injusticebusters > > Dovall Fiat p. 2

A living scrapbook of injustices in progress and the tools to set them right
Restoring reputations to the defamed -- Telling the truth about the undefamable

Year of the David Milgaard Inquiry: 35 years in the making!

Revitalizing the archives

From 1998 until 2002, injusticebusters was in the throes of an identity crisis. What was it? What were we doing? We grappled with editorial policy at the same time we were learning the nuts and bolts of building and posting a website. Once we had a secure, paid site I had full editorial control, although I talked regularly to Richard Klassen who was forced to move his family several times and did not always have access to the internet.

I began following other threads to stories of police and prosecutorial misconduct and the site took on another facet to its character: a newsclipping scrapbook where stories could live longer than they would in print form. I also began picking up other stories of wrongfully convicted people. It was an explosion. By 2003 there were over 700 pages. I also had contact with several other people (Don Smith, Leon Walchuk, Monique Turenne, the Vopnis) and kept these stories going.

When Richard Klassen began to make progress in bringing his civil claim to court, the government and police defendants alleged he was breaking the rules of court by publishing discovery material on the internet.

This claim was absolutely false. However, rather than risk being thrown out of his civil claim, Klassen undertook before Judge Mona Dovall to sever all ties with the website.

Now that some of the dust has settled, I have been going back through the material we had posted in the early days. In the spirit of keeping the scrapbook alive, I have been reformatting and placing links. The original material remains intact. I hope the information, which chronicles our struggle is useful to you.

The identity crisis is over. We know who we are --Sheila Steele, March 28, 2005

QB 271 Pre civil trial

back. . .continued

Doval Fiat page 2

[25] The defendants' are of the view that it is clear and obvious that Richard Klassen has blatantly defied the order of January 30, 2001, and thus his action should be struck or at least stayed at this time.

[26] Richard's position, however, is that his civil claim should not be struck or stayed by the Court as it is his belief that he has not contravened in any manner the order of this Court of January 30, 2001.

[27] Although Richard Klassen's consistent reason for disseminating whatever documentation he has in the past to whomever he has was he believed that crimes had been committed in the past by the defendants and the public had the right to know about those crimes, that was not the reason he gave the Court in chambers on February 14, 2002, for distributing the information and documents he had to non-parties to this litigation.

[28] The reason he gave the Court for providing to non-parties the information or documentation he had was that he was not prohibited from doing so pursuant to the terms of the order of January 30, 2001, as it was his opinion that the only documentation or information he was restrained from publishing in any fashion to non-parties pursuant to the order of January 30, 2001, were the actual transcripts of the examinations for discovery and any document listed in any of the parties' statements as to documents in this action [emphasis mine].

[29] He argued that there was absolutely no evidence before the Court that he has provided to any non-parties to this litigation any of the documents listed in any of the parties' statement as to documents or transcripts of the examinations for discovery. Thus there was no evidence that he had contravened the order of January 30, 2001.

[30] Richard Klassen argued that while certain information had been posted on the Internet by someone other than himself, describing his experiences at his examination for discovery, there was absolutely no evidence before the Court that any information obtained by him during the discovery process had been reproduced or published in any fashion by him to anyone including the media. In support of his position was filed the affidavit of Sheila Steele in which she swore that she was the only one who had the ode to the injusticebusters website and that Richard Klassen had never posted any writings to the site using her code and that Richard Klassen did not have one of his own. Sheila Steele acknowledged that it was her that expressed her own opinion on the website from time to time.

[31] The Court is in total disagreement with Richard Klassen's understanding and interpretation of the scope of this Court's order of January 30, 2001. Not only were the parties and their counsel enjoined and restrained from publishing, in any fashion, the trnscripts of the examinations for discovery in this action, any documents listed in any statement as to documents of any party to the action or any excerpts of such documents, the parties and their counsel were enjoined and restrained from publishing in any fashion any information from such examinations or such documents, except to the extent that use is required for the proper conduct of this action. [Emphasis mine}

[32] The Court is absolutely amazed that counsel for the remaining plaintiffs, Robert J. Borden, would be of the opinion that Richard Klassen's interpretation of this Court's order of January 30, 2001, was correct.

[33] Having determined that Richard Klassen's apparent understanding of the January 0, 2001, order was erroneous and as a reult of that misunderstanding or any other reason Richard Klassen had been providing information and documentation concerning the civil action to non-parties to the litigation in contravention of the January 30, 2001, what is the appropriate remedy to be given by this Court? Should Richard Klassen's action be struck or stayed?

