|
<
< < | more | > > >
- Sept-Oct 2003:
The Klassen/Kvello civil action
- A self-represented
litigant's major accomplishment
Another week
of testimony
Monday, November
3, 2003: He got some rest
over the week-end and would seem to be himself again. This morning,
 Mr. Miazga stated that
if Peter Klassen had not agreed to plead guilty to four charges,
he was going to proceed to try the Klassen/Kvello plaintiffs
in this action. He said that he was not only encouraged by Judge
Robert Finley's comments that he believed the children but also
by Judge Mary Batten's conviction of the birth parents and Don
White. Judge Batten made some comments in her judgment on this
case which caused Miazga to request a transcript as he was not
sure he could trust his initial hearing of the words she uttered
in court. This included the observation that the Ross children
were terribly damaged and should receive therapy and begin to
heal. It was from these words that Miazga claims he had to reconsider
whether another court proceeding would interrupt this healing
process.
Miazga spoke
of having decided to call Anita Klassen to testify against Ross,
Ross and White even though he was prepared to proceed against
her in a future proceeding. He wanted her testimony regarding
the behavior of the children in her home, Miazga said. He was
anticipating that experts would be able to resolve the contradiction
between her being a reliable witness regarding her observations
of the children's behavior and an indicted party in charges of
having sexually assaulted these same children.
(The Ross,
Ross and White convictions were upheld by the Saskatchewan Court
of Appeal, that decision based largely on the credibility of
Anita Klassen's testimony. The convictions were finally called
into question by the Supreme Court of Canada where Don White
was acquitted and new trials ordered for Don and Helen Ross.)
Miazga stated
he had asked for permission to call experts from out of province
in the Klassen/Kvello matter. The main expert he relied upon
was Carol Bunko-Ruys. He had known Ms. Bunko-Ruys previously
from having worked with her in a committee where a joint (crown,
police, social services) protocol on how to deal with sexual
abuse was being drafted.
Throughout
his testimony Miazga referred to extensive discussions with his
superiors: Fred Dehm, Wilf Tucker, Ellen Gunn and Richard Quinney
were all consulted. (Tucker and Gunn are now judges; Quinney
is dead). He also alleged to have had discussions with Robert
Borden and Daryl LaBach. LaBach has already testified to the
extent of his discussions; Borden, as counsel for the plaintiffs
cannot give testimony.
Miazga also
recalled that during the Ross, Ross and White proceedings, on
a Friday morning, he had been approached by Helen Ross's lawyer,
Jack Hillson, regarding his client wishing to testify against
her husband in exchange for charges being dropped against her.
He wanted guidance reagarding his response to this request and
took his question to the weekly round-table of prosecutors at
Friday lunch. He said that Terry Hinz said that he didn't think
this was the sort of thing which should be discussed at these
round-tables. He went back to court that afternoon and declined
to take Hillson up on his offer.
Richard Klassen
has begun his cross-examination of Miazga who has been testy
in his responses so far. Mr. Miazga really doesn't seem to remember
how the Ross/Klassen/Kvello file first got onto his desk. He
doesn't remember if he read it right away. He seems to recall
a telephoned message being attached to it. No particular aspect
of the file stuck in his memory.
Court resumed
at 2 p.m. Miazga was no longer testy but he was still loquacious.
The straightforward question of why he did not disclose to the
defence when Kathy disclosed to him during a witness preparation
interview on October 30, 1991, that Kari Klassen had in fact
performed and had asked to be performed on her the same list
of sucking and touching of nipples and vaginas that she had disclosed
about other female suspects, he just wrote it down on a pad of
paper. In fact, Miazga told the court, he did not even realize
that this was the first time Kathy had made any allegations against
Kari, who, we learned last week during Dueck's testimony, was
charged with molesting Kathy on the original information as a
result of human error.
Miazga also
testified that even if he had realized that some charges were
erroneously laid, he would have no authority to drop them --
that would have to be done in consultation with a superior prosecutor.
