Monday, September 21, 2015

J.P. vs. MCFD Trial Watch - Day 21 October 29, 2013 - VPD Detective Gwen Rowley

MCFD lawsuit day 21 (from Sept30/13)
Peter Hittrich vs. the five (!) crown lawyers.
Papa missed three days last week, Wed - Fri Oct 23-25.

So today and yesterday is pretty much like watching paint dry.

Submissions have been ongoing for 3-4 days to have the judge lift a claim of privilege between mom and her former (3-days employed) lawyer.

After this is done, the VPD cop Ms. Rowley can testify what mom's pissed off ex lawyer Mr. Neilson said to Ms. Rowley about 12 seconds (approximately) after he was fired by mom for being an imbecile. Or something like that.
Really, I was half asleep.

Right now, there are 4 crown lawyers alternately taking a spot at the judicial podium. It is, I believe, conservative to say it costs $10,000 per day just for these folks to show up after they are frisked by the 2-4 guards at the security gate.

There are mounds of legal argument just in this one application. 3-4 days consumed so far. An average quote a "normal" person will for a basic civil trial for a week will be in the $30,000 range.

Its a good thing taxpayers can't see the river of cash being spent on this case. Think of all the deprived elected officials children who won't be able go to Disneyland on "government business" because the Attorney General is spending it all.

Just plead guilty and quit, all you useless MCFD social workers and unqualified cops. The judge already said you messed up. Covering your tails now isn't going to help.

Today like watching paint dry, listening to a the presentation of an 18xx U.S. citation of law, and even more 1980's U.S. law supporting the Crown's very, very, very persistent request to lift claim of privilege. Very clearly though, these people see victory over mom if they get what they want.

November 8th for completion of testimony sounds a bit optimistic at this point.
What the Crown wants is Detective Rowley to spill the beans about what the lawyer Mr. Neilson "really" told mom (which would likely infer she lied ON TOP OF being crazy), or we will learn what he "really" Rowley. That enables us, the unwashed public, to hear how that information shaped her "independent" investigative conclusion that mom is a nutcase. A conclusion she passed on to MCFD, who coincidentally came to the exact same conclusion, but that they used Rowley's "observation" as an excuse to remove four kids from mom's care.

All is well, because the opinions of expert psychologists who relied on information from cops and social workers, and the judge who in turn relied on the expert opinion to make the decision, justifies the lifting of claim of privilege. It's all so simple. Yin and Yang. Two snakes biting the tail of another and each eating each other's poop.

Ms. Detective Rowley, you will recall, is apparently a really, really, important witness who is being used to save MCFD's bacon in this lawsuit. She has already been up on Direct examination for 4 days (Oct 15-18). Her testimony is not finished because this interim application has to be decided on first.

We know Rowley really hates mom. (How DARE mom fill up Rowley's voice mailbox.) MCFD hates mom too. How DARE she video tape her kids disclosures. The nerve.
It seems to me that all the MCFD social workers and this Rowley cop are in cahoots. Probably though, I missed the really important days that would prove me, the mom and judge are all wrong.

I'm sure these nice folks from the police, MCFD, the Crown, Dad, all tell the truth and would never, ever, ever, discuss evidence while they are waiting off the witness stand before they resume testimony. It is good to have such honest public servants protecting us, the hapless public.

Mom is apparently the only liar in this sordid story. Unfortunately for her, the crown will parade as many people as it takes in front of the judge to "prove" their collective assertion she was, is, and always will have mental health issues serious enough to eventually result in the death of her children.

Heaven forbid one measly ex lawyer escape this parade of honest protectors of the public well being.

Oh, this lawyer is being sued too. The second he found out he was being sued, he phoned the Ministry lawyers - to say "hello". At least he is cordial with the enemy of parents he represents.

Apparently the law society makes lawyers buy million-dollar insurance in order to protect the public when they make a mistake. This guy made a doozy of a mistake, since an innocent client got her four children removed and he played a part in this. (Remember, Judge Walker found mom innocent of any child protection concerns levied against her.)

Mom fired Mr. Neilson after he appeared for her once. She could not get a word in edgewise to speak to him or the court during an appearance to follow her wishes.

The interesting part is, the second he gets fired, Mr. ex lawyer phones the cops with "information" that is "helpful" to the police, by providing "independent" "opinion" / slash "observation" from a concerned citizen. By god, lets throw out client-solicitor privilege and hear what he has to say! Really, how can client solicitor privilege be THAT sacrosanct. This is important police business!

