One of the crime scenes

Friday, April 15, 2011

We're Still Allowed
to Dream

Preview of 2011 Stanley Cup Final?

Here we are halfway through April and an all Canadian Stanley Cup final is still within the realm of possibility. On Wednesday the Canucks shut out the defending Champs and recent Canuck nemesis the Chicago Blackhawks 2-0. The next night the Habs defeated the higher seeded and long time rival Boston Bruins by the same score. So going into tonights game the score stands at Canada 4 and non Canadian Original Six teams ZERO. What better way to follow a Canadian Men's Hockey Gold than with a Canadian East West Stanley Cup final.

Continuing with a different kind of dream.

The Nightmares of Susan Heyes

Susan Heyes who had her business on Cambie almost completely destroyed by the lying collusion of all levels of government and the builders of the RAV line is going back to court, the big court. After winning an almost pyrrhic victory in BC Supreme Court, a settlement that barely covered some of her losses after paying the ridiculous cost of pursuing justice in British Columbia, Susan was dismayed to have that decision overturned by the Appeal Court and is now faced with having to return the already awarded (and disbursed) settlement. I received, along with many other folks, the following letter this morning.
April 15th, 2011

Susan Heyes files Leave to Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada
as a Self-represented Litigant

Is justice only available to the rich and powerful?

I have just filed for leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada as a self represented litigant.

Contributions can be made to the Susan Heyes Legal Defence fund : Royal Bank – account # 07200 – 5076666

I have no means to pay further huge legal fees to take this case to the Supreme Court of Canada, but as a citizen and a small business owner, I can’t afford not to. This is an issue of national importance with the potential to impact any small business in Canada.

The ruling of the BC Appeals Court, if not overturned, would mean that any small business in Canada in the path of a mega-project could suffer severe financial hardship or bankruptcy, without any legal obligation to tell the truth or to provide restitution, on the part of those responsible.

In this case of the P3 model for the Canada Line, this project has even been provided with the powers and funding of every level of government, to profit at the expense of the small businesses. This is unjust and unfair.

I began this fight for justice and compensation six years ago. I have mortgaged my home twice to keep my business viable. $300,000 of the $600,000 award plus costs, was paid out in legal fees, leaving me with a fraction of my actual losses to invest back into my business.

The Canada Line consortium, with assets over $13 billion, expects Hazel & Co to repay the entire $600,000 award, including the already paid legal fees. However, the lawyers for Canada Line apparently suggested that they might be prepared to waive some or all of the recovery of all moneys paid to Susan Heyes Inc. if no Leave to Appeal Application to the Supreme Court of Canada was filed.

Faced with another massive legal bill, and considering this financial inducement, the incentive for stopping any further legal action is compelling. But so is my determination for justice to prevail, and for this issue of national importance to be fully heard, and rectified.

I welcome financial assistance to continue this challenge.

If the several years of catastrophic business losses caused by the secretive, non-compliant cut and cover construction of the Canada Line is not considered severe, unreasonable, intolerable - and merits compensation - what process, what length of time and what degree of harm is?

The Supreme Court of Canada will be asked to consider the balance of fairness in the shared burden of costs and the shared benefits, as they relate to all participants in this landmark case, and that leave is being brought forward by Susan Heyes as a self-represented litigant, at great expense.

Susan Heyes
4280 Main Street
Vancouver, BC
V5V 3P9

604 687-0721 w
604 551-8852 c

I can't help but reflect on how much the consortium's attempt (in the part I bolded -kc), undoubtably with the implied if not explicit support of government, to buy Susan off with the offer to not pursue remedy if she were to choose to not appeal to the Supreme Court, reeks of business as usual in the banana republic of BC. Obviously Ms. Heyes is cut from different cloth than say, Basi and Virk. Maybe she isn't on the hook for six million, but the principle is exactly the same and Ms. Heyes' silence cannot be purchased by the more sleazy elements of our society who appear to be running the show at the present time.

Like many of my fellow bloggers, all of whom don't necessarily agree on everything, I urge anyone who can to support Susan Heyes in this David and Goliath style affair. Laila Yuile in her post today says in Susan Heyes files Leave to Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada:
Wonderful and stunning news that I wholeheartedly support!! I would very much like to host a fundraiser for residents of Surrey/WhiteRock/Delta/Langley in the near future to assist Susan’s fight for justice, and will post detail as soon as things are in motion!! Please email me directly if you would like to be involved!

