| ishmael.ca - e-Mail: ish@ishmael.ca |
| Injustice, Bent Legal System, Crooked Lawyers, Hate Crimes, Wrongful Convictions, Manitoba Justice is complicit |
| Contents: Charter Rights Information - Law Society Of MB revolving doors for bent lawyers - Complaints about David Langtry formerly of Wilder Wilder Langtry - Ex-lawyer Remi C. Smith - Crooked lawyer information - Complaint re Gerry Mcneiley of Legal Aid MB |
| Manitoba - a bent legal system under this and previous Attorney Generals - the system is too infested ... |
| Information and links on David Langtry and Remi C. Smith. [Langtry is back in practice in MB; mith's work place since he was permitted to "resign" by an accommodating Law Society are not known to me as yet...] If you have a query about bent lawyers or a hostile justice system in any part of Canada, please email: ish@ishmael.ca Scroll down to read about Judge Lynn Stannard flying leap ahead of my formal move to indict her |
| POSTED BELOW THE COPIES OF A FEW OF THE LAW SUITS AGAINST DAVID LANGTRY BEFORE HE 'RESIGNED' FROM THE LAW SOCIETY OF MB [Jake Klassen and Sierra Heating and Plumbing Ltd - Plaintiffs VS David Langtry and Wilder Wilder and Langtry - Defendants CI-92-01-65509] [William Ongenae and Parkdale Construction Ltd. - Plaintiffs VS David Langtry and Wilder Wilder and Langtry - Defendants CI-92-01-64980] Actual copies of these actions are posted below + Soon to be posted DRAFTS OF MY OWN ACTIONS VS REMI C. SMITH AND THE CHARACTERS IN THE BENT JUSTICE SYSTEM |
| Here is an example of a bent lawyer, with years of multiple disciplinary issues being permitted to prey upon the public. I give you REMI C. SMITH ... bent lawyer - appointed by Legal Aid MB to represent EVEN AS he was being investigated by the Law Society of MB! - And being asked by Legal Aid to secretly spy on his client. That's MB Justice System but before that, here is ..... Like David Langtry before him, and so many other lawyers, Smith was 'allowed to resign from The Law Society, Why? It frustrated client complaints. Langtry says that he voluntarily surrendered his licence since he was 'bored' with law. This, of course, while the posse of clients was after him with law suits and complaints to a protective Law Society of MB. His association with the Wilder and Wilder group was of great help - to him, not to the clients who sued him and Wilder, Wilder and Landtry. See a few of the law suits vs Langtry and Wilder, Wilder Langtry in column to the right. Remi C. Smith is another of the long list of rotten lawyers in Manitoba who were allowed to ozze away by [temporarily] surrendering their licences. Like Pontius Pilate, the law society then told complainants that they could 'no longer' investigate since Smith was not a member. Therefore -Investigation closed. No fraud charges by the RCMP or police. Langtry was partner of Sam Wilder and Joe Wilder. In Langtry's case, he represented me in a real estate transaction in the 1980's. Thereafter, or about that time , he was being sued by multiple clients, for mis-conduct or various stripes, involving money and his clients losses from his conduct. Investigations were being quietly made by that so-called guardian of public interest, the Law Society of MB. The Law Society, as is its revolving door policy, allowed David Langtry to resign although his actions ruined me. [I will post copies of the multiple fraud actions by some of his clients soon]. Langtry was immediately hired by the MB Government, became a deputy minister and chair of the MB Arts Council or some such, and is baaacck! practicing on an unsuspecting public. With a clean record at the Law Society of MB. Langtry and his firm ruined my life and were motivated by their stated dislike for my 1992 novel, THE BLACK BUG [set in Palestine and South African and Canada] and their willingness to use me to protect Langtry and their firm from his mis-handling of my own real estate purchase. I had given Langtry and his firm my manuscript to copyright in the late 1980's and the Wilders and their Brian Pauls were outraged that I would have Black, Arabs and Palestinians as heroes. You know the 'friends of Israel' drill.... destroy those who speak against the squatterments and the land thieves of the Occupation. The MB AG has refused to investigate the hate crimes against me by Landtry and his cohorts. I have asked the Winnipeg Police [who were partners to the crime] to investigate the hate crime [and in effect themselves!]. In the case of Remi C. Smith During his investigation by the Law Society, Gerry Mcneiley Executive Director of Legal Aid MB, appointed this bent lawyer to represent me in an MSC matter, and secretly instructed him [I was not told of this instruction by Legal Aid or Smith] while he was susceptible to manipulation, to gather negative financial information on me. Smith found none despite his sly investigation of his own client on behalf of Mcneiley, and wide asset searches which I learned of only after Smith fled his clients with the complicity of the Law Society of MB. [According to The Toronto Star expose in November 05, link posted to the right, this is also the modus operandi of the Law Society of Ontario!] When Remi Smith's phone and Internet were suspended for a short while, I became alarmed. I had contacted the Law Society of MB from Ontario and they said there was NO negative information on this lawyer [ even though he was currently being investigated and have been the subject of numerous complaints over the years.] I was lulled by this bent set up. Smith then 'resigned' from representing me without prior consultation