Part of the Crown's quest VPD Rowley evaluation of mom's state of mental health, using the additive opinion of Mr. Neilson. The legal advice or did not give mom may or not be included. The actions and recommendations that Rowley provided MCFD after her "independent" investigative conclusion, enabled MCFD social workers to claim that they had absolutely no other option but to remove the four children in a better safe than sorry action. (After closing the borders and issuing CPIC alerts without judicial authorization.)

Just so you are clear, MCFD probably did NOT say, we want to remove this annoying mom's kids who we have never talked to and told mom we saw no need to help. Madam Detective Rowley probably did NOT say, "yep, good idea, it would be annoying to have to prepare for criminal proceedings against the dad. After all, dad is such an engaging character with such a winning personality."

MCFD probably also did not say: "Will you back us up if this goes south. We need you to say mom is crazy and a potential child killer because we have no evidence or experts to say otherwise." Rowley probably did NOT say, "no problem... her lawyer hates her, I've got abuse profile experts who will say dad is not a pedophile and mom is a crazy lying child corrupter, dad just messes with adults, not kids, half of mom's family will say she is crazy stressed - peice of cake". You can't get much more independent than that.
Misfeasance indeed. Hmmph.

So, in order for the lawsuit not to succeed, MCFD has to say they did not influence the police investigation. Police also have to say the same thing, that MCFD "advice" was not considered, just anecdotal. Police have to say they independently arrived at the exact same conclusion as MCFD, with different, multiple, (in)credible sources of information.

Police and MCFD are claiming mom made up stories for the children to repeat on tape and, probably her lawyer told her to do that.(Keep in mind, mom said her lawyer is involved in her decision to video tape her children's claims of abuse, this is on the public record and the audio tape was played in court that she told Strickland this December 31st, 2009.)

"That" legal advice being, according to the Crown, was either, that the mom should make the kids lie so the "evidence" is on tape, or to ensure that while the children's recollections are fresh, mom would do well to record her kids submissions.

Either way, that taping business sounds like a mighty fine precaution in case dad gets a hold of the kids and tells them not to spill the beans.

Like any good magician, the Crown would like you to focus on mom, not the well-meaning police and MCFD minions.

Keep in mind MCFD are the ones being sued, not the Vancouver Police Department, the City of Vancouver or Madam Detective Rowley. MCFD is being accused of telling the police mom was a nutcase, improperly influencing a criminal investigation NOT to charge dad as a pedophile and focus on mom, and that they should listen to what they have to say, because they really, really, want to remove the kids because mom is a big pain in their MCFD collective behind.

Here's the catch though, MCFD and VPD collectively say, in unison, that mom is nuts, going to kill herself, going to run off across the border with her kids and kill them with "missing" weapons. Basically if MCFD didn't act, they would look like fools for knowingly allowing the killing of the kids if they didn't stop her right that second.

The fact the same removal action would also serve to properly squelch the child molestation accusations AND villify the mom AND exonerate the dad ANY reduce VPD's investigative workload is really beside the point.


Misfeasance:

This case is is a lawsuit against MCFD for misfeasance.

Misfeasance is to take inappropriate action or give intentionally incorrect advice.
In this case, MCFD is accused of colluding with the RCMP (and vice versa) to generate prima facie justification to remove a mother's four children.

In BC, the threshold that justifies a child protection concern is incredibly low, approximately 10% is the legally defined threshold of sufficient risk according to case law (not 51%). What constitutes "evidence" can include copious amounts of hearsay. "Abuse" and "neglect" is not legally defined. "Reasonably belief is sufficient.

If there is a difference between FACTS between what MCFD says are its reasons for removal and a parent disagrees, the favour of error finds for the state, until a trial can occur to sort out the mess. Summary cases do not work because parents and experts have to testify, and THAT has to wait a year or so before trial time can be found.

So, in part 1 of this protection trial / slash / custody trial / slash lawsuit, we have a judicial finding issued last year. That finding was that the social workers involved in this case deliberately and consciously ignored credible evidence presented by the mom that her children were abused.

So, that 10% of risk was not there, and the disagreement of facts favours mom.
Trial continues tomorrow with final submissions and hopefully, a judicial decision on the matter of claim of privilege with respect to Mr. Neilson, and the ability of Ms. Detective Rowley to testify as to what he told her.

THEN, Det. Rowley can resume her testimony.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Comments are manually approved to eliminate spam and off topic discussions.