Sunday, December 21, 2014

$110 Million Class Action Lawsuit Against CAS

A $110 Million dollar class action lawsuit has been filed against CAS, initiated by Holly Papassay and Toni Gran for injuries suffered while in CAS foster care. Lawyer Jonathan Ptak says they are working on making it a class action lawsuit, saying there are tens of thousands of victims that could speak out and be added to the proceedings.

Thunder Bay Ontario Superior Court Statement of Claim, 17 pages

Ontario could face class-action suit over alleged failure to protect Crown wards
Global News article March 24, 2014

This CTV news footage posted March 24, 2014 details the story. Holly is seen detailing the abuse she suffered while in care, that being raped, sodomized and sexually abused in other ways. Complaints to CAS were ignored.

Video, CTV News footage, March 24, 2014 2:47

Carole Chretien-Rankin, another former foster child spoke of the bullying and abuse she suffered while in care. The foster parents never took pictures of her growing up; "It was just a cash thing" she says, so she has no pictures of herself when she was young. These CAS foster people did not care.

Sun News video of Carole, 4:27

Jesse Larabee (who contacted Papa to post this information) is also a member of this lawsuit. He writes, "I only wish that I had someone who did their job properly in the first place and we wouldn't be in this long term mess that we are in now."

Jesse Larabee YouTube channel of various videos.

Hopefully more people will become aware of this class action lawsuit and will contact lawyer Jonathan Ptak, and submit their story.

Koskie Minsky Law Firm - Jonathan Ptak

Tuesday, February 18, 2014

MCFD lawsuit run by Mr. Jack Hittrich, Closing Arguments update

Jack Hittrich
This is the 4th day of the closing arguments that started last Thursday February 13th, 2014.

I came in about 11:45 there was NO security with the absence of pedo dad (yay!).

Today covered primarily the interaction between MCFD team leader William Strickland and Detective Gwen Rowley of the Vancouver Police sex crime squad.

There was a quick discussion of whether or not MCFD offers sex abuse treatment for adults (such as pedo dad) and the answer was no.

In reviewing Mr. Strickland and the testimony others on the subject of who filled out the referral form that recommended Dr. Eirikson, this question, astoundingly, remains unanswered. An email was sent January 27th, 2010 with the referral attached to the original MCFD lawyer Ms. Charlene Lebeau.

When asked the very simple question of who filled out the form if not him or another social worker, Mr. Strickland chose to ignore the question and launched into long winded explanation to disguise the fact he did not want to answer the question or to be caught lying about it, if it was indeed him that filled out the referral and authorized the payment of several thousand dollars for the PCA. (That presumably would have launched into a line of questioning as to why the individual was chosen, what other choices there were, how often that good doctor was  used by that office, what the outcomes of these reports were, and so on.)

Now, obviously Jack can't be saying to the judge that Mr. Strickland is a lying sack of poo, because what is really needed is clear evidence that the guy cannot be found credible, not merely that he smells of bullshit. The court-friendly word is probably "less than forthright." Layman's translation: evasive lying S.O.B.

Note to self: shouldn't public reviews exist on people like Strickland, Rowley, Grunberg, Allan, Eirikson, all of whom get paid scads of taxpayer cash, and be posted somewhere?

Dr. Eirikson apparently did the job expected of him by Mr. Strickland, (without prejudice: “SUSPECTED” of…) lying under oath (presumably it would be libelous infer it as a fact), minimizing sexual abuse concerns from dad and deflecting blame onto mom. There are no complaints from other parents to compare experiences (so you people who have had PCA's or other encounters done by this dude Eirikson, be sure to leave comments).

I should point out that there was a great deal of interaction between Judge Walker and Mr. Hittrich to try and narrow down and focus the evidence base. It made for a much longer day, but for those of us watching in the gallery, following the case was easier. The sleepy parts were reading out loud Strickland's long winded oratory.

The communications between Det. Gwen Rowley and William Strickland were examined. The testimony was that there were no phone calls between Dec23/09 day VPD Rowley interrogated mom and the 30th, the day of the apprehension. Nope, no coordination or influencing or sabotaging investigation there. Nope, nope, nope. Without records of communication, the evidence does not exist to show such collusion.  Let that be a lesson to all you other public servants: to increase the chances of success of lawsuits filed against you, be sure to properly document your incriminating communications.

We know of course that Rowley "independently" (chuckle, laugh, guffaw), decided that mom was spidey-sense-for-sure, suddenly suicidal, homicidal, child-killing crazy... a mental case ON the day of the removal. (I recall the amazing "spidey-sense" Gwen Rowley said she had, presumably acquired in her vast 4-months of experienced sexual abuse investigation experience). The bottom line is that mom’s sexual abuse concern was viewed as a mental health issue, without an ounce of evidence to support that conclusion. THAT conclusion is in the first trial ruling by Judge Walker.

So, mom was fine on December 28th from evidence supplied from all quarters by reading the testimony, but between that day and the 30th, she became a homicidal maniac. This rests on the word of Detective “independent” I'm-not-being-sued Rowley. Rowley tries to pin her mental health “diagnosis” on calls from the family, the mom’s father. In his testimony, he denies ever making any such claim his daughter had mental health issues. Someone’s lying.

By my observation, it looks better if Strickland didn't come up with those mental health theories, as he credits Rowley (translation: Strickland blames her for his originating libelous diagnosis, so he does not look biased).

Note to unwashed taxpayers: if you have kids, and you do NOT CLEAR YOUR VOICEMAIL, you WILL  be viewed as a potential homicidal suicidal child murderer and your children will be remove from your care.