He had not
viewed the videotaped testimony of the children since September,
1991, when he viewed them as a way of getting to know the children
so he could recognize them when he met them. He took no notes
regarding any concerns he might have had regarding the type of
questioning done by Dueck and Bunko-Ruys. He said that it was
after defence lawyers had raised the issue several times he asked
Cpl. Dueck to make copies of the tapes to provide to the defence.
He had no knowledge of the quality of the tapes which were provided
and said he received no complaints about the poor quality from
the defence.
Miazga could
not remember what any of his thought processes might have been
in 1991. He was uncertain about when co-defendant prosecutor
Sonja Hansen got involved with the file.
Mr. Miazga
will not be available Wednesday and it is not clear whether the
plaintiffs will finish their cross-examination by then.
Tuesday, November
4, 2003: Judge
Baynton opened court this morning with some admonitions to move
the case along. He pointed out to the plaintiffs that many civil
trials are lost in cross-examination. It is considered best not
to ask a question if you don't already what the response will
be.
Richard Klassen
took these words to heart as he continued his cross-examination
of Matthew Miazga. Confronted with instructions from Mr. Quinney's
office regarding how to handle the public announcements regarding
the conviction of Peter Klassen and the staying of all other
charges in February, 1993 Miazga stated he did not agree with
the point said the most important aspect of such an announcement
was that the evidence against the accused was insufficient to
pursue a trial. Miazga said he believed that Judge Mary Batten's
statement that the children should be allowed to influenced his
statement to the media.
A document
from the Regina prosecutions office stating the children's testimony
was inconsistent and would not stand up to scrutiny was also
dismissed by Miazga. "I disagreed," he said. He added
that he was free to do what he did and was not required to take
orders from Regina. When asked if he recognized documents issued
from Regina regarding how the prosecutor's office should handle
the public questions which had arisen from the case, Miazga said
he had not seen these documents. He didn't go to Regina and see
what they had there. When it was suggested to him that the documents
had come from his own list of documents, he insisted he had no
memory of them. The case was over. He was on to other matters.
Miazga also
stated that he was interested in trying the cases against the
all the accused because it gave him an opportunity to run the
first trial in Saskatchewan where accused were placed behind
screens with video monitors. "This was new at the time,"
he said.
Under cross-examination
by Robert Borden, Miazga acknowledged that Carol Bunko-Ruys was
probably the first and last person he consulted on the file.
Borden acknowledged
that he may have made some inquiries regarding Dr. George Frazier,
an expert in ritual cult activities and multiple personalities.
However, he did not remember what that contact may have been
or who suggested Frazier to him. He settled instead for another
expert who testified at the Ross, Ross and White trial.
Borden showed
him several documents, including the initial police information,
containing references to ritual sexual abuse. A police document
listed Carol Bunko Ruys as a local expert on ritual sexual abuse.
Miazga played these down and answered Borden's very directed
questions by talking about other things. Finally the judge asked
him to give more directed answers. The rest of the cross-examination
was brief.
Sonja Hansen
will testify tomorrow.
Wednesday,
November 5, 2003: During
her examination in chief this morning, Sonja Hansen presented
herself as a serious and conscientious prosecutor who would not
present to the court a witness she did not have confidence in.
The three former foster children of Diane Kvello fell into this
category and she stayed all charges they had made against adults
in early January. As any responsible prosecutor would.
But wait --
one of these children she had lost her confidence in gave a last-minute
allegation against a young offender who had previously been charged
against one or more of the Ross children. This would be corroborative
evidence so she let it stay for a trial in youth ourt which was
scheduled for early February. That trial did not go forward and
was ditched just prior to the general staying of charges.
Hansen was
very careful to let the court know that she did not interpret
the protocol's dictum that "children are to be believed"
narrowly and understood it to mean an allegation made by a child
should be investigated as seriously as one made by an adult.
She did state that she viewed a SCC decision which stated children's
eye-witness testimony did not require corroboration as opening
up possibilities for trying persons accused of crimes against
children.
Robert Borden
cross-examined Hansen.
