 |
| Mommy and Daddy and their three |
When we reconvened at 1:30 PM after some procedural chit-chat, the Judge invited Christie to provide his summation. It was with the understanding that Jensen could not and would not reply to that summation today. It was clear in his remarks and I had certainly seen in his body language that Christie has had enough. He cannot continue to give time to this case. His time and expertise have been a gift to a couple who have lost all material possessions to get their children back.
Christie did his thing, restating the emptiness of the Ministry's case. This is purely a medical matter, injuries sustained to an infant. No evidence, no confession to point to willful inflicted harm by one or both of the parents which is the only reason you take the children away from parents. All the Ministry has is a diagnostic opinion by a child protection doctor identifying the baby's injuries as shaken baby induced when in fact there is no evidence that these injuries were the result of an act of violence. In fact it was later acknowledged by this doctor as impact related which of course renders it consistent with the explanation provided by the Baynes of an accident in the home. He recited once again the intentional smears concerning Paul's childhood, all of which was fictitious and the insidious nature of the cross examination throughout the morning, culminating in the most disgusting display of juvenile law practice by Jensen and points to something even more clandestine and sinister.
So where does that leave the Bayne children? They cannot come home yet. No, now a court time must be found in Jensen's and Crabtree's schedules, a court room, and Jensen indicated he needs the better part of one day to speak to Christie's one hour summation. That meeting won't happen until mid September. It really doesn't matter how long Jensen takes does it? The Baynes do not need to attend this but a transcript will be sent to the Baynes so that Christie can respond to that and finally Crabtree must review all the evidence and at last make a ruling. It could be the end of 2010 by the time a verdict is given.
Meanwhile three little children, two of whom because of prematurity have developmental challenges yet all three are being placed into age appropriate public school programs come September.
More tomorrow.
This whole case is a total failure of the CP system, a waste of tax dollars, an abuse of power beyond imagination, a clear evidence that general child removal authority per CFCSA must be revoked.
ReplyDeleteHow about if we start organizing now, in case the judge decides to rule against this good family? We need to be ready for everything, including the worst. No doubt the judge will wait for an opportune time to hand down his decision. We need to be ready for that too. And by opportune time, I don't mean a slow news day.
ReplyDeleteRon,
ReplyDeleteCan you please elaborate on what you wrote above:
"...culminating in the most disgusting display of juvenile law practice by Jensen and points to something even more clandestine and sinister."
I don't mean repeating what was said verbatim, or repeating any slanderous statements, but could you give us some idea, just so we know what we are dealing with, and what you mean by something "even more clandestine and sinister?"
Thank you.
I am a Yank and as such I am not so familiar with Canadian law. But in the States and I dare say in Canada as well, there is such a legal mechansim entitled an appeal.
ReplyDeleteAs Ron's post said, it ain't over yet.
Reader from NYC
Anonymous 8:12 PM
ReplyDeleteI could elaborate but I have chosen not to do so beyond the further remarks I made in today's post entitled, "Adjourned."
There I say, "The most reprehensible tactic that Jensen used happened near the conclusion of the morning. Through a series of questions he sought to display that Zabeth and Paul could not meet all of the challenging needs of all three of their children if and when they were returned to them. Then he deftly zinged her with a couple of questions to evoke responses of information that was so personal and should have remained absolutely confidential. The room gasped."
I did not have permission from Zabeth to divulge her specific information.
Anonymous 8:12 PM Again...
ReplyDeleteLook for Paul's and Zabeth's own announcement on her Facebook page
http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Bayne-Campaign-for-Justice/196905937639?ref=ts#!/profile.php?id=100000206176739&ref=ts
If I am allowed to quote a name of someone no longer alive but feel it relates to this situation:
ReplyDeleteThe great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. John F. Kennedy 35th president of US 1961-1963 (1917 - 1963)
To know is one thing. Merely to believe one
knows is another. To know is science, but
merely to believe one knows is ignorance.
—Hippocrates
How can we all help? What can we do? When is the next protest?
ReplyDeleteFor Anonymous 9:13 AM
ReplyDeleteYour interest is commendable.
Protesting or lobbying is of no value now. It will not assist the Baynes since no one to whom these efforts may be directed has any authority to affect the case.
The case is with the Judge. He will not be influenced and he should not be influenced by anything now but the reports and testimonies and evidence or lack of evidence.
I suppose the best help is encouragement to the Baynes now, either on her Facebook page or the Bayne Campaign for Justice Facebook page, or their personal email if you have that.
For Anonymous August 13, 2010 8:10 PM
ReplyDeleteWhat do you mean by organizing?