[34] There is certainly a strong argument that as Richard Klassen has already been given one break by this Court in his action not being struck in January, 2001, and that as he knew all along that he was contravening an order of this Court in providing the information to non-parties, this Court should have no hesitation in striking his action. The Court, however, must be cautious especially in a situation where there isuncertainty in the evidence presently before it as to what information was actually provided by Richard Klassen and the actual source of the information given by Richard Klassen.

[35] The difficulty the Court has in determining this application is linking what has been put on the Internet or spoken of by Richard Klassen with the media or D.A. McKillop, Q.C. with any statement or document as either listed in any parties' statement as to documents or any specific document or information arising from the examinations for discovery on the materials presently before the Court.

[36] As an example, the defendants' argued that a handwritten note dated June 1991 attached to the brief of Richard Klassen dated February 10, 2002, was obtained from Sonia Hanson, Matthew Miazga and Richard Quinney's statement as to documents dated May 31, 1995, labelled as document no. 119. The Court has a copy of the Sonia Hanson, Matthew Miazga and Richard Quinney statement as to documents dated May 31, 1995, however, the Court was not provided with a copy of the actual document no. 119 entitled "A file folder labelled "Carol's notes" together with its contents". There is thus no evidence before the Court on this application that the handwritten note attached to Richard Klassen's brief came from document no 119 as listed in the Sonia Hanson, Matthew Miazga and Richard Quinney statement as to documents dated May 31, 1995, or that it arose out of the discovery process.

[37] The Court's dilemma in not making such a match stems in part from the insufficiency in some respects of the defendants' present statement as to documents prepared seven years ago and in particular the documents not all having been properly numbered. Descriptions such as "a file folder labelled x with its contents" or "a collection of Saskatoon City Police occurrence reports" are not sufficient especially in a case such as this and do not comply in all likelihood with Rule 212(4) of the Saskatchewan Queen's Bench Rules. This problem will be addressed further later in this fiat.

[38] Having considered all the evidence before the Court at this time there is no doubt that Richard Klassen has provided documentation and information during the pre-trial state of this litigation to third parties despite the order of this Court of January 30, 2001, and contrary to the law. He says that he did so as he believed he had the right to do so for two reasons. First, to show that a crime had apparently been committed. Second, as the documents were not listed in any parties' statement as to documents. At this stage of the litigation without leave of the Court Richard Klassen had no right whatsoever toprovide non-parties with any information or documentation no matter what his excuse is. In doing so he was acting in contravention of a specific order and the law. Richard Klassen must learn that he, as a self-represented litigant, must follow and comply with the laws and orders of this Court. There is no room for vigilante justice within our judicial system. Hopefully this is crystal clear to Richard Klassen at this time and that he will change his ways. As stated by Baynton J. in Halstead v. Anderson et al. (1993), 115 Sask. R. 257 (Q.B.) at para 39:

. . .Vigilante justice is repugnant to the rule of law. It would be unfair, inequitable, and an abuse of the court, to allow a party to unlawfully pursue his claim in the streets and alleys while concurrently pursuing it through the judicial system.

[39] Having said all that, this Court rightly or wrongly in providing him with every benefit of the doubt is once again prepared to give Richard Klassen one last chance and is not prepared to strike or stay his action at this time.

[40] However, that is not to say that the Court will be as lenient the next time. Assuming that Richard Klassen has now got it straight once and for all that:

NO DOCUMENTATION OR INFORMATION WHATSOEVER OBTAINED BY HIN DURING THE DISCOVERY STAGE OF THE LITIGATION, WITHOUT AN ORDER OF THIS COURT, CAN BE RELEASED TO ANY NON-PARTIES BY HIM.

[41] Any future contraventions of either the order of January 30, 2001, or this order of the Court shall be immediately brought to the attention of myself to be dealt with appropriately. The Court will have no hesitation in striking or staying the action of Richard Klassen upon the appropriate evidence being put before me that he has once again flaunted an order of this Court. In that regard, there are matters that have to be attended to by all of the parties to this litigation immediately to ensure that this litigation proceeds in as orderly a fashion as possible. The Court will outline those when addressing the plaintiffs' moton for a better and more descriptive statement as to documents which may go a long way in preventing Richard Klassen from providing in the future information or at least documentation arising out of the discovery process to non-parties.

back. . .continued

Truth can never be told so as to be understood, and not be believ'd. William Blake, The Proverbs of Hell

