Brickwall of Injustices
Brickwall of Injustices
Brickwall of Injustices
Joyce LaPrise
Voices of Justice
for
His 'Bruised Reeds'.
Mr. Gordon
Dauncey
Mr. Darryl
Brown
Justice Guy
Chicoine
Ms. Lian
Schwann, Q.C.
Hon. SK Chief
Justice Mr. John KLEBUC
The Explanations below are related to Legal Matters which Arlene Lowery Experienced.
1
MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE
Don't be surprised if you see a poor person being oppressed by the powerful and
if justice is being miscarried throughout the land. For every official is
under orders from higher up, and matters of justice get lost in red tape and
bureaucracy. Ecclesiastes 5:8 New Living Translation (2007)
2. WITHHOLDING INFORMATION:
When Mr. Dauncey arranged a teleconference between Mr. Brown, Justice F. Kovach and me, I was
concerned about it occurring so I attended the Registrar's office with a written number of questions to
provide Justice Kovach before this teleconference began. I was led to believe that all 5 council would be
included in this teleconference but only Mr. Brown was there perhaps representing all of them.
The registrar refused to deliver my list of questions to Justice Kovach before the teleconference. When I
insisted he do this (believing he was simply the messenger and I was being asked to participate in a
teleconference 2.5 hours later that I was not comfortable with) 'he lost it' blurting out; "Arlene you don't
call the shots around here!" to which I replied, "No, I don't because you're the government and I'm suing
you!" I knew that I was up against an uneven balance of power and that Madame Justice was definitely
playing 'peek-a-boo' through her blindfold.
Mr. Dauncey refuses to allow me to file a motion to be heard to have the autopsy report submitted as
new evidence. Further he refused for me to file a motion to change the venue from Regina to another
city I became upset about this.
Shortly thereafter Chief Justice Laing ordered that the motions to change venues and to allow in new
evidence be heard. These hearings were heard by no other than Justice Chicoine.
So I telephoned Mr. Dauncey to ask if this Chamber's meeting was special in any way as it was
scheduled on a day in which Chambers does not normally meet. He said it was NOT special in any
other way but he never disclosed it was to be audio-taped.
*The same miscarriage of justice occurred here as did on March 07th, 2006 when Justice Chicoine
heard arguments. So I wrote via the Registrar's office to Chief Justice Laing with my concerns about all
of this and he personally wrote me a letter assuring me I was being treated fairly. Read on.......
3. ALTERED FILING DATE ON DECISION: see Exhibit 8.The 2nd most grievous brick of injustice.
The registrar's office received through the mail as I had. Justice Chicoine's decision as to
whether to strike my claim was received in the mail at my residence on March 12th, 2008.
The registrar's office copy of the decision was also stamped March 12th, 2008, the very date I
received my copy. Mr. Dauncey faxed me a copy of the Style of Cause of the decision he had
received in their office but not before he wrote over the stamped number 12 with the number 6.
He then claimed he'd faxed me a copy of the decision on March 06th, 2008 lying to cover-up his
fraudulent act of changing the filing date in an attempt to narrow the appeal time-limit.
Mr. Dauncey could've produced a record of having faxed me a record of this facsimile but he did
not or could not because he never did this but just continued to deceive.
3
This item is the most grievous of all and I've reason to believe it was a criminal act.
* Exhibit 9. is the Consent Order and the various signed copies of it.
This brick relates to the Consent Order that Mr. Darryl Brown council for the AG. for the SK
Government having advised me that I had to remove the names of all public servants that were named on my
original Statement of Claim from my amended claim. After I informed him about the death of Autumn Starr
and before I completed the amended claim he advised me to remove the public servants' names. The details:
i. At the end of October, 2005 I telephoned Mr. Brown to inform him that I had medical leave to
grieve the death of Autumn Starr my infant granddaughter who died on October 28th, 2005.
ii. Therefore I would not be attending court in November but that my husband would be there to
request an adjournment. It was at this time he informed me that I could not add the public
servants as defendants as they could not be litigated and had immunity from civil actions.
