JURY SELECTION AND THE DISRESPECTFUL JUDGE

Alan MARSHALL2
Yahoo
/
Inbox


JUS-G-MAG-Kitchener Jury (MAG)
To:
Alan Marshall

Apr. 29 at 4:32 p.m.

Good afternoon,



Your request to be deferred from attending the jury selection panel on Tuesday, May 21, 2019 has been granted. You are no longer required to attend on that date. You may be summoned for a later panel. Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.











Cathy Sterling – Jury Clerk

Ministry of the Attorney General | Superior Court of Justice

Waterloo Region Courthouse | 85 Frederick Street, Kitchener, ON N2H 0A7

T: (519) 741-3300 ext. 3279 | F: (519) 741-3278

E: kitchenerjury@ontario.ca





For more information about jury duty in Ontario, please visit the

“Jury Duty” section on the Ministry of the Attorney General website:

http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/courts/jury/







From: Alan Marshall [mailto:agmarshall@rogers.com]
Sent: April-05-19 11:56 AM
To: JUS-G-MAG-Kitchener Jury (MAG)
Subject: My Jury Summons



Dear Ms. Hughes



My name is Alan Marshall and I am a retired pensioner in my seventieth year. While I am competent to drive, since I've been retired I am intelligent enough not to drive during rush hours, if at all possible. Part of the reason is that my wife survived a very serious accident during rush hour on the K-W Expressway a couple of years ago. I live in Elmira, Ontario which also fortunately does not really have much of a rush hour. My personal mobility is negatively affected by arthritis including having received one artificial joint. The second one is likely due within the year. This is the second time in recent years that I have received a jury summons. The last time I attended court for this matter I was treated rudely and dismissively by the dishonourable Robert Reilly. Mr. Reilly recognized me from a civil case that is more than twenty years old and made inferences and subtle comments to the defence and prosecution suggesting that I was not juror material. I was not impressed by that.



I am not carte blanche suggesting that I am incapable of doing my civic duty and potentially being a juror in a trial. What I am strongly suggesting however is that I do not need either my time nor my health and wellness negatively impacted by attending another jury summons in which Mr. Reilly is in charge. I was a self represented litigant (SRL) twenty years ago and his behaviour was outrageous and unethical and the decision he came to was shameful. If I had any money at the time I would have appealed it. As I was a SRL however he knew I could not afford to appeal. With the assistance from a lawyer working pro bono we were able over a period of five years to reduce a libel award from the second highest in Canadian history (after the Church of Scientology ? case) down to zero. Yes zero from Mr. Reilly's award of $604,000. The new settlement was filed with Superior Court in 2004.



Therefore Ms. Hughes I would ask you to please advise me in writing (or e-mail) significantly prior to my attending court on May 21/19 at 9 am. in the morning that I will not be wasting my time nor putting myself at physical risk only to be disrespected yet again by Mr. Reilly.



Thank you very much in advance for your consideration and understanding.



Sincerely Alan Marshall





Juror No. 4592 Panel No. 12

ARE WE SHEEPLE OR PEOPLE?

Yesterday's Waterloo Region Record carried the following article titled "$2,999 WSIB payment "an insult". In my opinion it is much worse than an insult. It is downright legalized theft.

The province of Ontario without either asking the working public or holding a referendum took away employees' rights to sue their employer for physical harm that they suffered on the job. They then replaced it with a system totally in the control of industry and government, neither of which are nuetral, unbiased third parties. It was then called the WCB or Workman's Compensation Board. Now it is called the Workplace Safety & Insurance Board (WSIB) and it is contemptible.

Gerry Doucette the retired rubber worker stated "That's it? They poisoned me, and that's it?" Mr. Doucette was exposed to solvents, asbestos, lead paint, lamp black and other carcinogens on an ongoing basis all without any protective gear. It is my understanding that protective gear was advised back in the 1970s along with other protective measures including better ventilation and respirators but not implemented by the local Waterloo Region companies. Mr. Doucette is also a non-smoker which may have saved his life what with everything he's been exposed to. He's suffered cancer as well as heart surgery, all job related injuries.

