. Richard alleges that counsel for the Defence was granted 13 days of examination for discovery, eleven of which were completed. She alleges, further, that Defence proposed another twenty days of discovery which were not realized; but Justice Chrumka made no demurrer at the proposal. To compare, the Plaintiffs, she alleges, requested a very few days for examination for discovery and were, for no apparent reason, cut back. Dr. Lee-Knight, Defendant, made himself available for only one day of discovery on February 9, 2005. He was to be followed on February 10 by one day of discovery of the second Defendant, Dr. Barry Hoffman. Because, she alleges, Dr. Lee-Knight gave testimony seriously damaging to the Defence, Alan Rudakoff, counsel for the Defence (CGI), abruptly cut the discovery short and cancelled Dr. Hoffman's day of discovery, was permitted to do so, and refused to reschedule any further time for examination for discovery for some time - when the unreasonable number of days for examination for discovery of Ms. Richard was granted. Plaintiffs, she alleges, asked for three days of examination for discovery of Dr. Barry Hoffman. Justice Chrumka cut the time to two days without explanation. At that examination for discovery (Jan. 18. 07), Ms. Richard alleges, Alan Rudacoff stated that Dr. Hoffman would only attend part of one day, and he did so without any disciplinary consequences. She alleges, moreover, that Stephen Nelson, the Plaintiff's lawyer at the time, did not object to the change and did not otherwise represent the Plaintiffs fairly in the examination for discovery - having agreed to ask the questions prepared by Ms. Richard and her son from their direct experience of the alleged malpractice. At the event he refused to ask the questions prepared and/or he changed them, she alleges, damagingly and against direct instructions agreed upon mutually. On January 18, 2007, Stephen Nelson was still representing the Plaintiffs, but was only a few weeks away from the date upon which he was, Ms. Richard alleges, dismissed for admitting, she alleges, that he was serving Alan Rudakoff's interests. He, she alleges, in response to dismissal, filed his withdrawal. At present, as I write, counsel for CGI - the core matter of the Plaintiff's never having been permitted to come to trial - is calling to have the claim dismissed and Ryan Trigg held in contempt of court for failing to appear at case management meetings. I could go on and on detailing like kinds of behaviour on the part of lawyers, judges, and others. I will stop here, except to say that allegations have been made of unfiled (and therefore undistributed) communications between judge and counsel for the Defence, refusal of delivery of evidence to the Plaintiffs necessary for conduct of the process, refusal of postponements or other arrangements requested for reasons of health or other by the Plaintiffs, attempts by the Defence to have Alberta's Public Trustee take over representation of one of her sons from Ms. Richard. She alleges the Alberta Public Trustee has a signficant relation with CGI. Allegations have been made, more than once, that evidence of the Plaintiffs is ignored by judges and even that a judge, Justice W. E. Wilson, undertook case management supervision having only received material from counsel for the Defence and, therefrom, made a significant ruling. Canadian law refers to the responses of "reasonable and prudent" people when it wishes to address the way in which actions, events, and other forms of evidence might be fairly perceived. I believe that - even on the basis of the severely limited body of material presented here (there is much, much more) - a very large number of reasonable and prudent Canadians would be very disturbed at the picture of Canadian justice suggested. I believe they would want the following questions answered beyond the shadow of a doubt. Has the Court of Queen's Bench, Calgary, protected the persons and the freedoms of the Plaintiffs in this case? Has the Court of Queen's Bench and its officers permitted extraordinary and destructive delay? Have the senior judges or the senior judge of the Court of Queen's Bench, Calgary, appropriately appointed judges and appropriately overseen the proceedings is this case? Have the senior judges or the senior judge in the case been deliberately discriminatory? Have Justice Paul Chrumka and Justice Wilson conducted themselves appropriately? Has Justice Chrumka given evidence of bias, and prejudice in findings, rulings, directions, instructions, oversight of behaviour, etc. in this case? Have the lawyers involved with the case from Macleod Dixon for the Defence (CGI) conducted themselves appropriately, caring for and assuring the freedoms of and fair practice for the Plaintiffs? Have the lawyers involved from Macleod Dixon for the Defence (CGI) had special and inappropriate recourse to and influence upon a judge or judges in the case? Have lawyers involved from Macleod Dixon (CGI) obstructed the reasonable pursuit of justice? Do lawyers involved from Macleod Dixon (CGI) have inappropriate contacts with the RCMP? Does the RCMP have inappropriate contacts with CGI or any of its representatives? Has the RCMP in the matter had incorrect or inappropriate contacts with the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP? Does the government of Alberta and/or any of its agencies or servants have inappropriate relations or contacts with CGI? Has the lawyer (until February 2007) acting for the Plaintiffs fulfilled his obligations to them? Does he have or did he have or has he had inappropriate relations and/or contacts with counsel for the Defendants? Has obstruction of justice been practiced by any of the above named? Out of all those questions - reasonable and prudent Canadians might form another, final question central to Canadian democracy: Are major public bodies and agencies - mentioned above - working as one to serve the interests of a huge private, profit-making corporation, and are they willing to sacrifice all concepts and traditions of Canadian justice in order to do so? No one person can answer those questions, the answers of which are absolutely essential to the just completion of the civil malpractice case of Ms.Richard and her sons AND NO LESS to the maintenance of justice and freedom for the people of Canada. Allegations by Ms. Richard and her sons are - overall - that a plain colour of damaging bias runs through all aspects of the dental malpractice case - in and out of the litigation process - involving the RCMP, the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP, judges, lawyers, psychologists and psychiatrists, CGI, the Court of Queen's Bench itself, and agencies and Ministries of the Alberta government. For that reason, I call upon the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, the Honourable Robert Nicholson, and the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Alberta, the Honourable Ron Stevens, to launch a Public Inquiry into the Kelly Marie Richard and sons malpractice case and to investigate and report on all aspects arising from allegations in the matter. I call on the Canadian Judicial Council to undertake a special investigation in which it not only reviews the material available from the processes involved in the Kelly Marie Richard and sons dental malpractice case but engages the Plaintiffs directly and all the judges involved from the Calgary, Alberta, Court of Queen's Bench directly and the lawyers involved for the Defence (Macleod Dixon) directly in a fair and balanced search for the truth of the matters alleged and for the full explanation of the behaviour of judges. I request - the seriousness of the threat to judicial integrity and the credibility of Canada's higher courts being evident in the case - that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada oversee and direct that full Canadian Judicial Council investigation. I call upon all MPs in the House of Commons and all MLAs in the Alberta legislature to take this matter - and all its implications - directly to Party and Caucus and to formulate policy concerning it and to press whatever government is in office to undertake massive overhaul of the Canadian Judicial Council, the structure of higher courts in Canada, the RCMP, the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP, the legislation permitting "self-governing" professional organizations to exist - whether medical, dental, or legal, or other, and to ask for more severe rules and legislation dealing with private Information Technology corporations working for, with, or in close relation to governments or government agencies. Finally, I call upon the Associate Chief Justice of Alberta N. C. Wittman to freeze all further actions, conferences, or meetings of any kind whatsoever related to the civil malpractice case of Ms. Richard and her sons until the two investigations I request are completed. Respectfully, Robin Mathews