Truth suppress'd, whether by courts or crooks, will find an avenue to be told. Sheila Steele, injusticebusters.com

If you hold the mouth of Truth, It will burst out its rib-cage. Somali proverb

Truth crushed to earth will rise again. --William Cullen Bryant


Publisher : Sheila Steele
Co-founder: Richard Klassen

Got something to say about this or any other stories on this site? Go to injusticebustersblog Participate!

injusticebusters court advice :
How to walk yourself through the justice system

Why you should dump your preliminary hearing (written July 1998 and still valid)

Our activism contributed greatly to the good vibes which happened around the civil trial. (More Links provided below)

Index to the stories on this website

This is not regularly updated so if you are looking for a particular story and you have a name or keyword, please use the site search engine(at the bottom of the page) which IS regularly updated

Index to Saskatoon Police stories

This is a pretty good scrapbook for the 1998-2002 period.


Pre civil trial

February 2002 hearings
Dovall fiat 1 | 2 | 3 |
Court report



The Klassen/Kvello civil Trial

StarPhoenix coverage

September 8, 2003: Trial Begins
September 09, 2003: Pamela Klassen Shetterly's Testimony
September 10, 2003: Anita Klassen
September 11, 2003: Michelle Ross
September 12, 2003: Sheila Verway
September 16, 2003: Michael Ross
September 18, 2003: Ellen Gunn
September 19, 2003: Terry Hinz
September 19, 2003:StarPhoenix editorial, Terry Hinz
September 20, 2003: Louis Dupuis
September 27, 2003: Ron Schindell, Jay Watson
October 01, 2003: Case
against the Klassens weak: documents
October 02, 2003: Judge asked to dismiss suit: No evidence of malicious intent: lawyers
October 2, 2003: Letter to the editor from former "Believe the children" advocate
October 03, 2003: Lawyer details evidence of malice
October 04, 2003: Judge ponders request to drop Klassen lawsuit
October 27, 2003: Judge Baynton's interim decision: Quinney dropped, the rest proceed
October 27, 2003: Claim goes forward
October 29, 2003: Brian Dueck
October 30, 2003: Dueck
October 31, 2003: Brian Dueck
November 01, 2003: Matthew Miazga
November 04, 2003: Matthew Miazga
November 05, 2003: Matthew Miazga
November 06, 2003: Sonja Hansen

injusticebusters' daily reports page 1

Final judgment: Dec. 30, 2003

Post judgment publicity

articles and editorials from Jan 6-9
Sabo's apology
Editorials: StarPhoenix, Leader Post and National Post
National Post front page story, Jan. 10
Sarah Gibb's profile of Richard and Kari Klassen |
Lives ruined by Jason Warick, Feb. 19
April 15/04: Judge Baynton warns defendants' lawyers not to delay damages trial
Dueck drops his appeal
Full transcript of Dueck's examinations for discovery which were part of the read-ins at the civil trial

Pre-sermonette Brash Comment

1998

Fall, 1998: Sask Sympatiko strikes again
2001

Muzzling the media


Sermonettes

2001

January: Legal Treachery to keep Dueck's lies safe

2002

March, 2002 -- Gay Bashing still a legal sport in Saskatoon -- Even when it turns to murder


2003

Feb. 1: Where we stand
Feb. 15, 2003: Has Saskatchewan learned anything?
March 1: Connecting the dots
March 23, 2003: From Micro to Macro
March 25, 2003: About libel and malice
March 27: Gangs of Saskatoon: the police and prison guards
April 28, 2003: The Naked Truth
May 5: How low will they go?
May 15, 2003: Come clean Calvert, Cline!
May 30: Still smearing Milgaard - defamation is alive and well on the lawn of the Regina legislature and Precendent has been set as we reclaim our institutions
June 11, 2003: --Eric Cline carries on a corrupt tradition
Nov 7: Courage -- the only reward is justice
November 20: Just following orders
November 24: Mayor Atchison, community policing and graffiti
November 25: Michael Jackson
November 30: Corrupt officials must be severely punished: otherwise they just keep on putting the administration of justice in disrepute!
December 1: Christmas comes early for injustice warriors
December 4: Wide open Saskatchewan?
December 16: Crawling through the tunnel of justice since 1991
December 24: The Crown keeps right on breaking the law
December 30: Who will find justice under their tree?

Links to more recent sermonettes can be found on any of the above pages

E-mail injusticebusters

April 30, 2005