Hansen made
clear that her only connection with the Ross, Ross and white
preliminary inquiry was to sit in for two days and take notes
of Miazga's examination in chief of the Ross children. She never
watched the videotapes. Nonetheless when she found herself on
a speakerphone with head prosecutors, who were at a meeting in
Moose Jaw, in a telephone call made by Miazga, to get advice
regarding whether to procceed with the Klassen/Kvello matter
after Miazga had elicited evidence he knew to be untrue from
Michael, Hansen says she told Ellen Gunn, her most senior boss
at the time, who asked her point blank if she believed the children
that "she believed the gist of what they were saying."
On many matters,
her testimony was very similar to Miazga's. However, regarding
the lunch with Judge Finley, Hanson's testimony differed somewhat:
where Miazga stated that Finley volunteered the observation that
he believed the Ross children's testimony, Hansen's recollection
was that he had responded to a question that was asked of him.
So Miazga worked
on the Ross, Ross and White prosecutions while Hansen prepared
for Klassen/Kvello. Such was the division of labour. While Matt
was away, she helped find expert witnesses. She didn't know what
they were experts at, though. Well, to help the court to understand
some of the more bizarre aspects of the testimony. But: there
were no allegations of ritual, sexual abuse against any of the
Klassens or Kvellos. She said that twice. When presented with
the sworn informations wich broadly refer to Satanic ritual abuse
throughout, she was not so certain.
She could scarcely
conceal her dislike for former colleague Terry Hinz. She described
the same meeting Miazga had when Hinz had apparently shut Matt
down when asking for guidance regarding an offer from Helen Ross's
lawyer during a Friday round-table. She said that the first she
heard Dueck had seen the file was three years ago when he told
her. Miazga was out of town at the time. Well, yes, she had discussed
the Peter Klassen file with Hinz.
Her take on
the reasons for not pressing forward with the Klassen/Kvello
trial? She had seen Michelle break down in the courtroom and
cry. "A nine year old girl. Confused and frightened. In
the name of Justice I could not allow it to o on."
A letter from
Dave MacNack, a senior official at Social Servies thanked the
Crown's office for providing insight into the new kinds of allegations.
What would these be? Well, Hansen didn't know.
Borden read
to her part of a transcript from Corporal Jim Walker's interview
with one of Pam Klassen's former foster children. Q: "Did
Peter Klassen touch you?" A: My Daddy said he did."
Regarding the apprehension of Pam Klassen's adopted son Mikey,
Borden put the question to Hansen: What was your evidence against
Pamela Klassen?
Hansen has
until tomorow morning to consider her answer to that question.
Scandal of
the Century is hearing scandalous testimony
Make no mistake:
this is a historic trial. A man representing himself has pushed
a $10M+ trial to its sixth week and the judge has already made
preliminary
findings of malice against four of the defendants.
For three days
this week, the court heard Superintendant Dueck boldly justify
all his actions. His experience and authority as a police officer
allowed him to extract several hours of videotaped tall tales
from severely damaged eleven and nine year old children and then
pick and choose which aspects of the stories he would "believe"
and take to the Crown. Those bits he believed -- and he stated
he believes them still -- were considered to be disclosure. Those
bits he did not believe -- and he said at one point he never
believed some of them -- he would consider to be non-disclosure
which he had no obligation to tell to anybody. This would include
choice bits such as the baby-killings and the sex-abuse parties
attended by folks who had not even met each other, but also the
parts where the kids emphatically stated certain people had NOT
abused them. Never! never! never! Michael screams when Dueck
badgers him regarding Richard Klassen's attendance at one such
party.
His file was
not read by anyone else because the readers are in Central Records
and Dueck didn't file his reports. Nor did he keep any notes.
Nor was he required to. Says Dueck. Material which the plaintiffs
in the lawsuit received through a lengthy and harrowing discovery
process came from boxes Dueck kept in his office. Of course Dueck's
office moved several times, as Chief Dave Scott promoted him
first to Sergeant, then to Acting Inspector and then to Superintendant.
Those boxes moved through the offices of several lawyers before
finally landing with David Gerrand, one of the most highly paid
lawyers in Saskatchewan hired on by Dave Scott to conduct Dueck's
defence.
Malice is proven
if it can be shown that Dueck had a purpose other than the administration
of justice when he gathered his evidence, prepared his case and
took it over to the prosecutor's office. We certainly see that
the result of all this was to give a huge boost to his career.
