Subject: ... they said you need a membership card to get inside... Yeah, Right!

Ladies and Gentlemen

 

Re:  Family Law in B.C.

 

A lady came into my office in July 1996, with 2 teen-age girls, her purse and the clothes on her back.  She was frantic.  Her husband was at the family home, drinking alcohol, threatening to burn down the family home.  He threatened her and the girls - couldn't face the prospect of a separation/divorce.

 

The lady explained she had been to see 2 lawyers.  The first told her he'd help, but first she needed to come up with $ 5000 so he could file a Statement of Claim [$ 262], a Notice of Motion [$ 62], an Affidavit and other documents in Supreme Court of B.C.  He said it would take some time to get things done.  She didn't have the money so he sent her away.

 

The second lawyer said to apply for Legal Aid... but that would take weeks and she would need to make financial disclosure - resulting in being denied because she had too many assets.  She was in a Transition House that promised a maximum 2-week stay.  She was at her wits end when she came to my office in Abbotsford, B.C. - out of the blue.

 

We talked.  I said I would take her and her story to Abbotsford Provincial Court - we would see a Provincial Court Judge and ask for Orders that she be allowed to return to the family home, gain exclusive occupancy of the home, get police escort to the home for safety, get the husband/father out of the home under police escort, and restraining orders preventing him contacting the girls or their mom.  But... I told her the Supreme Court of Canada [and the B.C. Court of Appeal] had made rulings that said no Provincial Court Judge could make those types of Orders... telling the people of Canada, that there was no other way except going to Superior Court - explaining the Provincial Court doors were closed to her and to others in her position.

The case Reference Re: Section 6 Family Relations Act [S.C.C.] prevented the Provincial Court from assisting her in any way.

 

I said we would still go to Provincial Court, with the Law and Equity Act [B.C.] and would ask the Provincial Court Judge to give the help needed, regardless of what a 'higher' Court said.  She agreed with my delusional proposal.

 

So we went.  I explained to the Judge how the Law and Equity Act allowed him to make the Orders requested, even though other Courts had said no.  He agreed.  Judge Lenaghan made the Orders asked for, despite 'higher' Court precedent rulings.  She and the girls were home that night, they had their own beds, their father was out of the home, getting help and she and the girls had the protection they needed.  Ultimately, the couple reconciled - inviting me for coffee at their Latte Specialty Shop. 

 

The case culminated in my drafting an article that I gave to Professor Wes Pue, UBC Nemetz Professor of Legal History.  Wes holds a Doctorate in Law, specializing in Administrative Law and Constitutional Law.  He taught previously at Carleton University and at the University of Manitoba.  On reading the article, he said clearly it presented a precedent argument that tips the scales in favor of the lay person - it flew in the face of "centralist" legalisms and provided what he called "a revolutionary argument" in Canada's constitutional law history as it then was.  He asked me whether I was wanting to start a revolution, because the argument was unique in Canadian history.  He circulated the article amongst other faculty, who agreed with his conclusions - stating that the argument provided a way for the common person to hold judges accountable for what they do and don't do.

 

Ultimately, the article was published in a law journal distributed throughout B.C., called The Advocate [July 1998, Vol. 56, No. 4].  The editor, Tom Woods, said the journal needed to change editorial policy to allow publication because policy prevented a lawyer from commenting on his own case.  He said, given the import of the argument and the effects on family law and law generally in B.C., editorial policy was changed to allow me to comment on the case.

 

The argument is simple.  Family Law takes precedence over all other law.  The Act is the only piece of legislation in B.C. that governs what judges do and how they do it.  It is not taught in Law School faculties, does not form part of the curriculum.  Portions of it are edited out of the Law Society of B.C.'s Professional Legal Training Course [P.L.T.C.].  A recent publication called The Annotated Law and Equity Act says this piece of legislation stands unique among all the laws enacted in B.C.  It carries much power when properly used - power to allow a mother with 2 kids to stand up to and against powerful Supreme Court of Canada Justices, who are all federally appointed public officials.