iii. He advised me that the Attorney General, Saskatchewan Government would be the one to add
only. * The Attorney General (Mr. Don Morgan) made the Consent Order and so the
government itself committed a felony as he/they knew what they (that is council, the registrar,
the Attorney General, members of the judiciary) were advising me to give themselves an
advantage over me. I believe they did 'hoodwink' me. Other words for 'hoodwink' are deceived,
tricked, duped, deluded, took in, conned, fooled, 'pulled the wool over our eyes'. What makes
this so despicable is that they collectively did this while I was grieving the death of my infant
granddaughter.
iv. The Order was first signed by my husband on my behalf when he represented me in court on
November 17th, 2005. He later had me sign another one that was backdated to the date of
Autumn's death.
v. During this time of grief I did not question him advising me to sign this as he told me that I was
unable to litigate any public servant and that they had immunity.
vi. In the decision of Justice Chicoine he points out that in taking them off that I abandoned all
possibility of litigating them in the future. Therefore these public servants' names could have
remained on the Statement of Claim (Amended Fresh Copy) as I had intentions of doing.
Altering the course of justice to give yourself an advantage is a criminal act. Mr. Don Morgan,
Attorney General for the Saskatchewan Government who did this is not above the law, he is not
the law, he represents you and I and clearly is another breach of duty and trust and a clear cut
case of abuse of his 'power'. Justice Chicoine knew that this Consent Order was fraudulently
acquired and that on my own I'd never have done this. It didn't matter as the outcome of this
lawsuit was decided internally for the courts to be in control of their own processes.
vii. This advise by the Saskatchewan Government's council, Mr. Darryl Brown was never sought.
Mr. Brown approached me and advised me that I must remove them and acted like he was
doing me a favor in advising me of this.
viii. All the justices involved in this case and council who all signed this Consent Order knew what
the Attorney General, Saskatchewan Government was up to and they all 'kept quiet'.
ix. Council for all the defendants knew that they were doing a favor for the Attorney General,
Saskatchewan Government by signing this order and in their going along with it. CRIMINAL
CODE that may apply is attached and is not inclusive. So who will make them be accountable?
PERHAPS THE PUBLIC DOMAIN! This is our hope.
When Crown council/ Prosecutor Lane Weigers informed me they dropped the charges against
Charlene's alleged perpetrators after it was set for trial & I asked him was that not irregular at
this stage and he laughed reminding me that they, the Crown are the law!
Council and this court knew what they were doing-which was more of the same -a
miscarriage of justice
These two precious First Nations' babies, our loved ones, still need justice.
BRICK # 8. SASKATCHEWAN CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN KLEBUC
1.
2.
Part way through arguments for this appeal it was noted that when Justice Klebuc reminded Mr. Brown,
council for the Attorney General, Saskatchewan Government that he/they (that is all 5 of council on
behalf of their clients) had not filed new (that is a motion new or amended) 'to strike my claim that Mr.
Brown stated "I guess we're done then!" that the courtroom was filled with laughter in which I noted that
these judges all had a really good laugh. What was before them was no laughing matter because
there were 4 grandchildren of mine who had not been protected and continued to be sexually
abused (all the while these protection workers and their counsellor knowing my daughter was in a cult
and that they had been abused and they neded justice to set a precedent for all children left in this
state-IGNORED! DURING THE COURSE OF THIS LAWSUIT two more of my grandchildren lay
cold in their graves because of more gross negligence and wrongful deaths. This is no laughing matter!
Secondly Justice Klebuc told me at the end of arguments that they (the judges I presumed) would be
speaking with others and that I would receive their decision. Who did they talk with? Were my rights to
justice like a judicial inquiry denied? A year later they came up with a 2 paragraph decision.
BRICK # 2.
MR. GORDON DAUNCEY, REGISTRAR OF THE
SK COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH (REGINA) &
10
BRICK # 2.
MR. GORDON DAUNCEY, REGISTRAR OF THE SK
COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH (REGINA) &
MR. DARRYL BROWN, COUNCIL FOR SK GOV'T.
Council had
to have
known that
you do not
file an
amended
Brief of Law
before filing a
Notice of
Motion to
strike my
amended
claim or filing
a Statement
of Defence
and
substantive
materials to
support
striking my
amended
claim. They
got away with
this-Wow!
11
BRICK # 2.
