Correspondence On Justice

An open letter to the current Canadian Minister of Justice #

                                              Re: CJC File: 14-0393

This is a compilation of various letters written to incoming  Federal and Provincial Justice and Prime Ministers over the past six years regarding a formal complaint made to the Canadian Judicial Council.  The fact that the complaint has never received a genuine, meaningful response is in direct defiance of a statute of the Canadian Parliament.  This is a violation of the rights of all Canadian citizens.  Yet all we seem to get is a wall of silence.  Below you will get a sample of some generic responses from Ministers to a legitimate and gravely serious complaint. 

The vagueness of politician’s answers to any specifically worded question is directly proportional to the likelihood that something requires further scrutiny.  All government ministers appear most adept at batting away questions in processes that clearly defy rational logic.

One of the disquieting symptoms of an assault on democracy, is the deflection of serious concerns by supposedly responsible ministers; ignoring dire predictions, shrugging off complaints, buying into a laissez-faire attitude by making sunny media pronouncements, lulling citizens into a false sense of security, are all tactics of “glorious inaction”.

In 2012, before I embarked on a course to call out serious failings of a court case, I consulted with a number of highly placed, informed sources regarding the state of Justice in Manitoba.  I was reliably informed by former members of both parties, that the most complaints members of Manitoba’s legislature received had to deal with , misjudgments in the Family court.  Since that time a number of articles in various media have highlighted a growing disillusionment with declining social and racial conditions in Manitoba.  It came as a surprise to me that racism, violent crime and a break down in social relationships deteriorated so precipitously.  It just reaffirms that once a primary institution becomes degraded, society begins to reflect those failures.  Successive Ministers of Justice, of all political persuasions, have spectacularly failed to act on complaints.  

  

The Trudeau Raybould case illustrates how far the Canadian Justice system has fallen since the 1990’s.   Harper, Trudeau and Raybould have all been less than rigorous in maintaining our confidence and trust in upholding Judicial standards, eroding our faith and trust in the Canadian Judicial System.  Faith, confidence and trust, in most institutions, meant to serve the public interest, appears in steep decline.

Jody Wilson Raybould, particularly, demonstrated a naivety;  a callow understanding of the Westminster concept of Ministerial responsibility; that her primary duty was to the public - not the judiciary.  The courts are commissioned by the sovereign will of the people to meet our expectations and serve the public interest.  Despite swearing an oath of office to serve the people of Canada, she preferred, instinctively, to preserve and protect institutional power. All three leaders have been ineffective in curbing the arbitrary and immune power of Judges through the Westminster System of checks and balances. The only way of restoring confidence in Canada’s liberal democracy is a full inquiry into the administration of Justice in Canada. 

Instead, recent laws have actually given the Canadian citizens less insight into Judicial oversight, making Judges even less accountable. 

Parliament needs to gather the facts, initiate a proper auditing investigation into the Canadian Judicial Council, in order to protect the rule of law.  All western democracies are suffering a similar crisis of confidence.

We are looking for signs that all Canadian parliamentarians are serious about fire proofing our fragile democracy by maintaining the delicate balance of powers between the three arms of government.  In 2015, Justin Trudeau promised  reforms in electoral and Judicial matters, restoration of trust in the CBC and other Public institutions.  Is there any evidence of increased confidence today?

Overview #

It remains my impression that the Canadian Judicial Council fails to discharge its responsibility to the parliament and, more importantly, the Canadian public.

*Parliament’s “Article 12.1 of the CJC’s Procedures:  “The Executive Director must inform the complainant by letter when a matter is dismissed or concluded by the Chairperson, and indicate the basis on which it was dismissed or concluded” appears non-compliant. *

*A meaningful response to my complaint, CJC File # 14-0393, *is six years overdue, despite many overtures to various Ministers of Justice:

May 14, 2020 #

The Honourable Minister of Justice, David Lametti,

Re: CJC File # 14-0393

With due respect, the RCMP’s failure to act on complaints of Gabriel Wortman’s obvious danger to the community, is just another symptom of the law’s non responsiveness to the citizens of Canada. 

When the very institutions invested to protect our democracy, fail us, we are in danger of following the American’s lack of respect for their Justice system.  We cannot afford to let that happen to Canada.

With respect, I urge you to seriously consider my series of complaints regarding the Canadian Judicial Council’s failure to address serious complaints about Judges falling standards.  No one is above the law.