Looking backwards we can infer this was his plan. Bud Johnson,
Ron Schindell, Marv Hansen and others who testified to having
at least glancing involvement with this file did not reach the
rank of super. Neither did any of them have such enthusiastic
belief that the Ross children were telling the truth about the
Klassens and Kvellos. Jim Walker, who was Dueck's partner and
buddy for many years has now been presented as a guy who just
happened to be available for certain junkets, like driving out
to Wakaw Lake to investigate a suspected stalker or going to
Red Deer to help Dueck try to extract confessions from the suspects.
There was a falling out somewhere along the line. Jim Walker
did not make it to Superintendant, either.
Dueck has used
every person and agency possible in his climb to the top of police
department. Well, not quite the top. Mayor Jim Maddin, who was
a cop during many of the same years as Dueck, saw to that. Now
Dueck is using the court to place on the record that he might
have been mistaken here or there, when he made testimony regarding
this or that important fact at this or that trial or proceeding.
But he is only human and it was such a big case. Especially when
he wasn't writing a lot of things down. He was following pre-Stinchcombe
police policy regarding his selective disclosing: he just knew
that policy and had no need to check with his superiors.
And now prosecutor
Matthew Miazga is in the witness box. He is singing a slightly
different tune, but it would seem to be in the same key. He was
just doing his job. He was receiving praise from those with higher
rank than he. He was also able to discern which parts of the
children's stories were believable and which were not. He viewed
the videotapes and took notes. And he still, well, kind of, believes
that the Klassen and Kvellos were, well, guilty of something.
Yes, Mathew
Miazga has appeared at every jurisdiction in the province prosecuting
files from tiny summary matters to murder trials. He has been
a prosecutor for 20 years. No one has cast aspersions on his
integrity in this proceeding. Well, lawyers don't do that to
each other, do they. When asked, both Terry Hinz and Daryl LaBach
said they perceived him as an honest prosecutor. Hard-hitting,
said LaBach. The prosecutor's office can accomodate differing
views and opinions, said Hinz who clearly had a different philosophy
regarding the prosecutor's duty to disclose.
Don McKillop
tendered as evidence ten pages of memos from Director of Public Prosecutions,
Richard Quinney, which had been provided to prosecutors before
and after the Stinchcombe decision. (Note that these memooranda
were also sent to police departments and the RCMP).
The following
quotation from Mr. Justice Rand (R v. Boucher, 1955) regarding
the role of the federal prosecutor was presented to both Hinz
and Miazga during their respecitve appearances:
The role of prosecutor excludes
any notion of winning or losing; his function is a matter of
public duty that which in civil life there can be none charged
with greater personal responsibility. It is to be performed with
an ingrained sense of the dignity, the seriousness and the justness
of the judicial proceedings.
Hinz's response: Of course.
That was practically tatooed on our foreheads in law school.
Miazga's response: A lengthy
pause followed by taking a drink from his water glass, more pause,
he looks up, teary eyed and voice slightly trembling and says
yes. He has these words displayed in a place of prominence on
his office wall.
Law school graduates some lawyers
who truly understand the meaning of justice and others who grasp
what they need to do to move their careers ahead. There are some
actors who seem to become the character they play and convince
us that the words they speak come from their own hearts and others
who adopt a lot of gimmicks and who are less convincing.
Judge Rand's proclamation does
not say a prosecutor should procced as long as he believes he
can get his case past a judge. Neither does it say a prosecutor
should proceed with confidence when he has successfully had proceedings
closed to the public and sealed all evidence which might reveal
the flaws in his case.
Miazga is a bad actor. To be
fair, he was ill on Friday. We'll see how he does after a week-end
of rest.