There is likely an intentional huge disincentive built into the system of compensation payments. The older the worker the smaller the payouts by WSIB. Think about that for a minute. If you are a WSIB manager under pressure to reduce costs (i.e. payouts) then stalling and delay are your best friends. Have there been complaints about years long assessments of injured workers? Yes and this is one of the reasons why.

WSIB, Ministry of Labour, past and present Ontario governments should all hang their heads in shame. We the people are nothing but cogs in a wheel for the purpose of making money for the few who are protected by the governments that are supposed to protect all of us.

REGULAR WORK IN EXCHANGE FOR A SHORTENED LIFE

Police and firefighters routinely run towards danger while the rest of us run to avoid it. Running from danger is both appropriate, instinctual and basic common sense. There are other high danger jobs such as some construction work, perhaps long distance driving, professional sports including hockey, football and boxing also come to mind with brain injuries. Generally however our work to provide ourselves and family with food, shelter and more should not jeopardize our health or lives. Kudos to Greg Mercer and the Waterloo Region Record for their ongoing series about rubber workers in Waterloo Region.

Late last month the Record carried a story titled "Rubber workers want answers about denied WSIB claims." There was a meeting at a hotel conference room on the last Thursday and Friday in March. There were more than 150 former rubber worker employees in attendance demanding answers. One former employee stated "Someone said "What a great crowd". But if WSIB had done their job in the first place, we wouldn't be here right now". The WSIB (Workplace Safety & Insurance Board) are appropriately on the hot seat. So is the anemic and pathetic Ministry of Labour.

To date only 15% of rubber workers claims for occupational disease have been granted compensation despite decades to a century or more of knowledge (in Europe) that chemicals involved in rubber manufacturing and curing are toxic to human beings. As far as cancer goes experts have suggested that as much as 20% of all cancers are work-related. A Ministry of Labour spokesperson said "We need to start treating occupational disease with the same seriousness as physical injuries." Horse manure! "...start treating...". Those bastards should have been treating it as seriously or more than physical injuries seventy-five years ago. What they have done is once again permitted the externalization of industry costs onto the taxpayers and society in general. For every nickel industry saved in not providing respirators, proper skin protection and proper ventilation they have put a dollar onto society, our health care system and individual victims of their crimes.

To date both industry captains and their bought and paid for political protectors (politicians) have unfortunately no fear of being charged criminally for their behaviour. Nor will they as long as we keep electing either Liberal or Conservative governments here in Ontario. We the citizens are ill used by our governing authorities. Always it has been and always it will remain until more of us come to our senses and see what is happening.

"HOME COOKING" ALSO MEANS LOOKING OUT FOR THE INTERESTS OF REGIONAL GOVERNMENT & REG. POLICE

Now I'm not categorically saying that the decision by the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissing the class action suit against the regional police, police board and police union is categorically a case of home cooking. It might be, it might not. I'm not positive because I wasn't personally there to hear the arguments of the various professional liars, oops sorry I meant lawyers, who addressed the Ontario Court of Appeal. In regards to lawyers jokes before I tell one I'm going to say the following. I have met some lawyers whom I both like and respect both inside and outside court. That said here goes. "It isn't fair that 98.5% of lawyers give all the rest a bad name." There I got that out of my system.

Speaking of lawyers that I don't like there is James Bennett. Son of a gun if he didn't make an amazing admission on behalf of his client the police services board. As of last Wednesday I believe that the K-W Record indicated that his clients were both the civilian police board (in my opinion mostly filled by toadies and retired politicians) and the police association (i.e. union). Regardless Mr. Bennett has been quoted as now stating that "...he did not dispute the allegations made by the female officers." Wow! Talk about extending an olive branch. If that is true and all parties including police, police union and police board are willing to enter into talks, negotiations and discussions with that on the table; then maybe, just maybe, there is some slim hope for those three parties to make amends, apologize, and as late in the day as it is, to restore some semblance of integrity and honesty to their organizations. Time will tell.