Respectfully yours, Charles Klassen

2019 #

The Honourable Minister of Justice, David Lametti,

Re: CJC File # 14-0393

Despite assurances from the Prime Minister, I have not heard from you. With due respect I call upon you to fulfill your sworn duty to the Canadian public.

There is a danger in the collective West, including Canada, that we become a people increasingly overwhelmed, defeatist and distrustful of governmental institutions meant to serve the public good.

The real culprit is Canada’s legal system’s inability to call out its wayward judges.Whenever Judges defy statutory standards, they defile their own authority. As Brian Toohey writes. “Secrecy often hides incompetence and rewards conformity.”

If there’s one thing the courts do well, it’s blindfold our right to know, believing an uninformed public is more easily manipulated. The CJC operates behind a veil of Kafkaesque secrecy.

The media, with notable exceptions, meekly accepts this policy.

You can address this by reining in the power of the Canadian Judiciary by insisting it abide by the statutory laws of the legislatures.  

My main complaint in the Hoffman Heinrichs case above was that the courts appeared to flout their power in defying the Manitoba Mental Health Act.

The CJC further flaunted their defiance of the Canadian Parliament by not responding to my complaints in 2014, despite a clear mandatory requirement to do so.

These are critical concerns that you, all parliamentarians and all Canadians should take seriously. These, in my opinion, constitute a contempt of law.

I await your response.

Charles Klassen

Melbourne, Australia

—— Original Message ——

Received: Thu, 15 Aug 2019 12:28:33 AM AEST

From: Prime Minister/Premier Ministre <PM@pm.gc.ca>

To: “Charles " <klassec@usa.net>Cc: “David Lametti, P.C.,M.P."

<mcu@justice.gc.ca>

Subject: Office of the Prime Minister / Cabinet du Premier ministre

Dear Mr. Klassen:

On behalf of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, I would like to acknowledge  receipt of your correspondence regarding the Canadian Judicial Council.

Please be assured that your comments have been carefully reviewed. As you know, the issues you raise fall more directly within the purview of the Honourable David Lametti, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, to whom I note you have also sent a copy of your email. While the Prime Minister appreciates being made aware of your concerns, he will leave your correspondence to be considered by Minister Lametti.

Thank you for taking the time to write.

M. Bredeson

Executive Correspondence Officer

I appreciate the CJC’s difficulty in defending indefensible decisions or justifying unjustifiable procedures, but we do need a sign that our governments care and are committed to providing Canadians with a reliable and trusted Justice System.  This can only be done by all politicians enforcing the black letter law of the Judges Act.

Article 12.1 of the CJC’s Procedures is clear, explicit and unequivocal:  “The Executive Director must inform the complainant by letter when a matter is dismissed or concluded by the Chairperson, and indicate the basis on which it was dismissed or concluded”.

Unless there is some incomprehensible nuance there, it appears the CJC is in blatant breach of that requirement.

We can only restore our faith in the values of liberal democracy, fair governance and the supremacy of parliament by curbing the excesses of the Supreme Court.

Your support in this matter is greatly appreciated.

Charles Klassen 

 12/10/19 #

Transparency

Re:  Canadian Judicial Council – (File: 14-0393)

Having read online various reports of decisions of The House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights (JUST), I feel encouraged to plead a wider case through the Court Challenges Program (CCP).  I feel my issue applies to all Canadians.

My appeal to you regards a perception of the lack of transparency of the Canadian Judicial Council; to find out why there appears no accountability and no transparency in the Canadian Judicial Council’s non-compliance to an act of the Canadian Parliament.

It remains my understanding that by law: Article 12.1 of the CJC’s Procedures:  “The Executive Director must inform the complainant by letter when a matter is dismissed or concluded by the Chairperson, and indicate the basis on which it was dismissed or concluded”.

Yet six years later I am still waiting for this information. This veil of secrecy and contempt for citizens appears to be the norm.

I am willing to assist your committee in any way you require and trust that you will assist me in gaining my basic, irrefutable and inviolable right, ensuring that even an Executive Director is subject to the laws of the Canadian Parliament.

Respectfully, yours

Charles Klassen   12/10/19

The most recent letter to a Justice Minister:

The Honorable Minister ……..

Congratulations on your recent appointment.  “*Something is rotten in the state of Canadian Justice and cursed spite that you were selected to set it right”.   *Assuming responsibility for strong judicial personalities can be formidable challenge.