Today in
court: Crown closes its case leaving all allegations regarding
Carol Bunko-Ruys uncontested
Thursday, November
6, 2003 : Under
cross-examination by Robert Borden Hansen continued to maintain
her previous statement that she believed the Ross children were
telling the truth about their allegations against the Klassens
and Kvellos even after the charges were stayed. Like Miazga before
her, she maintains that the reason for staying the charges was
concern for the Ross children's apparent traumatization. This
traumatization, she expanded today, was a consequence of cross-examination
by defence counsel. Another witness who had been presented to
the preliminary inquiry, a receptionist in a Social Services
office had also proved to be no match for cross-examination by
LaBach and Borden. This witness had claimed she had witnessed
an inappropriate mouth on mouth kiss between Pam Klassen and
her foster son Mikey during a supervised visit when Pam was allowed
to visit him on his birthday. Judge Finley gave absolutely no
weight to this testimony and there were no findings of sexual
assault committed on Mikey by Pam.
So the Crown's
decision to proceed with the charge against Pam was grounded
in Michael Ross's statement that he had seen it.
Hansen continued
to dodge the question of whether she was aware that Michael was
continuing to abuse his sisters up to and during the trials by
stating she understood seurity measures were in place in the
Thompson house. She had not read and did not read the Thompson
papers.
Hansen also
referred to testimony from an older child witness who had been
in Pam Klassen's care. This girl had presented evidence that
Peter Klassen had given her money in exchange for seeing her
private parts. This was similar fact evidence against other plaintiffs,
Hansen said, who claimed Grandpa had given them money. Hansen
acknowledged that this was not evidence against any of the other
plaintiffs. However, this girl-witness had also referred to a
Thanksgiving dinner where Hansen understood all the Klassen and
Kvellos had gathered to watch a pornographic video and told the
children to get out of the room. Borden asked Hansen to produce
her evidence regarding this claim and after the break, she returned
with a 5" x 7" note on which she had written "grandma-wheelchair
- movie - dirty pics." These were notes from a pretrial
interview with the witness, she explained. She had questioned
the girl regarding Marie Klassen's mobility and a dirty movie
the girl had referred to in her videotaped disclosure. As far
as the full-blown Thanksgiving porn-viewing party, Hansen said
she thought this was in the preliminary inquiry transcript but
before lunch, she had not produced it.
Borden asked
her if she had any doubts about the fact that the Ross children
alleged full penetration while the child witnesses in her care
had referred to what she described as fondling. No, Hansen answered.
Different children present in different ways, she said. When
some children say screwing, they mean fondling and vice versa.
Borden then showed her several instances where the Ross children
had referred to penises in vaginas and in bums.
Richard Klassen
took up the cross-examination. He suggested that she had been
assigned to the case as early as May, 1991 because Sheila Verway
from Red Deer had noted regarding her call from Brian Dueck that
prosecutors (plural) were looking at the charges.
Hansen said
she gave little thought to the crown's responsibility in releasing
a dozen guilty child molesters into the public at the time the
charges were stayed.
At the end
of the day, and the end of the charges she acknowledged the Crown
was left with only one credible witness.
The Crown closed
its case. The plaintiffs brought forward a motion to call as
a rebuttal witness Amy Joe Eamon, a former CBC reporter who had
recently come forward to offer testimony regarding Brian Dueck.
Dueck's lawyer opposed this motion.
Court adjourned
until next Wednesday when Judge Baynton will announce whether
or not Eamon can be called. Then final argument will be heard.
After the final arguments, the government's counter-claim of
defamation against Richard Klassen will be heard. After Klassen's
defence is presented, it is expected court will adjourn until
Judge Baynton brings his judgment which could take months.
Wednesday,
Nov. 12.
Judge Baynton allowed Amy Jo Ehman to testify. She said that
before the July 10, 1991 arrests, she had run into Dueck at a
conference attended by both journalists and police and he had
told her he was working on a big case and there would be many
arrests. In preparation for covering the story, he recommended
she read a book. Ehman could not remember the name of the book
but said she borrowed it from the library and read anough of
it to understand it was about a case in the United States where
children were abused by adults in a day care setting and there
was blood sacrifice and Satanic overtones. He asked her to keep
this under her hat and when the arrests were made, he would give
her an interview. She does not remember the nature of the coverage
she gave to the case. Her terstimony was low key but key, nonetheless.