The lawyer for the three plaintiff officers, Doug Elliot, stated in regards to the decision of the Court of Appeal that "The idea that there is more that could have been done by our class members is ridiculous." He also stated "I don't think they (judges) understand the challenges these women faced in getting the system to work for them." It is my suspicion that the three judges at the Court of Appeal likely understood full well the challenges the female police officers faced. After all those challenges were imposed on purpose by the three defendants (police, board & union) in the first place. None of them wanted an honest process nor did the majority of their relatively uneducated, older, white, male members. This behaviour within institutions was exposed clearly with the City of Waterloo back in the early 1990s. Police forces, military and fire departments with their psuedo military discipline and ranks only exacerbate entrenched discrimination against minorities whether racial or gender. It's a boys club and all the members know you have to play ball and follow any and all stupid rules to stay in good standing within those organizations. Many of the female members have had enough of the bullshi. and are rather bluntly, metaphorically, extending their middle fingers at the status quo and the dinosaurs defending it.

Back to the Court of Appeal. The article in today's Waterloo Region Record is titled "Lawsuit against Waterloo Regional Police can't proceed, Appeal Court rules". Is it possible that three very financially entitled and appointed by politicians, judges, would be involved in home cooking? I think that it is possible but then based upon my experience, I'm a skeptic. If the Supreme Court of Canada takes the case and finds in favour of the class action lawsuit then I would categorically suggest that the word corrupt as defined as "riddled with errors" should apply to the two lower courts. I personally have seen corruption in our lower courts. How high does it go?

WOWSER: WRPS ADMITS GUILT BUT WANTS "HOME COOKING" TO DECIDE OUTCOME

Today's Waterloo Region Record carries the following front page headline "Lawyer asks judges not to open "floodgates"". This court appearance was yesterday at the Ontario Court of Appeal. The lawyer is none other than James Bennett and first of all he did get some bad press a while back by speaking derogatorily in regards to the allegations by the three plaintiffs. Also I personally have no use for him as he did his best to threaten or intimidate me prior to a court appearance by his client, pretend mayor Sandy Shantz, a couple of years back. Mr. Bennett essentially advised by e-mail that I should not attend and speak to the matter even though I was the complainant and reason that the good (but pretend) mayor lost her job as mayor over her election expense discrepancies and worse. His advice was loaded with threats and was intended to remove legitimate testimony from the process.

Mr. Bennett is advising the Court of Appeal that the class action suit of the Plaintiffs should not be certified by the courts because it would open the "floodgates" of litigation to all forms of discrimination. That's very interesting that he thinks so. If it's true than doesn't that speak volumes about the so called alternative methods such as union arbitration and human rights hearings? After all we all know how expensive, slow, and frankly occasionally perverse and bizarre court decisions are yet complainants are so desperate for justice that they would even think to go the route of litigation. I've been there and it's a crap shoot, a ridiculously time consuming and expensive crap shoot with all the advantages to the wealthier parties. I have often written that courts are the playground of the rich and sometimes nasty.

As far as the headline regarding the Waterloo Region Police Service admitting guilt I will quote from the first sentence of this article: "Lawyers representing the Waterloo Regional Police Board and the police union say they don't dispute the facts of the proposed class-action lawsuit or that the allegations are serious, but rather that the Ontario Court of Appeal is not the place where the complaints should be heard." Wow! To me that is an incredible admission and all the guilty parties including our regional councillors should hang their heads in shame. Of course they won't. The "home cooking" reference is for me a recent term that I've learned. It's the equivalent of home town refereeing. Hmm. Maybe the dishonourable Robert Reilly wasn't an incompetent, biased judge but rather simply one practicing the fine art of "home cooking" by pleasing the local power structure which includes our educational sector.