 

I am writing to you in good faith as the sixth provincial and national Justice minister in six years.  With due respect, we rely on fearless responsible ministers to restore our faith in justice and democracy.  When something is wrong, we need governments to address the problems and fix them.

The symptoms of a broken legal system include a denial of institutional justice, running the risk of vigilante justice through digital lynch mobs on social media,  eroding faith in government, resulting in the election of extreme populist demagogues. 

My concerns are in regard to the failure of the Canadian Judicial Council to comply with a mandatory statute of the Canadian Parliament in not responding to my formal complaints regarding the perception of a mistrial - (File: 14-0393).   This is a clear abdication of responsibility, an abrogation of its statutory duty and a violation of my birth right, demonstrating undemocratic secrecy.

Letters to five Canadian Justice Ministers have been ineffective.  All appear to excel in the delicate art of evading their duties, obligations and responsibilities.  All ministers swear an oath to be responsible to the greater community.

I believe there is a wider systemic issue where the Supreme Court has exceeded its purview.  While it was challenging the Harper Government, we were happy to be its cheerleaders, however, the Supreme Court appears to have evolved into an activist role that usurps the role of the elected members of the public. This gives licence to the lower Justices to flaunt their own unfounded interpretive prerogatives that deny natural justice and defy procedural fairness.  In the above case, the court appears to defy the clear intent and purpose of Manitoba’s Mental Health Act to adjudicate in a manner not to exacerbate family discord.

Attempts to rein Judges in appear beyond the reach of individual Ministers of Justice or the CJC. The only hope we have is for bi-partisan parliamentary committee to investigate falling standards of professionalism.  The unanimous passing of Rona Ambrose’s bill was a promising gesture, but did not go far enough.  It is worth noting that Jody Wilson Raybould reluctantly agreed to make the support of the Bill unanimous.  Yet where is any action?

I am calling on the government of Canada, one of the world’s most highly regarded bastions of fair governance, to conduct an audit into the effectiveness of the CJC to determine whether it is adequately fulfilling its statutory mandate of maintaining acceptable standards.

In the light of the Canadian Judicial Council’s failure to adequately investigate serious matters, the Canadian Government needs to establish an independent parliamentary inquiry to fully scrutinise how Justice is being administered in Canada.

We can see how much damage a dysfunctional Justice System can do simply by looking across the border.  We do not want this to happen to Canada.

Canadians too, appear to be facing a crises of faith and trust, not only in general, but in the integrity of its most prestigious institutions. The world is darkening once again.

The critical issue at the heart of my dispute with Canada’s court system is an apparent deeply entrenched “culture of control”  or monopoly over the source of all information and an apparent manipulation of evidence regardless of its probative value. The elementary principle of discovering, determining and establishing the facts of the case appears to be missing.  Peremptory, arbitrary and dogmatic determinations based on airy or unfounded claims do nothing to inspire faith or confidence in the entire system.

Persistent errors of fact, due to a narrow focus, resulted in a lack of perspective and context, leading to misunderstandings and a complete distortion of our rigorously researched and well documented family narrative. The central finding that her extended family had little to do with her at this time is demonstrably and offensively false. You can appreciate the grievous damage this calumny does to devoted caring family members and the sacred memories of our dutiful elders.

Do court officials have the imperious power to overlook crucial evidence in favor of airy and tenuous self serving assertions; to draw uncanny inferences arbitrarily and to reach elliptical conclusions without any substantial evidence?  When there exist conflicting assertions, does the court not have a responsibility to verify or validate its choice of one over the other? 

The Canadian court system attempts to gloss over my Aunt Anne’s medical condition and despite hearing a mountain of hard, material and expert evidence on her progressively noticeable deteriorating condition of Schizophrenia from the 1950’s to the end of her life; makes a final finding that in 1980, she was merely “eccentric” with free volition and therefore possessed “testamentary capacity”.  This, in my opinion, is inconceivable; not only an implausible, but  an “impossible finding”.

How the court can cure severe schizophrenia into an “eccentricity” is a dizzying mystery that would surely tax even the greatest medieval philosopher.  Was it accomplished by an act of faith healing, waving a magic gavel or just a bit of dark legal art – sophistry?

Further I contend that five key premises underpinning critical conclusions are all based on unwarranted assumptions; unsourced, unsubstantiated and unsustainable. 

One inferential blunder might be considered a misfortune, two begins to look like clumsiness while three or more appears like perverse professional negligence based on consciously narrow blindsided partisanship.