with me. [I was unaware that he was bent and being investigated]. Smith was permitted to withhold from the court that he was about to resign and had been told to wind up his files by his Law Society which had appointed or was about to appoint a conservator firm - Tupper Adams. [I even phoned that firm earlier, when Smith told me on the phone after his phone was re-connected that he was 'probably going to be "moving" to that firm. They phoned me back and were non-committal!] My belief is that Mcneiley, the MSC and the judge KNEW of Smith's status and kept their mouths shut, permitting this fraud to be entered in the court records. Indeed, how could any reasonable lay person not come to that conclusion? If the judge claims he did not know then he was a deaf and blind victim of the Law Society, the conservator for the infected Remi C. Smith, Robin Ziss of Tupper Adams and the other in-the-know lawyers, including Kim Laycock, during this appearance.] I was in Ontario at the time unaware of Smith's status. Kim Laycock has - in writing since then - refused to inform me WHEN she learned of Smith's being investigated by the Law Society of MB. My query:- if she is an innocent why not simply state the she was not aware of Smith's investigation by the Law Society, unofficially or not? I have been pressing for this information but the Justice "system" has circled its wagons to hide the ugliness of its behaviour. Mcneiley is MUM. Mcneiley then used Smith's resignation for non-cooperation to annul the Legal Aid Certificate. The judge, Brian Corrin [sp] had railed about why I was allowed to have Legal Aid while a resident of Ontario. [This is an intra provincial arrangement, even for non-indictable charges such as was brought by the MSC although I was severed as a director a MB corporation for about seven years.] When I told my lawyer in MB I wanted to sue Mcneiley, he told me that he 'had to work in this town' [Winnipeg] - eerily repeating what a MB lawyer, Sandy MacKenzie has told me in the early 90's when I was going after the Wilders, Langtry's partners, for a hate crime and fraud. Getting a complaint heard is like getting the US, UK torturers of kidnapped Muslims to tell the truth - even to a Public Enquiry judge. I now have to sue the parties on my own. Legal crimes cannot flourish without the connivance of the Justice System, which is made up of lawyers. They will no doubt scream with mighty indignation about this report, picking not at the Truth but about commas or shades of meaning. Here is the limited report about disgraced lawyer on Remi S. Smith to the hapless public - tucked away at the site of the Law Society of MB. indique clairement que ces avocats n’ont pas le droit d’exercer au Manitoba. 130 06/04 DISCIPLINE CASE DIGEST Case 04-02 Member: Remi Cecil Smith Jurisdiction: Winnipeg, Manitoba Called to the Bar: June 28, 1979 Particulars of Charges Professional Misconduct (6 counts) �� failure to respond to the Society (x4) �� breach of trust condition �� failure to file Form D Date of Hearing March 2 and April 21, 2004 Panel �� L. R. McInnes, Q.C. (Chair) �� G. R. Gilmour �� S. L. Chapman Disposition �� member granted permission to resign pursuant to Section 72(1)(g) of the Legal Profession Act �� costs of $1,500.00 Counsel �� C. K. Dangerfield for The Law Society of Manitoba �� R. Guay for the Member Failure to Respond Facts Between March 20, 2003 and April 30, 2003, Complaints Investigators for the Law Society wrote four letters to Mr. Smith relating to investigations into four separate matters. Each of the letters required a response within 14 days, however, Mr. Smith did not respond to one of the letters until July 15, 2003 and in the case of the other three, he failed to respond until August 5, 2003. In respect of one of these matters, Mr. Smith represented his clients on the purchase of real property from an estate. Documents were forwarded to him on trust conditions, one of which required that upon meeting certain conditions he would immediately proceed to register transfer documentation in the land titles office. Upon completion of the registrations, he was to apply to the mortgagee for the mortgage proceeds, and upon receipt immediately forward the unpaid balance to the solicitor for the vendor, together with interest. The member made no attempt to register the Transfer of Land for approximately 6 weeks, at which time it was rejected for containing the wrong legal description. He obtained authorization to amend the Transfer of Land, but failed to submit it for registration until some two months later. The member forwarded the mortgage proceeds to the vendor's solicitor two months after that, and failed to forward the interest on the unpaid balance as he was required to do. The interest was paid some months later. The member's Annual Trust Account Report (Form D) for the period July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003 was to be filed on or before October 31, 2003. At the date of the hearing, the Annual Trust Account Report (Form D) had yet to be filed. Plea The member entered a plea of guilty to each of the charges. Decision and Comments The Panel found Mr. Smith guilty of professional misconduct based on his admission to the charges. The member and the Society made a joint submission that the member be granted permission to resign pursuant to Section 72(1)(g) of the Legal Profession Act. Penalty The Panel accepted the joint recommendation and resolved that Mr. Smith be granted permission to resign from the Society. Mr. Smith was ordered to pay costs in the amount of $1,500.00. |
