|
CONTEMPT OF COURT ! |
|
|
You have instances whereby most Judges are appointed , not upon their Legal experience and expertise, but the appointment of some "Political Hack" by the ruling political party who rewards this Hack for his past political affiliations to that party. This appointment is granted with tenure guaranteed for life and is beyond recall . These chosen Political hacks,usually remain in the same jurisdiction that they had practised as a lawyer and in many instances they hear cases where either the Prosecutor or the Defense Lawyer was either a previous partner, a fellow peer or even a fellow adversary and in spite of this, we are asked to respect the Courts and it's implied impartiality. I have been a witness to this farce for over six years, with nothing to gain, other than attempting to see that justice has been served for a single mother of two children. A local lawyer we will call Mr. "Floe" agreed to represent this lady on a contingency basis because her complaint is well documented and legitimate and that he would be paid from the anticipated award. This agreement was made to this lady with two other witnesses being present. The action is commenced by Mr.Floe, during which time his client is required to sign copious documents in Mr. Floe's office. Several months elapse and an "examination for discovery" is commenced and at this time this client is called into Mr. Floe's office to sign more documentation. Included in this documentation is a second mortgage for in excess of $30,000 in favor of Mr. Floe. This lady refused to sign this documentation and immediately Mr. Floe refused to represent his client "mid stream." Subsequent to this the plaintiff represented herself in the Supreme Court and subsequently won her case overcoming a very formidable defense Lawyer. ( As stated rhe case was fully justified) Mr.. Floe then sued for his $30,000 plus from the proceeds ( which were $14,000) having encumbered her home. Taxation proceedings were commenced and lo and behold the Judge whom we shall call Judge "Rook" who is appointed to hear this case, had been a partner in Mr..Floe's legal firm previous to being appointed to the Bench. An objection was made as to a perceived conflict, but was "struck down" by Judge Rook and the taxation proceeded. A contract was produced by Mr. floe and that had been signed by the client and dated many months after Mr.. Floe had already commenced representing her. The client produced impartial witnesses attesting to the fact that Mr. Floe had made a verbal commitment to represent his client upon a "contingency" basis in their presence and the client denied that she knowingly signed or agreed to any other arrangement. The same witnesses denied that they had entered into the majority of telephone conversation or meetings that Mr.. Floe claimed that he had made to them and therefor was charging her at $250.00 per hour, in many instances the persons were not in Kelowna on the alleged dates clamed. One witnesses emphatically denied meeting Mr. Floe or talking to Mr. Floe for most of the instances Mr. Floe claimed that he had done so and consequently had charged his client hundreds of dollars for services never rendered. This same witness stated under oath that these claims madeby Mr. Floe had never occurred and were patently untrue and requested that this fact be placed on record. Our esteemed Judge "Rook" appeared not only to discount any of this evidence and in fact interrupted the witness and instructed him to only discuss the invoice and services rendered as it pertained to him. This witness could only respond "how can I testify about a service that was never given?" Mr.Floe had no other defence as to how he could have talked to people who were not even on the area on the dates claimed, his typical defense was, "I must have talked to them or my secretary would not have charged for them." Prior to taking the stand, each person testifying swears on the bible to "tell the truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God!" In this instance there was a total 180 degree difference between the parties that someone was not telling the truth or in more legal terms was committing perjury. Perjury is a criminal offence, but in recent years I have yet to hear of anyone being charged with perjury. It appears that anyone can go to Court and tell as many lies as he or she feels like it,with complete impunity. In this instance it was obvious that perjury was being committed and yet our indomitable Judge "Rook" ignored this fact. Perhaps he did not want his ex-partner to go to jail. Wherever the "old boys of the Legal society club" meet for their cocktails - I hope the drinks are potent enough yo lull you to sleep or even allow you to look in the mirror without "upchucking". Contempt for this court, you're dammed right feel contempt! Surely this must be a local aberration and not Canada wide? However the brutal facts are that the majority of our Politicians are lawyers and are continually enacting Laws that can only enrich the pockets of their own ilk. The terminology of " The untouchables" has truly taken on new meaning. |
|