If we were ever in any doubt that judicial decision making is an imperfect craft we get a clear reminder of its imperfection in this case. The whole case was an unsubstantiated beat-up. It wasn’t that there wasn’t enough definite reliable information to draw realistic inferences, just that the court consciously and wilfully ignored all grounded evidence in favor of unfounded assertions, thereby failing to credibly justify its final conclusions.

It is my continued contention that the court is in gross error due to its failure to convincingly establish the ascertainable facts of the case. Trading on simplistic stereotypes fashioned by uninformed and discernibly ill-informed generalised assumptions just diminishes our respect and faith in the court system. 

I urge the government to re-assert the clear principle that the judiciary must maintain acceptable standards that meet community expectations.  Any blatant disregard should meet with deterrent censure encouraging more grounded procedures.

We all make mistakes from time to time, an individual or institution’s credibility is enhanced, not diminished, by acknowledging the error, correcting it and apologising for the offence caused.

Failure is simply the cauldron of experience – there is no such thing as failure as long as we are prepared to learn from the pain and agony of it.  All institutions should remain true to the proclaimed values of Justice and show the moral courage necessary to see complaints as opportunities for improvement and to admit failures as a badge of honor.  The Court’s hierarchy needs to demonstrate courage and integrity by exposing itself to independent scrutiny. 

What needs to be determined is whether this systemic failure was due to lack of competence or by design.  Is this an isolated case or is it a systemic issue?

With all due respect, this can only be done by an independent non legal but transparent process.  Self-regulation appears to have failed.  Asking Judges to investigate each other is a bit like the time honored conceit of commissioning a skulk of foxes to investigate the presence of blood in the chicken yard and expecting them to implicate their own.

As Einstein said, “We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them”.

In 1837, a young Queen Victoria charged Canadian Political leaders, with a core responsibility that isn’t negotiable: the task of leading. Leading requires moral courage. Responsible leaders must act when they are made aware of wrongdoing by those under their jurisdiction.  This restores trust, faith and confidence in our governments.

Canada has had a long and envious record of good governance that is now at risk.  We do not want the Canadian Judicial system devolve like so many other countries have, where people resort to vigilante justice and families begin to tear themselves apart because the courts have failed to resolve disputes in fair or equitably ways.

Failure to act in this case, can easily been seen as a failure of leadership and good governance.  It invariably leads to the rise of demagogues.

It is in the long term public interest of the Canadian Government and the Justice System that our confidence and trust in the judicial system is not undermined.  Institutions need to focus on public interests. Cultures that promote short-term small time power assertions over longer-term public harmony contribute to a lack of public confidence and trust in the Government and give rise to populist demagogues like Donald Trump.

Parliament, representing the supreme power of the people, must act as a check on judicial accountability.  When a court is clearly in error in procedures of findings, Parliament has not only a right, but a duty to investigate.

I would appreciate your response.

Respectfully yours,

Charles Klassen

Melbourne  Australia,

Justice Ministerial Responses: #

David Lametti,   07/09/19 #

Thank you for writing to the Honourable David Lametti, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. 

Due to the significant increase in the volume of correspondence addressed to the Minister, please note that there may be a delay in processing your email. Rest assured that your message will be carefully reviewed. 

We do not respond to correspondence that contains offensive language.

As of 15/11/20 - Response still in delay.  Why the significant increase in volume of correspondence?

………..

Dear Mr. Klassen, 

Your email dated December 22, 2015 addressed to the Honourable Gord Mackintosh, Minister of Justice and Attorney General was forwarded to my office for response. 

In your email you express concerns about the perception of justice in Manitoba in relation to judicial accountability. Our legal system is based on the rule of law and a hallmark of our legal system is the principle of judicial independence which ensures that judges make their decisions without fear or favour and without being subject to outside influence.  In keeping with this principle, judges make their decisions based upon the facts and evidence presented and the law applicable to the case before them. There are two ways that judges are held to account.  Where a party to a case is of the view that the judge erred or came to the wrong decision, an appeal can be considered to the next level of court.  It is through the appeal process that a judge’s decision is reviewed to determine whether the decision is to be upheld or was correct.  

The second way that judges are held to account is the judicial complaint process. Judges carry out their duties in an open court where members of the public (including the media) can learn of the facts and evidence in dispute and the decision made in a case and also take note of the manner in which a judge conducts the hearing of a case.  There are a few exceptions to the open court principle such as cases involving the protection of children and adoption matters. If a person wishes to raise a concern about judicial conduct there are both provincial and federal judicial complaint processes available. For more information on that, please visit the Manitoba Courts website at www.manitobacourts.mb.ca

I hope my response has been of assistance to you.  Thank you.