| injustice links injusticebusters Remi C. Smith Coddled CrookedLawyers David Langtry of Winnipeg Ukranian-Japanese-internment Fathers PeterWarren RealWomen StarChamberProceedings |
| MB JUDGE LEAPS FROM FRYING PAN WHEN FACED WITH EVIDENCE OF EGREGIOUS MISCONDUCT. HON. LYNN STANNARD QUOTES DISGRACED LAWYER REMI C. SMITH AND FORMER SELF EXILED LAWYER [DAVID LANGTRY, OF WILDER, WILDER AND LANGTRY] TO SKEWER TWO UNREPRESENTED MEN. Chief Judge demurs about investigating Stannard who quits as trial judge ahead of accused formal complaints about her misconduct or worse. |
| Chief Judge Hon. R. Wyant The Provincial Court of Manitoba 408 York Avenue, Winnipeg, MB R3C OP9 19-02-2006 Dear Chief Judge: RE MISCONDUCT BY JUDGE LYNN STANNDARD Following my/our complaint of 13-12-2005 1] about the conduct of Judge L. Stannard and your demurral that this is beyond your investigative authority, this complaint is being modified in order to surmount your demurral and we will sue for the other items of 13-12-05 This is a request that you proceed promptly to investigate Judge Lynn Stannard for actions that may constitute Criminal Code violations as well as actions and behaviour that are disreputable and dishonourable. She may have engaged in an arrangement [a ‘conspiracy’?] with the Crown and the MSC] prior to the Charter Rights [Robotham hearing] or, less probable, accommodated the appalling conduct of her hearing to assist the Crown & Ms Carlson and the MSCand Ms Laycock. Her actions and behaviour have had a chilling and negative effect on me/us as the accused for a future trial[s] and me/us as Applicants for the legal aid hearing under the Charter. We ask that we be informed of your findings in full and that the process be transparent to us as it commences, including providing us the terms of the investigation prior to its start. . Kindly also provide information and procedure about other remedies available to me/us. This investigation should include but not be limited to and investigation of Judge Stannard’s:- 1. Communications with the MSC and the Crown prior to the commencement of the Robotham hearing. 2. Bias to the Applicants and the accused in favour of the MSC and the Crown 3. Improper conduct, especially with regard to her relationship with the prosecutor for the MSC and the Crown. 4. Dishonourable conduct that brought the Court and the administration of Justice in MB into even further disrepute. 5. Violations of the Criminal Code and your own Code of Conduct. 6. Co-conspirators should be included in your investigation/ 7. Other conduct which I have not been informed enough to have brought to your attention regarding my/our matter. I am and have been a resident of Ontario since about 1998. I am handicapped/disabled. I am under a regimen of medications including powerful pain drugs. I have significant problems in flying or traveling overland. I am slow in writing or responding in writing because of my conditions and the medications. I was an Applicant for the above described Charter Application around January 2005, before the judge named above. She ruled against me as is her right. I do not attach the transcript of the proceedings and her decision which are readily available to you. I attach a letter I addressed to the judge’s secretary in reply to hers and one from the Crown relating to Judge Stanndard’s query about my perception of her bias. The judge subsequently recused herself as the trial judge on or about November 29, 2005. Her recusing herself should be viewed as her acceptance of my original charges addressed to her via her secretary in reply to her query after I had written the MSC prosecutor. She had leaped from the trial before formal sanctions could be applied and set the stage for her succeeding trial judge to reap the rotten benefit of her disreputable behaviour. Simply waiting to be crucified and thereafter, applying to figurative Pharisees or Sadducees may be the option that you outlined but is not a just one. I/We are un-represented against the financial, legal and procedural might of the MB Justice System and our Rights are being abrogated even now; what will our chances be after your System had incarcerated us and we have to then ‘appeal’ to you and your group without legal aid? In by reply to the judge’s secretary, I had asked that she remove herself only if she felt guilty of my charges. My view of the judge’s bias and prejudice and wrongful acts. The Crown managed to have the Application heard by the trial judge, immediately creating the potential for tainting the trial process. The Crown and the MSC were motivated by their strategy that a decision favourable to the Crown denying the Application would be used to deny any Appeal. The planned and executed strategy was that that Judge Lynn Stannard’s decision denying the relief of a Charter Application would be cast as an ‘interlocutory’ judgement which, in this light, would not be be appealed – after we were found guilty at the trial, as would be the likely outcome of un- represented accused in this technically complex matter. This was also a strategically planned subversion of the Charter and bodes ill for any future Applicants since a malicious axe has been shaped to chop at the roots of the Charter, regardless of the wrongness or malignity of any judge under the pretext of ‘interlocutory’ invincibility until the Corwn’s Goliath had demolished any accused. Judge Stannard permitted herself to be placed in this position either with knowledge aforehand or through willful blindness, obvious hostility and a litany of wrongful and facts and a charade of an Application. In