 

B.C. Supreme Court Justices are also federal government appointed federal officials.  Every member of the Law Society of B.C. upon joining the Society becomes a federal officer of the federal courts.  Every Law Society of B.C. member, who carries a practicing certificate allowing them exclusively to practice law, functions as an 'officer' of a politically appointed federal public body.  Hence, the demand for loyalty to higher standing federal officers, i.e. Superior Court Justices.

 

On July 27.01, a federally appointed B.C. Supreme Court Justice admitted on transcript in Court to altering, revising, changing my pleadings filed on behalf of 180+ seniors involved in a case against Gordon Campbell, Bill Barisoff, and Rick Thorpe [B.C. Liberal Party officials].  The Legal Profession Act [s. 15(3)] says no one but practicing lawyers holding a practicing certificate can revise [draft] pleadings in Court.  Justice Drossos was not a lawyer, he functioned as a Justice under the Judges Act [Canada] that prevents Justices from engaging in work licensed lawyers can do.  Effectively, Justice Drossos practiced law without a license - an offence under the Legal Profession Act - yet the Society of Law in B.C. took no action against him, and neither did the Canadian Judicial Council.  I wrote the Council Dec. 13.01 stating matter of factly "Justice Drossos does not know his ass from a hole in the ground" and proceeded in that letter and a subsequent letter [Jan. 14.02] to explain how the Attorney General of B.C. at the time [Mr Dosanjh] covered up wrongdoing by Campbell, Thorpe and Barisoff - refusing to prosecute a case against the B.C. Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources where clear evidence of fraud, breach of trust, misrepresentation and contraventions of Mining Law were admitted in Court, including filed Affidavits.

 

Indeed, during the case, up to 5 lawyers on the other side stood up in Court asking the Justice to ignore their client's filed affidavits... and they were ignored.  Those affidavits admit Barisoff and his company mined without a permit, admit seniors blockaded Ministry of Highway tandem trucks from leaving the illegal mine, admit the trucks were loaded with road crush for a highway to the Osoyoos Indian Band casino, admit government and private funds were used to place a fish ladder in a spawning salmon creek to assist the fall salmon spawning run - in a creek that was and is dry in the fall... admit a 15 ton bridge was built with tax money to allow the fish ladder rock to be placed in the creek... a bridge just strong enough to withstand the weight of a rock crusher used by Barisoffs during California Bighorn Sheep rutting and birthing season, right under the lambing grounds and admit the mine operated during the migration time for the California Bighorn to get to their winter feeding grounds.  Hundreds of sheep died the next year, emaciated, starved to death - but the Ministry of Environment [B.C.] did nothing. 

 

I filed argument in B.C. Supreme Court on June 28.00 that resulted in the Law Society of B.C. lodging its own complaint against me on July 28.00 - the first time in its over 130 year history, that the Society decided to attack one of its own members.  The reason?  My argument left the Justice and the Superior Courts no choice - the Law and Equity Act demands and mandates all courts in B.C. and all judges in B.C., including all tribunals and administrative decision-making in B.C., must comply with the rules of equity, the rules of fairness, i.e. the principles of righteousness that protects families and sacred mother nature, first - above all.

 

The Society later, through its counsel Jessica Gossen, offered me a deal.  Dec. 01, I was told to drop the case against the MLA's and other officials, including a high ranking Q.C. T. Richard Brooke, Q.C. - I was told to tell my clients I would not work for them for free anymore, that yes, everyone knew and agreed they got 'screwed', but that to save any chance of keeping my license in tact, I must turn my back on my clients, tell them I quit on them, and walk away... because in the words of the Society's counsel, there were some heavy duty power players in the Society highly placed who did not want me practicing law under any circumstances whatsoever.

 

G. Jack Harris, Q.C. [a prominent attorney in the Lower Mainland] told me in Dec. 2000, the only problem with my case against government was "the timing of the election", referring to the May 2001 election coming up.  He said if the facts of the case for the seniors and the salmon and the sheep came to light - the likelihood that the Liberals would not be elected was very real, and that highly placed Society members and members of the B.C. Supreme Court Judiciary did not want the NDP or anyone else to have a chance to effect the Liberals getting elected.  He said the Society would discredit me - would do all it could to see me go down in flames - and that I had dozens of lawers from high powered firms working behind the scenes to shut me down.  In his words, he said they did not like seeing 'their boys' getting the shit kicked out of them in Court and that some power players were intervening and were obstructing the outcome of the case by seniors and traditionalist Osoyoos Band members - against the powers that be in Victoria and those behind the scenes.