Sincerely,   

Karen Fulham  

Executive Director

Judicial Services

Courts Division, Manitoba Justice

408 York Avenue

Winnipeg, MB  R3C 0P9

Tel (204) 945-0413

Fax (204) 945-5751

Email: karen.fulham@gov.mb.ca

That is the third of a typical generic response, retrieved from a computer file, full of sound but signifying nothing.  As the Greek poet Homer observed “words empty as the wind are best left unsaid”.

Dear Mr. Klassen:

On behalf of the Honorable Peter MacKay, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, I acknowledge receipt of your correspondence of April 29, 2015, concerning your personal case.

I understand why you have written to the Minister and asked for assistance.  However, as Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Minister MacKay is mandated to provide legal advice only to the federal government.  I hope you will understand that, for this reason, he is not able to provide legal advice to members of the public or to become involved in the matters you describe.  Similarly, neither departmental officials nor members of his staff are in a position to help resolve the issues you raise.

It may be helpful for you to know that the administration of justice is the responsibility of the provincial governments.  Therefore, if you have not already done so, you may wish to write to the Honorable Gord Mackintosh, Attorney General of Manitoba, who is responsible for the administration of justice in that province.  Minister Mackintosh can be reached at minjus@leg.gov.mb.ca.

The most useful suggestion that I can offer, given the situation you describe, is to seek the advice of a lawyer in private practice to determine the course of action that will best serve your needs.

Thank you for writing.

Yours sincerely,

L. Bisson   Manager   Ministerial Correspondence Unit

Jody Wilson-Raybould     #

October 25(th)  2016

Dear Mr. Klassen:

 Thank you for your further correspondence concerning the judicial conduct review process administered by the Canadian Judicial Council (CJC). I regret the lengthy delay in responding.

As you may know, the CJC is an independent body established by Parliament to deal with complaints regarding superior court judges. Pursuant to sections 63‑69 of the Judges Act , it alone is tasked with investigating complaints about the conduct of federally appointed judges. In the ordinary course, it is expected that the CJC will consider and dispose of such complaints pursuant to their publicly established procedure, which includes an assessment of whether a matter warrants the establishment of a formal inquiry.

To ensure respect for the fundamental principle of judicial independence, it would not be appropriate for me to intervene with the CJC in specific cases.

Thank you again for writing.

 Respectfully,

 The Honourable Jody Wilson-Raybould, P.C., Q.C., M.P.

Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

All of them appear to have a shallow grasp of the difference between the independence of a governmental body and the Minister’s  sovereign duty to oversee its compliance, regarding the laws of parliament.  In all cases I believe they have shirked their duty to the Canadian people.

Heather Stefanson #

Dear Mr. Klassen,

Your email dated March 9, 2017 addressed to the Honourable Heather Stefanson, Minister of Justice and Attorney General has been forward to my office for response.

In your email you express concern with the approach taken in Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench in regard to a particular family matter before the court, when compared to a case that you have found to be similar, before the courts in Australia.  You also express concern with the operation of the Canadian Judicial Council. 

It is certainly open to citizens to criticize the decisions of the court and to make their views known. I think it is important to keep in mind that, while media reports may appear to report on similar cases and where it is therefore difficult to understand why courts would come to such different decisions, there are often factual or evidentiary differences that are not fully reflected in news reports given that they may be the subject of a publication ban, for example.

It is really for the parties to the case to pursue the steps that may be available to them if they are of the view that the court erred or made the wrong decision.  Please know that in regard to decisions of the court pertaining to litigation involving private parties, it would not be appropriate, as Minister of Justice and Attorney General, for Minister Stefanson to provide comment.

As to your concerns about the workings of the Canadian Judicial Council and in particular, your view that an audit should be undertaken, you are best to express your views to the federal Minister of Justice given that the Canadian Judicial Council is established pursuant to the federal Judges Act. 

Thank you. 

Karen Fulham

Executive Director

Judicial Services

Courts Division, Manitoba Justice

May 10, 2017

It seems a shame that top Judges are criticised as most of the time they cannot fight back. However criticism of the courts appears a recent phenomenon. Is it a crisis of confidence? The Judiciary has no one else to blame but themselves for falling into disrepute. The lack of judicial oversight has allowed many dubious cases to erode judicial credibility and authority. Once an institution begins to lose the trust of its constituency it loses its legitimacy.