addition, she turned her courtroom into a circus. We made a Charter Application opposed by the Crown. At the hearing, the judge permitted the MSC prosecutor, Kim Laycock, to attend and to sit with the Crown, during which hearing Laycock proceeded to pass whispered instructions and pieces of note paper to Ms Carson, the Crown’s lawyer whenever she made factual mistakes. Further, I provide below a list of the matters where the Judge issued a decision that was tainted with significant and blatant wrongs including her mis-statements of my evidence or her manufacturing of ‘evidence’ and I refer you to the transcripts of her trial and the decision to illustrate these astonishing matters. · Prior to hearing the Crown's submission of evidence of a perjury conviction she declared that she felt that I was not credible so the Crown could introduce evidence [about an unsworn statement from me to David Langtry which he insisted on to cover his errors before he fled the practice of law and a posse of clients with fraud allegations, some filed in QB, and which is the subject of my current complaints to the AG, the Minister of Justice and the Winnipeg Police]. · This trial judge then heard the Crown’s evidence despite the warning from my counsel that she as the trial judge should not do so. · Judge stated in her decision that I was unsure of how many times I was married, which statement I had never made even indirectly. Neither I or my previous counsel could find the basis for her unfortunate statement and he continued to advise me that she was incorrect when I asked him to advise me if I was overlooking some item I misspoke during the application. o [Crown had begun the examination by asking me about an appeal of a divorce matter with HELEN, when it turned out they meant Cecelia. I was flabbergasted and advised the Crown that I did not have a contested divorce from Helen. The MSC prosecutor then passed a note and whispered to the Crown and she changed her question to one about Cecelia, from whom I did have a contested divorce settlement.] · Judge Stanndard’s decision stated that I had not declared my old age security income. Her decision statement was an gross untruth by the judge. My income was declared, was documented for the Court and was known to the ODSP which showed it on their cheque [attached with my Affidavit for the Application] as an amount to be deducted from their basic income of about $1500. I turned age 65 at the END of Aug 2004 and received this income from the end of September 2004. My wife's similar income was also shown on the ODSP cheque statement and deducted from their basic disability payment. BOTH payments are not secret and are shared with ODSP and other government agencies by the Federal Government. · The judge’s decision made much of this and was a rancid untruth · The judge also accepted the third party word of a crooked lawyer, Remi Cecil Smith, that I was uncooperative, when I had instead written the LA MB that his phone was disconnected and he was not accessing his also disconnected email. § Indeed, the legal profession and the judge had evidence or access to their Law Society records showing that the said Smith was a crook who was, as the LS MB routinely permits, allowed to flee by 'resigning as a member' and hence not practicing until, as with David Langtry and others of this bent, allowed back to inflict themselves on the unsuspecting public. o Judge had before her as well clear evidence of an assault on my Charter rights and on the Code of Conduct for LS MB members, when letters were provided to her via the Crown [not to me] or by Legal Aid MB, showing that they not only employed a crooked lawyer [and allegedly one who had a drug habit] during the time he was being investigated, but that LA MB secretly asked him, my own legal counsel, to obtain financial information about me that could prejudice my Certificate for legal aid. [Remi S. Smith did not advise me that as my counsel he was surreptitiously gathering such information. Here was a crooked druggie who was susceptible to manipulation by the ex director of Legal Aid, acting against the interests of his client. No such evidence was provided despite the extensive searches done by my own lawyer without my consent or knowledge] o Judge was blind to this evidence and cherry picked what she wanted to accept and did accept the third party evidence of the said ex-lawyer Remi C. Smith, without calling his being called to testify by the Crown. o Judge avoided the fact that a similar request [for investigating assets and information that could void the Legal Aid Certificate] was not made of my co-accused’s lawyer by LA MB. [Indeed, that honest lawyer would have refused while the susceptible, crooked Remi C. Smith, hand picked by Legal Aid during his investigation by the Law Society, was amenable to the conspiracy with LA MB's Director, McNeely] o Judge overlooked that the said crooked lawyer selected by LA MB to represent me was allowed to represent to the court falsely, that he was withdrawing as my counsel because I was 'uncooperative' rather than the fact that he had made the usual sweetheart deal with the LS MB to surrender his membership. § [Tupper Adams, Kim Laycock and others of the court permitted this fraud, knowing that R C Smith had been instructed to withdraw from all of his cases, supervised by Ms R. Ziss of Tupper Adams. § This was a scam on me and on the Court and the judge Stannard was blind to the slur and the scam on the court while she accepted the crook’s word via third party letters to and from LA MB’s McNeeley. o Judge did