I ask you, who will fight for you if your home, your business, was next?

So far already this morning I have found support from besides Laila, Alex Tsakumis at Rebel without a Clause calls out for support for Susan and her efforts to stand up for some actual justice. I'm confident others on my blogroll will be covering this development and urging support for Susan's cause, as one can plainly see the notice was sent out earlier today.

Judicial Findings are not
.....Creative Writing Projects

The Vancouver Sun writes a headline that makes it seem as if a long serving judge were a cheating college student in Judge's plagiarism voids $5-million trial.
A new trial has been ordered and a $5-million judgment thrown out because B.C. Supreme Court Justice Joel Groves plagiarized most of his ruling.

In a staggering decision Thursday, involving an expensive 30-day trial about a baby boy severely injured during delivery, the B.C. Court of Appeal said the judge had substantially reproduced all of the submissions of a participating party in the lawsuit as his reasons for judgment. It is only the fourth reported case of its kind in Canadian history, the judges said in their ruling.

I fail to see why the issue of "plagiarism" is even relevant. The legal team for the plaintiffs were PAID the big bucks to articulate their arguments in their submissions to the court. If they did such a good job as to articulate the merites of the case CORRECTLY in the eyes of the judge, why should the judge waste more time in an already OVER(EFFING)LOADED (in)justice system trying to paraphrase legal mumbo jumbo he felt explain his findings and decision?

As an author of the "plagiarised" prose commented:
Paul McGivern, a lawyer for the family, said the ruling was hard to swallow given the costs and hardships of fighting another trial.

He had not yet had time to speak with his clients and explain the decision to them.

"We did everything we needed to do and the judge agreed with our submissions," he said. "I always write my submissions in a form that allows the ease of transfer to the judgment for the judge. And here I thought I had been brilliant."

McGivern ventured that the copying was not as rare as the appeal court thought: "This is the second time it's happened to me in my career."

"I had one other judgment where the judge adopted my submissions [like this] but it didn't go to appeal."

It would seem to me that the presiding judge, by including as written these passages from submissions, was indicating that in HIS JUDGEMENT the submissions were correct. Again, why waste precious and expensive time in a court system starved for resources trying to rewrite stuff that already cost hundreds of dollars an hour to create, if it is also correct IN THE JUDGEMENT OF THE JUDGE?

Spiteful Stevie's Nightmares for the Weekend!

Helena Guergis (above) and the Afghan Detainee Docs!

Helean "cast aside" Guergis has risen from the mists to haunt Stevie again, at a time when we are almost into shellshock from the daily displays of PsuedoCon sleaziness. If they aren't hiring convicted felons to work in the PMO and later lobby for their friendly former escort/present fiance or trying to claim praise for themselves that was given to the previous government by the Auditor General, perhaps they can't manage to contain the fact that all the lurid accusations against Helena Guergis were unfounded. Then today was originally Gilles Duceppe's deadline for release of the vetted Afghan detainee documents which may or may not be made public before May 2, perhaps to the embarrassment of both the Liberals and the HarpoCons.

How Stephen Harper can even utter the word integrity and not be immediately struck down by lightning is in itself a good argument for atheism or at least agnosticism.


Anonymous Grant G said...

Well Kootcoot, you really knocked yourself out, still raining?

Susan Heyes, what better symbolism is than that, David versus Goliath, this will be a real test for the Supreme Court of Canada..

If the court is still honest she will win..If corporagovernments have infiltrated that institution she will lose.

Corporate Governments aren`t too keen on laws preventing them from trampling on peoples rights, livlyhood and land!

Helena...My oh my, I don`t have much sympathy for her but I love the boo hoo tears...

A new mother being trounced on by Stevie Harpoon.

She claims she wants to return to the Conservatives but only when Stevie Wonderless is gone.


Friday, April 15, 2011 at 3:29:00 PM PDT  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks Koot...I will send Susan H. a small amount and I hope many others will respond in small and larger amounts in her defence. True that about the TPTB.


Monday, April 18, 2011 at 9:32:00 PM PDT  
Anonymous G West said...

And you're correct about the phony plagiarism decision too.

The judge did nothing wrong - if he agreed with the arguments and the evidence supported the conclusion he was drawing then why not save the exchequer a few dollars and use the arguments as presented.

This is a bullshit decision.

G West

Tuesday, April 19, 2011 at 10:17:00 PM PDT  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home