MR. GORDON DAUNCEY, REGISTRAR OF THE SK
COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH (REGINA) &
12
13
In the revised fiat and there is no mention of Joyce LaPrise as in the first fiat as it was rewritten to suitCOUNCIL AND
MR. DAUNCEY, LEAVING OUT THAT JOYCE LAPRISE who WAS ADDED ON DECEMBER 01, 2005 with no
objection to add her from all 5 members of council. This is why Mr. Dauncey and Mr. Brown needed a teleconference
with Justice F. Kovach to alter the course of justice. This is why they required a new judge -in my opinion!
There were no
materials filed by
council for the
Defendants for me
to respond to
because their council
never filed new or
amended-nor did they
even a motion 'to
strike' my amended
claim-& they got away
with it.!!!
14
I called back
because he said
he would file it if
he did not hear
from me. After
all of this I had
no say anyway. I
did emphasize
that my Order
was fine except
for the removal
of the word Ex
Parte and that as
directed by
Justice Kovach
the addition of
parties were to
be added to the
Style of Cause
with the word
proposed put in
brackets behind
their designation
as either infant
children
plaintiffs or
defendants. This
Order was not
O.K. but feeling
bullied into
accepting it .-A.L.
15
BRICK # 2.
MR. GORDON DAUNCEY, REGISTRAR OF THE SK COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH (REGINA) &
MR. DARRYL BROWN, COUNCIL FOR SK.GOVERNMENT.
EXHIBIT 6. Order- Mr. Brown drafted & approved by & filed by Mr. Dauncey to replace
Arlene Lowery's Order WHICH WAS DONE RIGHT AFTER THE TELECONFERENCE.
16
All of this is
leading up to a
new judge-an
uninformed
one at that who
never read the
file before
hearing so he
told us.
The Order that
council & the
Registrar produced
to replace the Order I
had filed refers to
the claim to be
argued on March
07th, 2006 as both
the Plaintiff's
Amended Claim or
proposed Amended
Claim. Which is it?
0f course it is the
Amended Claim
entitled: Statement
of Claim (AmendedFresh Copy) that was
filed on the same
day that they rewrote
my Order. Also
'proposed
amendments' is
inaccurate & they all
know it!!!
17
BRICK # 3.
MR. GORDON DAUNCEY, REGISTRAR OF THE
SASKATCHEWAN COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH (REGINA)
18
19
20
21
BRICK # 3.
MR. GORDON DAUNCEY, REGISTRAR OF THE
SK COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH (REGINA)
22
THEY'VE ALL ACTED 'SHAMELESS' & 'LAWLESS'! WHY?-because they are the law???
.
23
24
25
26
NOTE: * At this time I am awaiting for these lawyers and public servants to be charged and
PROSECUTED by those in authority to do so after which time I will file a lawsuit. - A. Lowery
CRIMINAL CCODE THAT APPLIES TO THE CONSENT ORDER
5. Breach of trust by public officer
122. Every official who, in connection with the duties of his office, commits fraud or a breach of trust is
guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, whether or not
the fraud or breach of trust would be an offence if it were committed in relation to a private person.
R.S., c.
111.
C-34, s.
PARTIES TO OFFENCES
Parties to offence
21. (1) Every one is a party to an offence who
(a) actually commits it;
(b) does or omits to do anything for the purpose of aiding any person to commit it; or
(c) abets any person in committing it.
Common intention
(2) Where two or more persons form an intention in common to carry out an unlawful purpose and to assist
each other therein and any one of them, in carrying out the common purpose, commits an offence, each of them
who knew or ought to have known that the commission of the offence would be a probable consequence of
carrying out the common purpose is a party to that offence.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 21.
27
28
29
BRICK #7.
Exhibit 10.
SASKATCHEWAN (SOUTHERN)
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERT LAING addressing Arlene Lowery's concerns-claims
Arlene Lowery's being treated justly.
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Sadly, another
grandbaby Lily
died 13 months
later as the SK
Ministry of
Child Protection
gave my
daughter their
role to find a
caregivertotally absurd.
If this justice
system was just
with the death
of her baby
sister Autumn
Starr and
provided a
Coroner's
Inquest which
she was denied
only to protect
the SK Gov't.
To my precious
grandchildren &
grandbabies & to those who
have suffered similar
tragedies & injustices (the
'bruised reeds' of our nation
) I did my best. God is in all
efforts in seeking justice for
the vulnerable.- Arlene