She had been made aware of the case through newspaper reports
and from talking to a journalist now covering the case. She said
her conscience was pricked as she thought theat her testimony
might have some value. She consulted a friend who was a lawyer
who, in turn, suggested she call Robert Borden. Dueck was given
an opportunity to take the stand as a surrebuttal witness but
declined to do so.
Richard Klassen
then presented his final argument. He said the evidence showed
and it could be inferred that Bunko-Ruys and Dueck had arranged
for the Ross twins to be placed in the Thompson home with Michael
and that, although the disclosures of abuse by members of the
Klassen/Kvello family were given first to Marilyn Thompson, they
felt it necessary to prepare the children for several months
before videotaping the disclosures. The disclosures were improperly
elicited by Dueck in his "chance" meeting with the
children at Taco Time where he testified he told them he was
glad they were "safe in the Thompson home." The implication
that he had felt they were not safe at Anita's and Dale's made
laid the groundwork for the disclosures which Kathy began to
make. "What went on in the five months between the Taco
Time meeting and the October 1990 disclosures? he asked.
Klassen also
said the prosecutors had a duty to him and the other plaintiffs
as well as to the children. The prosecutor had a responsibility
to all of the public, he said. They knew that these were serious
charges. Certainly, Miazga was going on holidays around the time
of the laying of the charges and Hansen may have been involved
with other things. At some point after they began to look at
the case, they must have become aware that the evidence contained
in Dueck's informations was contradictary and not credible. Suggesting
a motive for proceeding, Klassen said it was to save face. There
was also some evidence from which a reasonable and proper adjudicator
might infer that they were all aware that Dueck's original case
had Satanic and ritual child abuse dimensions. Otherwise, why
search for experts who were known to testify about such cases?
Those words were not on the charges because there was not a criminal
code charge which included them. Nonetheless, he said, that was
the case they all believed they were prosecuting. The crown prosecutors
did not fully inform their superiors of the incredibility of
their witnesses, or, indeed, their own doubts about the case,
instead seeking affirmation to proceed.
Robert Borden
presented argument, including case law and academic articles
about the role of the prosecutor which clearly states the prosecutor
is to be independent, making decisions for which he or she alone
takes full responsibility and should never seek affirmation.
Borden used less than his two and a half hours and since there
was still time, Gerrand presented his final argument on behalf
of Dueck. His argument spoke to the change in times, hyped Dueck
as an honest policeman only doing his job, presented the case
as highly complicated and ended with a homily which took the
Monday morning quarterback metaphor to the curling rink -- something
like it's easy to call the perfect shot from behind the glass.
Hindsight is 20-20. That one. Funny thing. The court did not
hear Dueck say that he would do anything differently today.
McKillop will
conclude tomorrow.
Then there
will be a short presentation of the Defendants' defamation counter-claim
against Klassen and he will respond. McKillop's clients' counterclaim
is relying on three posters alleged to have been circulated by
Klassen in 1993 and Klassen's response to them during his examinations
for discovery.
Thursday, November
13: The
liability trial ended at five past noon. Judge Baynton promised
to strive to have his judgment in before Christmas. He thanked
all the parties and the media and the gallery for conducting
themselves well during the lengthy proceedings. He said that
he will have to review the entire table full of evidence with
a view to the higher standard of proof the plaintiffs mustrequired
at this stage of proeedings.
McKillop addressed
two evidentiary points in his closing argument regarding his
defendant Carol Bunko-Ruys: one was the former child complainants
allegation she had been interviewed by Carol Bunko-Ruys while
other evidence shows she was interviewed by Janet Matkowski;
the other was a denial that his client had helped the children
manufacture their stories. With regard to his prosecutor clients,
Matthew Miazga and Sonja Hansen, he suggested they had not "bootstrapped"
their cases but rather acted properly throughout, staying charges
as the evidence fell away and deciding to proceed with the deal
of staying the charges against the rest of Peter Klassen's family
in exchange for a guilty pleas to four charges.
On the question
of malice, he argued that the plaintiffs did not fit the category
found in Nelles which states "the charges were stayed in
favour of the plaintiffs." His argument was convoluted and
relied on unrelated cases. The charges which were stayed ed on
February 3, 1993, were not in favour of the plaintiffs but the
result of a plea bargain, he said. Charges stayed prior the "deal"
could, however, be said to have been in the favour of the plaintiffs.