I mean organizing people to let this despicable government know that we are not going to stand for a "guilty" verdict and a "death sentence," that will destroy this family.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with your statement that all we can do is wait, since we need to put pressure on this government to let them know that we will NOT take this lying down. Judges are not impartial either; anyone who has followed this trial can see that Jensen has gotten away with ridiculous things. Judges are working for the government, doing the government's bidding, just as the Ministry of Children and Family Development is (except the MCFD is even more outrageous). Very few judges really honest and doing their jobs anymore - that's why we are in this mess (MCFD case law). It's the same with all gov't employees; unless we put pressure on them, they will be corrupt. We can't afford to just sit back and wait.
Alright Anon 1:02 PM
ReplyDeleteIndulge me for a couple of minutes.
First I hear your strong sentiments, Fine.
People like me are willing to organize and be organized. However, I will not be identified with a reactionary group whose mission statements or whose rhetoric I cannot condone. That's just me. So, this is where I begin immediately to disassociate with your comments.
I would not myself call our government despicable. There may be individual decisions that I might classify that way but a carte blanche statement is extreme and shuts minds and doors of opportunity to be heard as I see it.
I would also not go on record or be connected with a group that stated that all judges are not impartial. We do not have evidence on each and every judge to warrant such a claim. What do you think is going to be gained by alleging that very few judges are honest or are doing their jobs any longer? Who is going to hear that and then listen to what you have to say? That kind of sweeping judgement is what shaken baby syndrome is – i.e. all babies suffering from a triad of symptoms have been shaken and all chief caregivers are the shakers. We know that is not true either.
I might say judges are working for the government if that meant that they were salaried by it, but I wouldn't be saying that all judges do the government's bidding, if by that you mean that all judges do not exercise good and objective judgement for a fair conclusion. And I wouldn't agree that all government employees are equally unscrupulous as you suggest.
Who do you think has to listen to us if we are to achieve anything and who is going to listen when we cannot state matters rationally and reasonably.
The things that you said with which I can agree are that we cannot afford to sit back and wait, and we are in a mess (MCFD case law), and we are not going to stand for a “guilty” verdict and “death sentence” that will destroy this family. Now with that as a starting point for organization perhaps more of us will get aboard.
http://ronunruhgps.blogspot.com/2010/07/effective-activism-part-241-for-love.html
ReplyDeletethis is the link to one of my posts called Activism which garnered a lot of comments. I believe there are things that we can do together and we can organize to do them.
Judicial Corruption - a small sample from SOSQuebec.com
ReplyDeleteIn the documentary "Childhood Thieves" the DPJ boasts of winning over 90% of their court cases. Years of secrecy and impunity have allowed the DPJ and judiciary to fashion a system of loopholes and illegal tricks to seize and hold children, and condemn parents without presenting any proof or without following due process.
Children are represented by appointed lawyers they have never met, and often blocked from appearing in court. Children's wishes and interests are then misrepresented by their counsel, who in fact work for the state.
Appointed children's counsel are vetted by the DPJ and collude openly with and advocate for, the DPJ. Children, often held in isolation, are coerced into testifying against themselves and/or their parents.
Attempts to provide children lawyers without DPJ ties from outside corrupt regions are blocked by lawyers collaborating with the DPJ.
Children requesting legal counsel are blocked by social workers, directly, or by moving seized children 3-5 hours distance from their home jurisdiction. Legal aid lawyers in neither area will then contact the child.
Appeals to higher courts, costing $5000-$10000 dollars to prepare, are refused by legal aid lawyers, denying poor parents or children the opportunity to challenge verbal accusations and allegations against them.
The normal burden of proof is reversed; Victims are forced to prove their innocence against verbal accusations and claims made with no corroboration or proof submitted. With no proof required for convictions, and with the collusion of the justice system, perjury and fraud by DPJ bureaucrats is commonplace.
Access to court transcripts is often refused, denying parents and their lawyers the opportunity to prepare a defense or present appeals, and blocking civil suits and administrative action against the DPJ, judges and lawyers.
Court transcripts, if released, are edited or erased to shield corrupt processes.
Parents, whose attempted legal actions are deemed troublesome, are simply banned from access to the legal system by lower and upper courts.
Using the threat of contempt of court charges punishable with imprisonment, parents and children are forbidden, for eternity, from revealing secret court proceedings (huit clos) . Ostensibly to protect the identities of children, the secret trial system serves to hide corruption and abuse by the DPJ, children's lawyers (vetted by the DPJ) and judges.
In flagrant violation of the fundamental principals of justice, judges are in direct contact with DPJ directors outside of the courtroom. Judges who refuse to take orders from the DPJ bureaucracy are subject to harassment, pressure and complaints. (See the sacking of Judge Andrée Ruffo.)
Accusations and charges against parents are presented on the morning of court appearances or during court sessions, intentionally denying parents the possibility of preparing a defense, challenging accusations or summoning witnesses.