If, instead of chasing shadows, the CJC looked into actual cases of shonky judgments, our confidence in them might be restored. I have been waiting five long years for some meaningful reply to a serious case that warrants a serious response.

The Heinrichs – Hoffman case (File: 14-0393) epitomises much of what we have lost in the past twenty years. In my view it represents a “failure to grasp what is at the core of the judicial role: the imperative to act with impartiality and in a way that respects equality according to law.”  I would add that the court’s elementary purpose is to establish the facts of a case on hard evidence, not on self-serving assertions of benefiting parties.  

Conflicting claims went unexamined and untested, defeating the primary purpose of going to court.  Instead the court simply made arbitrary capricious findings.  Based on lazy assumptions, five critical premises are unsourced, unsubstantiated, unfounded and utterly unsustainable. With apologies to Oscar Wilde, to get one wrong is unfortunate, two appears careless, three – negligent and four or more - perverse.

Original letter of Complaint - August 2(nd),  2012 #

 The Honourable Chief Justice Glenn D. Joyal

Law Courts Building
Main Floor, 408 York Avenue
Winnipeg, Manitoba R3C 0P9
Letter to Chief Justice:

Re:  Docket: PR09-01-81729

Indexed as: Hoffman v. Heinrichs

Cited as: 2012 MBQB 133

(Winnipeg Centre)

I am writing to you in good faith and confidence about my broader concerns regarding the administration of Justice regarding family disputes in Manitoba.

I acknowledge that this approach is unusual and irregular and may seem impertinent, however the seriousness of my allegations require urgent attention and are intended to avoid future strife, complications and embarrassment to all.

Governments throughout the world are considering more grounded methods of dealing with family matters than the tradition bound Court systems provide.

My family feels aggrieved by the process in the above case and feel there must be a better way to resolve inter and intra-family disputes than this court case provided. I am concerned that the present court system may not be the appropriate forum for resolving such disputes.

Our main concerns centre around the narrow framing of the case which was used to constrain our story.  I do not believe reasonable efforts were made to grasp the whole context of the family narrative leaving many of the assumptions, premises and conclusions open to derision. It appears a disingenuous approach to presume less information will provide more authoritative and reliable conclusions. 

Much of our evidence was studiously and peremptorily dismissed, completely ignored or overlooked as inconvenient to laboured manipulated arguments that defy logic or natural justice.  This is not an objective, considered or balanced judgement and does little to inspire confidence in Manitoba’s Justice system.

 Also unusual was the unacceptable level of intimidation used to prevent an eighty-five year old witness from telling her story. This may be an acceptable tactic in criminal cases but appears extraordinary in a civil dispute.  If we want to stamp out bullying in schools, the military and in workplaces, how can we countenance it in our court system, especially a family court case?

To put “little weight” on one of the few remaining peer relatives of Aunt Ann appears astonishing logic.

The Verdict will not be appealed due to a number of reasons; the integrity of the process has been contaminated and compromised to the extent an appeal would be futile. Most of us are elderly and need to consider our health, limited resources and our own families.  However it cannot be allowed to become a precedence for other cases.

I appreciate that no judicial system is pure or perfect, however I contend the above case is demonstrably unfair and biased.  I feel it is imperative that you intervene; this issue should be dealt with promptly and the case be put on hold for due consideration in order to preserve the reputation of family procedural justice.  Perhaps a referral to a senior Justice to reassess the entire case and mediate a satisfactory conclusion could be in order. 

Further I feel that an independent review of all decisions made by the Honourable Justice Greenberg should be conducted.

A Possible Solution: #

 Both parties might agree to the following compromise:

It should be patently obvious from Marie Dyck’s evidence that the Will was troubling Uncle Jake. 

Another cousin, a highly revered member of the community and family, Ray Siemens, claims Uncle Jake had asked him “*What would you have done (with Ann’s money)?”

Ray had answered, “Why not give it to a charity, then nobody would fight over it.""

It is clear from the above that Uncle Jake had controlled the contents of Will.

A compromise solution would be to use the money to pay off all reasonable court costs and then donate the remainder to a medical foundation dealing with mental disorders such as Schizophrenia.

I have set out my main concerns in two detailed separate attached documents:

  1. The context of the Ogilvie Case
  2. My Personal Response to the Judgement

I trust that you will give our concerns due consideration and respond to the issues raised.

Charles Klassen

Sydney Australia

August 2^(nd),  2012