The defamation
counterclaim by McKillop's clients against Richard Klassen was
short. McKillop relied on 3 posters from 1993 and several pages
of Klassen's exam for discovery regarding those posters which
claimed that Dueck, Bunko-Ruys, Miazga and Hansen had conspired
to manufacture their case using unreliable children and cover
up their actions by keeping the children together even though
they knew Michael was raping his sisters. McKillop said this
was not fair comment. Klassen said he had nothing to add to what
he had said in the 2000 exams. Both sides took less than an hour,
a far cry to the criminal defamation trials which took days and
weeks of court time in 1994 and 1995. McKillop was involved in
some of those, too. John and Johanna Lucas were eventually convicted
and sentenced to significant jailtime. At the Supreme Court of
Canada, Lucas lost his appeal on April 1, 1997, having fought
the matter on constitutional grounds. Inez Cardinal prosecuted
Steele and Klassen in 1994; Steele's indictment was quashed by
Judge D. Wright (now presiding over the Stonechild inquiry) on
writ of certiorari, the finding being that she had a sincere
belief in her signs which read "Sgt. Dueck and Carol Bunko-Rhys
should be arrested and tried for their crimes" and "Arrest
and charge those responsible for the rape of an 8 yr. old."
Klassen was held over to stand trial, at which he won a directed
acquittal from Judge Peter Dielschnieder in 1996; the Crown appealed
and abandoned the appeal in 1997 shortly after the Lucas decision.
The public
efforts to efforts to bring this matter to public attention through
postering and picketing have been generally dismissed as kook
activity in the media, although at the time they were going on
it was the only media attention any of the issues around this
case received. The Saskatoon Police and government lawyers fought
back hard at the same time they were attempting to get the civil
claim now before the courts watered down and/or dismissed. In
1998, the internet became the new forum for keeping the case
alive.
The internet
made possible communication among many wrongfully accused persons
to find each other and compare notes. This is still going on
and there are websites all over the continent devoted to elaborating
the facts in many different cases. The tone runs from the kind
of shot-gun pellet scatter outrage which characterized a lot
of our first postings to the more considered tone we reflect
today, as we have persuaded more people to listen to us. We strongly
identify with the outrage expressed by people when they first
discover they have been in some way set up by cops or prosecutors
and find themselves charged or convicted of crimes for which
they are innocent. We have learned, however, that while that
anger and outrage would seem to be a necessary part of the process
of seeking justice, the fruits of hard work, deconstructing and
reconstructing these injustices in a civilized settting and getting
the facts before an impartial arbiter of fact is far more satisfying.
It has been
said before and I will say it again: laws and rules by themselves
do not guarantee anything. It is the human motive which are brought
to these laws and institions which hold the promise of a fair
outcome. This has not changed since the days of Solomon. Greedy
and malicious people have been finding ways to subvert fair institutions
since from Solomon's time, through the Magna Carta. Any subversion
of the high aims of a legal system can be seen to be malicious.
Our legal system aims high: it seeks to protect the rights of
everyone, rich, poor, handicapped, illiterate. Civil proceedings
still tend to favour the rich who find easier access to the courts
and conduct themselves as though they are nobility riding through
their estates keeping the peasants in line.
This civil
proceeding has defied much of what we normally expect. Poor,
handicapped and uneducated people have come into the halls and
challenged those who think of themselves as nobility (without
having reflected on the responsibilities of that station).
The arbiter
in this case, Judge Baynton, is now called upon to find resolution
within a huge pile of evidence which has been duly tendered and
numbered. He has promised to bring an even hand to his task;
he has run a fair court room and given fair judgments so far.
His Oct. 27 judgment has already been downloaded and read by
many and is the subject of much discussion in the local legal
community.
We await the
outcome and hope for the best. But at this moment, on this day,
November 13 2003, we take some pride in having participated in
a worthwhile and successful endeavor. Hardly anyone thought we
would get this far.
<
< < | more |
> > >
|
Truth can never be
told so as to be understood, and not be believ'd. William Blake, The Proverbs of Hell