Documents obtained through signature and document fraud are presented in court as evidence of parents' agreement and acceptance of decisions made unilaterally by the DPJ. (See "Tools of Corruption".)
When children leave the system, DPJ files and notes are destroyed to impede investigations and block civil suits. For child witnesses to corruption and abuse every effort is made to keep them in the system until the age of 18 to prevent their testimony.
DPJ psychologists use childrens' names to profile and condemn parents in the courts. (Coming 2009 "Tools of Corruption")
http://www.sosquebec.com/index.htm#JudicialCorruption
I don't believe it is necessary to be an "activist" or be specifically associated with one subject (possibly to the exclusion of others).
ReplyDeleteThe singular focus here is reuniting Paul and Zabeth with their three children. Is it necessary to find new problems to solve as well outside this well defined scope?
Paul and Zabeth with their lawyer are "doing the right thing", because they are right (we reding this are convinced of this already), while their opposition, the MCFD collective, is doing everything possible to delay and frustrate justice.
We are simply bringing this to public attention.
Just grow it (the blog, facebook page, twitter, wiki-pedia) and contribute. The longer this goes on the more support the Baynes will, and should get, and the more negative the image of MCFD will also grow.
There was a huge expectation that Friday was to be "it", the finish, the end, the big decision, the happy reunification. It was entirely within the realm of possibility.
Finn did everything to drag on matters with Zabeth, Mr. Christie responded by cutting out Paul as a witness to speed things along, and things were "done" before noon.
Mr. Christie, working on all 12 cylinders of a nicely tuned airplane engine, very reasonably packed perhaps 30-40 minutes of closing argument with a solid argument, case examples, relevent judgments. He used his life experience to demonstrate the reality of doctors testifying in each other's defense and support, and compared it to the 10 doctors who were not defending each other's diagnosis' but had a wider interest in due care and attention generally. They did not focus on "debunking" SBS, but simply pointing out the holes in the original diagnosis of Zabeth by Dr. Colbourne, and perhaps also pointing out the less than stellar medical support of the Baynes in the month of 2007 concerned.
Then the reality hit. Finn said he would need nearly a "full day" to rattle off his submission. The judge ordered the transcript of Mr. Christies summation. The judge's time is constrained. Finn's summary would also be need to be transcribed. (Would it not be nice for all child protection cases to have free transcripts for public viewing?)
So, the reality is a minimum, another month before Finn even has to finish his summation. The judge may need a month or two (or three) to go through the evidence and produce a written reasons for decision.
Definitely before Christmas then?
This young woman's uncle was a judge in a Toronto court and she was raised in the belief that justice existed in the Canadian family court system.
ReplyDeletehttp://vimeo.com/7489147
Her dreams of having justice in Canada have been shattered and her relationship with her child destroyed by a child protection system gone not only BAD but MAD!
Other testimony from other Canadians is added to this video as part of an ongoing project to provide testimony from a cross section of Canadians.
More info on corruption here:
http://www.canadacourtwatch.com/
Ron; just a short comment today. I intend to give this matter some attention on Monday. First, I understand that Judge Maltby recently ruled against the ministry in another shaken baby case. If anyone can help me get a copy of the judgement I would be grateful.
ReplyDeleteSecondly it is interesting how two people can look at the same facts and draw opposite conclusions. I too noted that the judge seemed to give Jensen a lot more rope than he did Christie--especially later in the hearing. I interpreted this as that the evidence had made him decide that the Min had nowhere near enough evidence for a CCO and he did not want to hear a long-winded presentation from the side which was most likely to win. On the other hand he wanted to give Jensen/McNeill lots of rope so that they could not claim judicial interference and launch an appeal. I don't think he trusts those maniacs any more than anyone else and he too has limitations on his power. I am not the judge and I could have read him wrong, but I ask you to consider that as a reasonable explanation. More on Monday
If Judge Crabtree rules against the Baynes, would that mean he is corrupt, or...?
ReplyDeleteIn my view, I felt one of the strongest arguments in favor of the Baynes was that this was a simple accident that could not happen again due to the advancing ages of the children. I think the new information may make the Judge revisit a few MCFD points and this new information will weigh heavy on his decision making. I have experienced what Mrs Bayne is about to endure and trust me...the experience left a lasting impression. We were in similar circumstances prior to apprehension. The lawyers brandied about with terms like this condition is not a wreckless, careless,action during an open case before the courts. I cant see the current information helping their case. Right or wrong, this is fuel for a fire that may have been put out.
ReplyDeleteThe Quebec link is a good read. I believe it was previously posted in an earlier blog as well. http://www.sosquebec.com/index.htm#JudicialCorruption
ReplyDeleteThis is NOT limited to Quebec. This is going on right here and now in B.C. and I have personally experienced far too many of these bullet points on this page.