Revisited: The Canary in the Coal Mine. Kelly Marie Richard. Part Two

Revisited: The Canary in the Coal Mine. Kelly Marie Richard. Part Two.

In a brief note to me, Kelly Marie Richard commented on what she believes I would find most important in the almost incredible conduct (in her and her sons’ dental malpractice case) by judiciary and lawyers acting for the contract litigator CGI and the insurer of dentists ING.

(I don’t mention, in that paragraph above, the wrongful actions of the RCMP which have served - seemingly - by careful design, to obstruct reasonable procedure and to block important evidence from coming before the court.)

Ms. Richard alleges that she and her sons have “solid evidence” that a judge of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench is lying about evidence, that counsel for the Defence is lying, and that the court records are being altered.

Does that sound like the “show trials” of Stalin’s Russia? A novel by Franz Kafka? Ms. Richard’s allegations are the kind that might make many Canadians pause. Even those who accepted my general statement in Part One. Even those who accepted my statement that there is a new “organized crime” in the Western World, and “that the ‘new’ organized crime ‘organizes’ from the top, enlisting whole interlocking public institutions in its service”.

I wrote in addition: “The new “organized crime” works for the unregulated, unexamined, cut-throat operation of “Free Market corporations”.

In late 2001 and in 2002 Ms. Richard and her two sons suffered, they allege, from serious malpractice at the hands of two orthodontists, one a member of the faculty of the University of Alberta (both covered by Canadian dental malpractice insurance – the Defence lawyers acting, in fact, for the insurer’s litigator, a huge Information Technology corporation with many other corporate interests, CGI).

The Richards possess an almost astonishing array of documentary, medical evidence and testimony to support their allegations of damage done to them in 2001 and 2002. The case might have been heard and settled in a matter of months.

It is now 2009.

The case is still in the Wonderland of Alberta Courts called “Case Management”, a process especially designed to bring parties in conflict together pre-trial, to focus primary issues, and to permit expeditious movement to fair trial!

In this case the facts, I allege, show plainly that the Case Management has been twisted out of recognition in order to subject Kelly Marie Richard – and her sons – to illicit ‘trial’ and to harsh de facto “convictions” outside a trial process as if the Plaintiffs are criminals. The family, beginning in middle class comfort, has been brought to destitution. Kelly Marie Richard has been named in contempt of court and her dental malpractice claim erased. Her older son is facing a similar attack. (He was twelve in 2001) The family still suffers seriously from the effects of the dental “treatment” received and has gained no recompense or satisfaction of their grievance.

The lawyer in whom the Kelly Marie Richards and her sons placed their trust had, they allege, to be fired for incompetence and – Ms. Richard alleges, for admittedly working for the opposing Defence. Ms. Richard dismissed him and informed the judge of his dismissal – with a request for time to organize materials. Without response the judge ordered the same lawyer, a few days later, to represent the family in a case management meeting about which Ms. Richard was not even informed.

She was aspersed in court by Defence counsel, her sanity questioned without a shred of evidence, and the judge ordered – without any formal application – that a guard be present (to protect against her potential violence!) at all Examinations for Discovery meetings.

Misusing false hearsay evidence from the RCMP and unacceptable “specialist” opinion, Defence repeatedly attempted – in my opinion – to force Ms. Richard to undergo rigged mental examinations so that she could be declared incompetent to proceed to trial.

The court, in my view, permitted Defence absurd time for Examinations for Discovery – eleven days, with many more granted if Defence chose to use them. The same judge refused Ms. Richard the three days she wanted to examine the Defendants in Examinations for Discovery, cutting the time from three to two days – and then permitted Defence to violate that order with impunity.

A court deadline for completion of all Examinations for Discovery was set at December 22, 2006. The present judge – at the instancing of Defence counsel – has brushed that date aside and is insisting that Ms. Richard’s sons, children at the time of the alleged malpractice, appear in Calgary for Examinations for Discovery.

As if to give unquestionable proof that the actions taken against Ms. Richard and her sons are blatantly fraudulent, the very process of Case Management was started by the Defence and the court without consulting the Plaintiffs, and it was based upon false allegations. In addition – despite repeated requests, neither the court nor the counsel for Defence will (or can) produce any documentary proof that the Case Management procedure was legitimately undertaken.

When I examine Case Management transcripts, I cannot believe the crudeness permitted Defence counsel by the court or what appears to me to be the obvious and flagrant partiality and bias of judges.