not take into account the recommendation of the lawyer for LA MB recommending that my Certificate be reinstated and that the Board was over-ruled or strong armed by the executive director. [My certificate was cancelled on the basis that the charges were summary and therefore not eligible for the interprovincial agreement, and that the crooked lawyer had stated that I was uncooperative as he surreptitiously sought financial information to discredit me. § [co-incidentally, this series of LA MB events occurred after a judge Corrin [sp] railed against me having legal aid during a hearing of the matter since I was an On resident – the same judge famously known for advising accused before him to not represent themselves did not want me to have legal aid. And shortly after my certificate was cancelled.] · Judge held that I was not credible for the reasons above and I am forever prejudiced by her acceptance of the crooked lawyer. [Shades of David Langtry and Joe and Sam Wilder – Langtry was fleeing several law suits against him [and perhaps his firm?] alleging fraud at the time he was setting me up for his mishandling the mortgage funds and land title representation for the house closing he handled for me and I was unaware that he was in this Remi S. Smith condition]. o Judge did not use Justice Scollin’s remarks in my favour at the sentencing of 2 years probation in lieu of the 14 years that I faced under this hate crime prosecution made by the Crown and abetted by the police on behalf of the Wilders and Langtry so that they could obtain insurance coverage for their mis-deeds on the mortgage transaction or dodge an adverse finding by the law society that was investigating Landtry and his firm. · Judge’s decision interpreted my Bahamian daughter’s payment of my airline ticket to visit her in Nassau in 2001 [about $199 sell off] and one to Winnipeg MB for a court hearing in either 2004 or 2005, [so that a threatened arrest warrant would not be issued for my non-appearance for this matter], as evidence that I had not exhausted the finances of my children and family before asking for legal aid. · Judge interpreted the Charter decisions as stating that such exhaustion was needed and by implication that my and Mr. Friesen’s families had to submit to such predation of their families on behalf of the Crown and Legal Aid MB as a vital step to allow a Robotham type Charter application. · Judge permitted Crown’s tactic that forced me to read into the court record the names dates of births and full names of my children, thereby prejudicing them and their futures in various ways including identity theft and nefarious searches by hate crimes groups or others. · Judge appeared to support Crown’s notion that Mr. Friesen’s very elderly parents finance his trial. · Judge willfully blind in her refusal to accept counsel's request for her ‘judicial notice’ of the cost of defence, as if she were not a lawyer and a judge - an officer of the court – and aware of such costs and fees? · Judge disregarded all the medical information in the court dockets and in the Application about my medical condition and the heavy medications and the fact that Ontario Disability had accepted my medical evidence and had deemed me disabled and eligible for their subsidy of just under $300 per month and my own testimony. · Judge disregarded my inability or reduced ability to evaluate thousands of pages and hours of tapes and prepare for trial of up to 4 months during this time of my being on post operative medications and problems from the surgery and other conditions and that the doctors felt that I had about 9-12 months of recovery effective from April 2005, if my recovery went well. · Judge willfully blind about the fact that MSC charges are very specialized matters and only a limited number of lawyers are recognized as qualified to represent accused? · Judge actually asserted that the charges were a simple matter to defend and that the accused knew what they did and could therefore defend themselves. · Judge set the standard for defence of the ‘simple’ 100 MSC charges as 'they are intelligent' – me with my grade 10 in a South American country and Mr. Friesen, an Engineer. · Judge studiously looked away from LA MB correspondence stating that they had difficulty in finding such specialized lawyers [even given their fee scale] · Judge stated that the 100 charges were really nothing and would be ‘reduced’ at trial. · Judge treated the million dollars fine per count and 2 years per count penalties as not important in her dismissal of the seriousness and complexity of the charges as not warranting counsel. · Judge had in the docket from which she fished selected information the fact that judge Chartier, at an earlier hearing on the charges, had strongly advised that we obtain counsel because of the seriousness and complexity of the charges and he specifically referred us to the Robotham precedents. · Judge held that the MSC was not introducing evidence related to their intercepts [Note: illegal and fraudulent intercepts and sworn statements to the Court and MSC has NOT made the disclosure as yet which I have requested over the past year] · Judge did not use any evidence provided by the Crown that my children’ s little company Telesend had any net revenue, or was controlled at any material time by my wife but she held o that my wife's financial information must have been good [despite the investigation of Ontario's ODSP or Remi C. Smith] and that she must have controlled the shares although the Crown introduced no such evidence and indeed could not o [The evidence of ownership of shares over the years are available to LA MB and to the Crown in the annual corporation filings in MB for Telesend ] · Judge noted that I had not filed for bankruptcy implying that I was not credible or perhaps had hidden assets although the Crown did not allege that or provide any evidence to that effect. o Judge did not note in her decision my reasonable explanation that the cost of bankruptcy filing was beyond my reach and that the trustee’s comment was ‘why do this if you have no assets to protect?’ § Another reason is that as a bankrupt I could not file any actions on my own and I planned to try to file again vs Wilder Wilder and Langtry and the AG for wrongful conviction and a hate crime prosecution of the ‘perjury’ arrangement to protect Langtry and his firm from his disgraceful conduct before he fled the legal profession by courtesy of the amenable LS MB · The judge cherry picked her 'evidence' and made egregious errors of fact and law that have irreparably damaged my Rights and my right to access Legal Aid. · Judge permitted the coaching and passing of information by the prosecutor for MSC, Kimberly Laycock to the Crown during my and Mr. Friesen’s Charter Application permitting the Crown to taint the perceived and actual fairness of the Application. I advised the judge via her secretary, I do NOT wish to make any motion to remove judge Stannard at that time. She may be an exemplary judge and an ideal one to ensure that this 'simple case' be defended by the accused without counsel. I stated that however, if the judge feels that she is guilty of misconduct or bias she should identify such and discuss it with the accused. If she feels that her decision was correct in fact and law why should she exit and further taint the Justice System of MB? As well the judge [as others also did] bullied and forced me to sign a notice of appearance during the hearing. She said that it was only to let the Court know that I was aware of the trial date. I was unrepresented by counsel as she instructed me to comply. [As well, various other MB judges also advised me this is just to note that I know the date, this while I was known to be unrepresented had protested and was known by the court to be under the influence of prolonged administration of potent pain killers including morphine. One Judge, Lismer [sp?] even told the clerk that I [paraphrasing], ‘could leave for the airport when [I] had signed the form.’ I did and wrote under protest without the benefit of legal counsel.. Judge Stannard’s decision to recuse herself is not an insignificant matter in light of the charges I spelled out and indicates her acceptance of wrong doing. I respectfully ask that the matters identified at the subject of this letter be investigated and reviewed and that the relief I request be granted as well as your informing me of any other relief that could be helpful to me. Sincerely, J. Ishmael Attachments: TO: Ms. Marilyn Baron and Mr. Garson and the MSC Judicial Assistant 5th Fl., 408 York Ave. Tel: (204) 945-5693 Fax: (204) 945-0552 Dear Ms Baron, I apologise for the delay in replying to yesterday's communication from Mr. Garson, who was helpful in forwarding your query. Please forward copies to the other parties, above. I will accept all legal documents by certified mail in the time and procedure for an out of MB resident. Fortunately, I had skipped my medication for 2 days in order to better reply to Hon. Assiociate Chief Justice, Jeffrey J. Oliphant. Now I can get to two replies for the same 'price'. It is unlikely that I will be able to be in Winnipeg for my important Appeal decision and Mr. Friesen will represent me if I am unable to be there. We share the same interest in the Appeal. Please provide copies of this to the others. BIAS – your query I am working on an Action vs various parties in relation to legal aid and the activities of the MSC and others. Because of my condition the final document may take several weeks since I am unable to focus on the document for long periods at a time. Judge Stannard's decision involves the following in no particular order and you can share these with the judge. I read the transcript only on 11 Sept 2005 - long after I read her decision Let it be said that I have had unfavourable decisions by other judges and have not felt that their decisions in every case were incorrect or biased against me. The last one I recall was a decision that my civil action against the Wilders and David Langtry for conspiracy and fraud was poorly drafted to the extend that they could not “effectively defend” themselves. I accepted that as concrete reason, coupled with the fact that I was a bankrupt at the time and could not initiate my own law suits without the consent of the Trustee. The points below are not the complete range but what I have been able to write down over the past few weeks. Stannard's decision: · Prior to hearing the Crown's submission of evidence of perjury she said that she felt that I was not credible so Crown could introduce evidence [about an unsworn statement from me to Langtry before he fled the practice of law and a posse of clients with fraud allegations some filed in QB.] · The trial judge then heard the evidence despite the warning from my counsel that she as the trial judge should not. · Judge stated that I was unsure of how many times I was married. My previous counsel could not find the basis for her unfortunate statement and continued to advise me that she was incorrect. o [Crown had begun the examination by asking me about an appeal of a divorce matter with HELEN, when it turned out they meant Cecelia] · Judge stated that I had not declared my old age security income and this was an untruth by the judge [the income was declared, was documented and was known to the ODSP which showed it on their cheque as an amount to be deducted from their basic income of about $1500. I turned age 65 at the END of Aug 2004 and received this income from the end of September 2004. My wife's similar income was also shown on the ODSP cheque statement and deducted from their basic diability payment. BOTH payments are not secret and are shared with ODSP and other government agencies by the Federal Government. The judge was ...