So, get this, Rowley says that after she told mom to stop calling or she would be charged with criminal harassment, BECAUSE mom "suddenly" stopped calling annoying filling up her voicemail, she suddenly became concerned with mom's mental health and the safety of her children, and on December 30th, conveyed her concerns to shocked and surprised Mr. Strickland, who responded promptly, delegating the removal of the four kids to a couple of know-nothing after hours staff who phoned up unsuspecting mom so they knew where and when to kidnap her kids.

The ABSENCE of information where one would think a clear escalation of events would have clearly been documented, is noted as being “curious”. I call it "covering their tracks."

The testimonial transcript accounts of Madam Officer Rowley and Mr. Strickland differ. One of them is lying, or, both of them are. Either Mr. Strickland ran the show and coordinated everything to make it seem like a team effort where he was "compelled" by "obvious" "evidence" from “others” that the children's safety was in extreme danger, or, Mr. Strickland did NOT orchestrate the removal of moms kids just because he got ticked off Mom emailed everyone the sexual abuse disclosures he was trying so very hard to suppress and ignore. Public officials simply don’t DO that. It’s not polite AND it is expensive.

The phrase I like that Mr. Hittrich used was that Mr. Strickland "amped it up," in other words, a manufactured concern which is then hugely exaggerated in order to justify the reasons for removing four kids.

Then, there was the business of the s.17 application, suggested by the lawyer sent to Strickland. Should she first apply to the court to have the mom produce the children so they could be examined? That would certainly seem to be less intrusive to first see if the children were in danger BEFORE removing them.

What was THAT email all about? Strickland testified he knew nothing about that email addressed to him, and didn’t even know what a s.17 was (keep in mind the guy has years of experience and legal advice a phone call away). Anyways, we GET that Strickland was eager to remove the four kids. After all, how DARE mom email out evidence of sexual abuse to everyone on Christmas day that undermined his hard work at portraying her as mentally ill. Well, five days later, he sure did show her, didn’t he?

There was coverage of the conversations between social worker Jeff Timco and Det. Rowley, where she said that she would “support” any action by MCFD to “protect” the children, inferring removal. I guess that is code for “…will lie through teeth to ‘independently’ help you portray mom as a child-killing devil.”

By the way folks, if you happen on this page as a result of searching out these names, feel free to add comments citing your dealings with these people. I would certainly be curious if this mom is the only person EVER to have had difficulties like this with all these tax-paid public servants who really seem to dislike her so much, for filling up their voicemail, it justifies removing her kids.

One of the claims is that of MCFD influencing the police, contaminating evidence, and/or sabotaging the investigation with their own “findings” which becomes VPD’s “findings” that mom coached her kids, that dad is a good guy who is simply a custody battle victim who would never, EVER molest his kids. VPD refers to MCFD’s investigational efforts; MCFD, who in turn defers to VPD “expert(s)”. Dad is still running free as a bird folks, and the Crown on MCFD’s behalf is willing to spend millions and instead toast their old lawyer to keep it that way.

MCFD intake #5 covers the communications fromMCFD with VPD Rowley. VPD police records differ in accounts of the same events. This is troubling. Their testimony differs also. Notes were not taken of critical phone calls, such as the 5-10 minute between Rowley and Strickland call ON THE DAY  of the removal. (Translation: reserve the freedom to make up shit on the fly if called upon to do so.) Make shit up, that’s what they did, they tried to fit a story and “amp up” concerns with mom to make the magnitude of removing four children more palatable on paper. 

I just wonder if they made things up as they went along, at the time of the removal, or after they were sued.

There is the matter of mom’s unopened mail observed through a mail slot at a home visit, that is somehow interpreted as evidence mom is harbouring the children, growing more paranoids, and of course, the clincher is the discovery her voicemail is full AND mom wasn’t calling her. All of this is apparently a sure sign of suicidal tendency.  In the review of Rowley’s transcript, her logic mom was a mental basket case is that because she EXPECTED mom to ignore her warning that criminal harassment charges would be filed if she called again, when mom DIDN’T call, that alarmed her, causing the call to Strickland to tell him mom would flee and kill her kids if they were not removed immediately.

As bizarre as this sounds, this is what the evidence showed.

Another fun fact, Rawley excused the fact that mom was not advised to NOT question her kids, because, in her words, most people just “understand” that sort of thing. Sort of like, stopping at a red light, not driving drunk, and putting a seatbelt on – simple, common sense things that everyone knows. Public servants treating sexual abuse disclosures as something that can wait to be followed up on for several weeks, but unopened mail and a full voice mailbox were grounds for immediate removal of the not-sexually-abused children.

I believe Mr. Hittrich said something to the effect that is “stretching” it. To put it mildly, yes. In my mind, deranged public officials who have “nothing to gain” by lying and removing children and holding onto them for years, and cost taxpayers millions of dollars, should perhaps be, I don’t know… be FIRED and forbidden to be around children?

I don’t quite get, how happy the Crown is to throw that contract lawyer Ms. Corrine Feenie under the bus by waiving solicitor client privilege, but the social workers and pedo dad get the utmost protection, and they get to victimize more kids and families?

It is clear that much of the time wasted in this trial is what supposedly should have been documented but wasn’t. Phone calls maybe made or not. The suggestion I have is that every public servant should wear audio and video recorders 24/7, have keystroke recorders on their computer, room microphones with auto transcription software running. Make it so they can’t delete or re-write notes, they get scanned archived and locked from later changes.

These people are lying under oath, coordinating information to subvert the course of justice, not answering questions. The extraordinary lengths to which these people have collectively decided they are not going to admit to any mistake is simply mind-boggling.

The public is paying for all the transcripts, so all of that should be posted publicly after redacting the family names.

NOTE: The first day Feb13/14 of the closing argument by co-counsel Chris Heslinga that contains references to case law (book of authorities) is still being edited.

Monday, February 17, 2014