I have repeatedly been in the position of an observer who cannot believe the violations of just procedure and responsibility enacted before my eyes. For instance:

*The RCMP has covered itself with disgrace, engaging I believe, in highly dishonourable and probably criminal acts to defeat the claims of the Ms. Richard and her sons. After repeated requests on my part the RCMP conducted what I judge was a wholly and purposefully fraudulent review of its actions to prevent Ms. Richard from gaining evidence of CGI violation of her confidential government of Alberta records. And it was (almost hilariously) supported in its position by the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP.

*The conduct of nearly all lawyers in the matter has been unacceptable, to my eyes. The whole weight of lawyer activity – as I judge it – has been to engage in any measure – legitimate or illegitimate – to prevent a trial from proceeding, AND to bankrupt, demoralize, and destroy the Plaintiffs as part of the strategy.

*The comportment, in my view, of judges in the matter has been – from the beginning – unacceptable. From Neil Wittmann, Associate Chief Justice of Alberta and head of the Court of Queen’s Bench, Calgary, through almost all judges connected to the matter, their activity – I allege, with deepest regret – has been such as leads me to believe they have been acting in such a way as to awaken a more than reasonable perception of bias.

That is a guarded statement of the case. The tough question which must be asked is if the judges are, in fact, in the service of the large, private corporations involved. As a very simple example: the Plaintiffs applied to Associate Chief Justice Wittmann and presiding Justice C. S. Brooker requesting consideration (regarding Case Management appearances) on the basis of necessary removal to Toronto for treatment of their malpractice injuries and their straightened financial state. The judges refused to extend any consideration.

In what must be monstrous behaviour, Ryan Trigg (Ms Richard’s son, 12-13 years old at the time of the alleged malpractice), in straightened circumstances, holding a job in Ontario, faced an application (as his mother did earlier) for an order holding him in contempt for being unable to attend previous Case Management meetings. Defence asked to have (as had been done to his mother) his claim struck out and Ryan Trigg assessed for costs. He was forced to fly to Calgary to defend his position. And he alleges the result has been that the judge demands he agree to ANY court order without appeal.

Remember all of that has happened pre-trial – with the substantial evidence in the hands of the Plaintiffs blocked from being placed in consideration.

Both Defendants ignored orders for Examinations for Discovery. Both violated the process and the times set out. Application for remedy by Ms. Richard was ignored by the court.

The entanglement of judges with law firms and/or institutes or other organizations in which they hold/or have held collegial positions with or connecting with involved parties is deeply disturbing. Ms. Richards and her sons have accused some of the judges, in that regard, with significant conflict of interest and/or bias. Their presentations are always dismissed curtly.

As late as the summer of 2008 Alan Rudakoff for the Defence was still – it would appear - attempting to force one of the Plaintiffs (this time Ryan Trigg) into mental examination. Rudakoff stated that they had been prepared “with many documents and medical attendances” for an Examination for Discovery at which Ryan Trigg had been unable to attend. No mention of “medical attendances” had ever been made in connection with the process.

What on earth would a healthy nineteen year old (except for possessing the alleged malpractice damage) do needing “medical attendances” at an Examination for Discovery?

In relation to this Gothic Horror of a case, I have appealed to the Attorney General of Alberta and Rob Nicholson, Minister of Justice, Canada, asking for a full public Inquiry. They communicated with me in such a way as to have me believe they are working for the large, private corporations involved. The brush-off was amateurish, Rob Nicholson - answering after months and months of delay to the effect that (as I read his letter) he does not have jurisdiction over the matters he has jurisdiction over.

The Wild West Attorney General of Alberta wrote to say that if I think something’s wrong why don’t I lay charges. If I persist, she will doubtless suggest I buy an AK47 and clean up the matter myself.

I wrote to every MP in the House of Commons and to every MLA in the legislature of Alberta. A handful bothered even to acknowledge my full and serious report to them of alleged wrong-doing. In short, they didn’t care, or in the ‘new parliaments’ they were warned away from the matter by their masters and handlers.

Jim Travers, National Affairs columnist for the Toronto Star wrote, April 4 09, (quoted in Part One):
“Muzzled MPs, A powerless cabinet. Politicized senior bureaucrats, Unaccountable parties. Canada’s democracy is in trouble”. Without knowing it, he was writing about the Kelly Marie Richard case. I added to his list (in Part One) “An actively corrupt national police force. A legal system riddled with uncatchable criminals. A higher court structure which is hopelessly elitist and suborned. Associated regulatory bodies that are shells – nauseating supporters of the new organized crime.”

My honest and conservative belief is that Kelly Marie Richards and her sons are facing that reality – and that all Canadians are. My honest and conservative belief is that matters will get worse for all Canadians until they take determined action to make change.

Options

Revisited: The Canary In The Coal Mine. Kelly Marie Richard. Part Two

Contributed By

Topic

Article Rating

Options

Latest Editorials

Your Voice