[fill in the blanks] · The judge accepted the third party word of a crooked lawyer, Remi Cecil Smith that I was uncooperative, when I had instead written the LA MB that his phone was disconnected and he was not accessing his also disconnected email. § Indeed, the legal profession and the judge had evidence or access to their Law Society records showing that the said Smith was a crook who was, as the LS MB routinely permits, allowed to flee by 'resigning as a member' and hence not practicing until, as with David Langtry and others of this bent, allowed back to inflict themselves on the unsuspecting public. o Judge had before her as well clear evidence of an assault on my Charter rights and on the Code of Conduct for LS MB members, when letters were provided to her via the Crown [not to me] or by Legal Aid MB, showing that they not only employed a crooked lawyer [and allegedly one who had a drug habit] during the time he was being investigated, but that LA MB secretly asked him, my own legal counsel, to obtain financial information about me that could prejudice my Certificate for legal aid. [Remi S. Smith did not advise me that as my counsel he was surreptitiously gathering such information. Here was a crooked druggie who was susceptible to manipulation by the ex director of Legal Aid, acting against the interests of his client. No such evidence was provided despite the extensive searches done by my own lawyer without my consent or knowledge] o Judge was blind to this evidence and cherry picked what she wanted to accept o Judge avoided the fact that a similar request was not made of my co- accused’s lawyer by LA MB [that honest lawyer would have refused while the susceptible, hand picked crooked Remi C. Smith was amenable to the LA MB's McNeely's [sp?] conspiracy] o Judge overlooked that the said crooked lawyer selected by LA MB to represent me was allowed to represent to the court falsely, that he was withdrawing as my counsel because I was 'uncooperative' rather than the fact that he had made the usual sweetheart deal with the LS MB to surrender his membership. [Tupper Adams, Kim Laycock and others of the court permitted this fraud, knowing that R C Smith had been instructed to withdraw from all of his cases, supervised by Ms R. Zeiss of Tupper Adams. This was a scam on me and on the Court and the judge Stannard was blind to the slur and the scam on the court while she accepted the crook’s word via third party letters to and from LA MB’s McNeeley. o Judge did not take into account the recommendation of the lawyer for LA MB recommending that my Certificate be reinstated and that the Board was over-ruled or strong armed by the executive director § [co-incidentally, this series of LA MB events occurred after a judge Corrin [sp] railed against me having legal aid during a hearing of the matter since I was an On resident – the same judge famously known for advising accused before him to not represent themselves.] · Judge held that I was not credible for the reasons above and I am forever prejudiced by her acceptance of the crooked lawyer. [Shades of David Langtry and Joe and Sam Wilder – Langtry was fleeing several law suits against him [and perhaps his firm?] alleging fraud at the time he was setting me up for his mishandling the mortgage funds and land title representation for the house closing he handled for me and I was unaware that he was in this Remi S. Smith condition]. o Judge did not use Justice Scollin’s remarks in my favour at the sentencing of 2 years probation in lieu of the 14 years that I faced under this hate crime prosecution made by the Crown and abetted by the police on behalf of the Wilders and Langtry so that they could obtain insurance coverage for their mis-deeds on the mortgage transcation] · Judge also interpreted my Bahamian daughter’s payment of my airline ticket to visit her in Nassau in 2001 [about $199 sell off] and one to Winnipeg MB for a court hearing in 2004 or 2005, so that a threatened arrest warrant would not be issued for my non-appearance for this matter [about which I as an Ontario resident, did not have to appear] as evidence that I had not exhausted the finances of my children and family before asking for legal aid. · Judge interpreted the Charter decisions as stating that such exhaustion was needed and by implication that my and Mr. Friesen’s families had to submit to such predation of their families on behalf of the Crown and Legal Aid MB as a vital step to allow a Robotham type Charter application. · Judge did not comment that the Crown did not force Mr Friesen to read off the personal information about his many siblings – he has no children] while she permitted this method to be used against me · Judge permitted Crown’s sick and prejudicial tactic to force me to read into the court record the names dates of births and full names of my children, thereby prejudicing them and their futures in various ways. · Judge appeared to suggest or support Crown’s