 

My arguments in that case were based on the same principles I argued for the lady with 2 kids in distress.  The Law and Equity Act applies to all court cases, regardless of the parties involved.  It ranks unique among legislation in B.C. [and in the Common Law world], for it continues to hold to the principle that the family unit, the fabric of extended family, overrides all other legal rulings no matter where made.

 

My arguments and continued pressure have had their effect.  Justice Drossos resigned one week after admitting in Court to practicing law without a license.  The Chief Mining Offical, Eric Beresford, who turned a blind eye to illegal mining and environmental havoc, resigned.  The Deputy Executive Director of the B.C. Law Society [and Director of Discipline and Professional Responsibility], Jean Whittow, Q.C., resigned.  James Matkin, Q.C., former Executive Director of the Society, resigned.  Unbeknownst to me, in May 2000, on the 29th, a lawyer involved in the case, Thomas W. Barnes, wrote to Jean Whittow, Q.C., asking the Society to shut me down - because my pleadings had raised concerns...  He acted for 150 municipalities in B.C., all facing repercussions at a local level, because local government decision making would be affected by my argument.  Local councils and administrative bodies would be subjected to having to abide by equitable principles, and could not hide behind government secrecy, non-disclosure or other means of avoiding responsibility, accountability and potential personal liability for 'official' decisions.

 

I was counsel to the Osoyoos Chamber of Commerce [who represents 200+ Osoyoos businesses] in a case against the Town of Osoyoos, a precedent case, where potentially all Chambers of Commerce, and all other volunteer agencies or societies, could garner their energy, strength and support to stand up to government corruption, allowed by Law Society's who function not unlike the priests of old, who for a price, called indulgences, would take confessions and for money, would make wrongdoing go away and let wrongdoers go free.  No different are those Society members, those federal 'officers', who take money from the people, lots of it, claiming justification because some rules say so.  My argument simply states that Canada is governed by the rule of law, not the law of rules.

 

The Provincial Court of B.C. is well equipped to deal with all family law problems, without exception.  That Court has no filing fee, there are no "costs" at the end of the day, people can come there to get recourse and redress at little or not cost in a timely way.  But lawyers generally will not tell you that - they instead will say to you as they did to the lady and her two teen-age daughterss... pay me $ 5000 up front, and I will help you.  But that goes contrary to the Barrister's Oath, that says "Harm No One", just like the Hippocratic Oath.

But in B.C. that Oath is meaningless, given that the Society says a licensed practicing member has no duty to tell his or her client to obey the law.  It says, a client's interest is paramount.  My argument says, No.  Choose between right and wrong.  There is no divided loyalty that can allow any 'officer' holding 'public' office, from harming or abusing or otherwise mis-educating the public.

 

Interestingly, the Law Foundation of B.C. shares responsibility with the Law Society of B.C., to ensure proper education of the public regarding law.  But, neither corporation shows any interest in promulgating or promoting or enhancing or supporting education in matters of equity or in making sure would-be and wanna-be lawyers get properly educated about law as a service, not just a job.

 

The B.C. Law Society has deteriorated into just another business, the injustice business, a legal monopoly exlusively granting to its licensed members the chance to rip off the public because the public is taught 'lawyers' are the only ones trained to deal with 'legal' problems.  That is a lie.  As long as people treat lawyers like people treated priests of old, with their own vocabulary, their own lingo, their own prestige... the people are doomed to live in 'the dark ages'.

 

There is a way out.  An ancient way that recognizes the extended family begins with the idea that all nature is sacred, all life is sacred, there is no 'religious' - 'secular' distinction as far as equity is concerned.

 

I trust this brief missive will prompt more discussion and will give hope to others facing the morass of corruption.

 

Regards,

 

Karl-Heintz Eisbrenner, M.A. (Oxon.); L.L.B.