notion that Mr. Friesen’ s very elderly parents finance his trial. · Was judge willfully blind in her refusal to accept counsel's request for her judicial notice of the cost of defence, as if she were not a lawyer and a judge - an officer of the court – and aware of such costs and fees? · Judge disregarded all the medical information in the court dockets and in the Application about my medical condition and the heavy medications and the fact that Ontario Disability had accepted my medical evidence and had deemed me disabled and eligible for their subsidy of just under $300 per month and my own testimony. · Judge disregarded my inability or reduced ability to evaluate thousands of pages and hours of tapes and prepare for trial of up to 4 months during this time of my being on post operative medications and problems from the surgery and other conditions and that the doctors felt that I had about 9-12 months of recovery effective from April 2005, if my recovery went well. · Was the Judge willfully blind about the fact that MSC charges are very specialized matters and only a limited number of lawyers are recognized as qualified to represent accused? · Judge actually asserted that the charges were a simple matter to defend and that the accused knew what they did and could therefore defend themselves. · Judge set the standard for defence of the simple MSC matter as 'they are intelligent' - the grade 10 accused and the Engineer and the charges are simple. · Judge studiously looked away from LA MB correspondence stating that they had difficulty in finding such specialized lawyers [even given their fee scale] · Judge held that the 100 charges were really nothing and would be ‘reduced’ · Judge treated the million dollars per count and 2 years per count penalties as not important in her dismissal of the seriousness and complexity of the charges as not warranting counsel. · Judge had in the docket from which she fished selected information the fact that judge Chartier, at an earlier hearing on the charges, had strongly advised that we obtain counsel because of the seriousness and complexity of the charges and he specifically referred us to the Robotham precedents. · Judge held that the MSC was not introducing evidence related to their intercepts [Note: illegal and fraudulent intercepts and sworn statements to the Court and MSC has NOT made the disclosure as yet which I have requested over the past year] · Judge did not use any evidence provided by the Crown that Telesend had any net revenue, or was controlled at any material time by my wife. o Judge also held that my wife's financial information must have been good [despite the investigation of Ontario's ODSP or Remi C. Smith] o The evidence of ownership of shares oever the years are available to LA MB and to the Crown in the annual corporation filings in MB for Telesend Gateway · Judge made note that I had not filed for bankruptcy implying that I was not credible or perhaps had hidden assets although the Crown did not allege that or provide any evidence to that effect. o Judge did not note in her decision my reasonable explanation that the cost of filing was beyond my reach and that the trustee’s comment was ‘why do this if you have no assets to protect?’ § Another reason is that as a bankrupt I could not file any actions on my own and I planned to try to file again vs Wilder Wilder and Langtry and the AG for wrongful conviction and a hate crime prosecution of the ‘perjury’ arrangement to protect Langtry and his firm from his disgraceful conduct before he fled the legal profession by courtesy of the amenable LS MB · If the judge cherry picked her 'evidence' and made egregious errors of fact and law then my civil Action or other legal processes I explore should deal with that. · Judge permitted the coaching and passing of information by the prosecutor for MSC, Kimberly Laycock to the Crown during my and Mr. Friesen’s Charter Application permitting the Crown to taint the perceived and actual fairness of the Application. My Action will include many other items and is focussed on the AG, LA MB and its ex director, LS MB, MSC, Jason Roy and others I do NOT wish to make any motion to remove judge Stannard at this time. She may be an exemplary judge and an ideal one to ensure that this 'simple case' be defended by the accused without counsel. If however, the judge feels that she is guilty of misconduct or bias she should identify such and discuss it with the accused. If she feels that her decision was correct in fact and law why should she exit and further taint the Justice System of MB? NO. Not before my action. [This judge withdrew voluntarily] |
| David Langtry was allowed to "resign" from the Law Society of MB [ technically, he did not 'renew' his certificate or licence] They told me that they could not investigate his involvement in the terrible activities of his and his firm that allowed him to set me up to cover his mess. Because he was not any longer a member. Now LANGTRY is back practicing on the public This is the formula used by Law Societies to shield lawyers from their crimes or botched work and to expose the public to these bent people some whom can even go on to become judges! Protest this Law Society shoddy practice. Share your experiences Send your email by clicking on: CROOKED-LEGAL |
| below [William Ongenae and Parkdale Construction Ltd. - Plaintiffs VS David Langtry and Wilder Wilder and Langtry - Defendants CI-92-01-64980] 2 pages missing |
| COMPLAINT TO WPG POLICE AGAINST LANGTRY & WILDER, EMBEDDED IN MB JUSTICE SYSTEM, WILL BE POSTED BELOW IN NEAR FUTURE |