Lawyer Rachel Slingerland of Martens Lingard LLP on behalf of her clients the Board of Directors of the Paderewski Society Home has bounced back with her Defence To Counterclaim. It is as interesting as ever.
The Rules of Civil Procedure are quite elongated and somewhat convoluted with jab and cross jab. Mind you there are strict rules that set out the boundaries of a playing field. For instance time limits, and others. Lawyer Slingerland jabbed first with her Notice of Action, then followed up with the Statement of Claim. Since I decided to use boxing analogies I will say that Slingerland is no Mohammed Ali, the boxer who changed his name nor the Viceroy of Egypt of 1805-48.
As required, I on behalf of Mayorgate, and artist Alexandra Davidoff on behalf of Alexandra Davidoff responded with our Statement of Defence. All within the Rules of Civil Procedure, how civil, well that's been the question from the beginning. Can civility accept intentional deceit and false claims? That is still to be answered.
I/Mayorgate made my statement of defence very clear and in individual point form, as did Alexandra Davidoff in relation to herself. No allegation made by Slingerland on behalf of her clients the Board of the Paderewski Society Home had been left out. To revisit all that here and now would be a waste of time as all the details have been published. I will only repeat again that as publisher of Mayorgate I will be open and public on everything, and artist Alexandra Davidoff also wishes to be so.
Upon receipt of the Statement of Claim issued by Slingerland there were 39 individual paragraphs, neatly organised and numbered. True some of them were lawyer's and legal rhetoric, but in the end all those years in law school did pay off in some way. From the 39 paragraphs 16 directly were aimed at Alexander Davidoff and Alexandra Davidoff. Some of these played at quoting my article, though the deceit here was astonishing at the omission, I repeat intentional omission, of some 80% of the actual words I wrote. Also such simple facts as I had published copies of letters originally by Slingerland and Niagara Regional Housing, (NRH). Nothing on Mayorgate in any article is made by mere claim, it is always supported with material, documents and testimony of a credible individual.
I responded with a Statement of Defence, properly registered at the courthouse as required by the Rules of Civil Procedure. My document had a total of 32 paragraphs. The first 12 under the subheading for Alexandra Davidoff, the remaining under Alexander Davidoff. It was also neatly set out, in clear and concise English, though it may not of had that sparkle of legal rhetoric and book learning.
Finally on April 21st 2014 via email, then April 22nd 2014 via standard mail a Defence of Counterclaim was received from Slingerland. This time there were 15 neatly stacked paragraphs. Beginning with paragraph 1, Slingerland states: “The Plaintiff admits the allegations contained in paragraph 20 of the Counterclaim of the Defendant, Leopold Skorski (“the Defendant, Skorski”).” As one reads that particular paragraph in Leo's Statement of Defence, one can't help to wonder whether Slingerland was trying to let her hair down from book learning or simply sarcasm snuck in. Leo put as paragraph 20, “The Defendant, Skorski, repeats and relies upon the allegations in the Statement of Defence in support of the Counterclaim.”
Slingerland's paragraph 2 does not clarify as to who it really is meant for, but one has no choice but to conclude that it is aimed at the Statement of Defence served by Alexander Davidoff, and separated under that specific subheading. These paragraphs that Slingerland refers to can only be relating to the issue of time limitations and the supporting documents presented. Mind you here in her second paragraph Slingerland does not elude to that. As neat and orderly as the stacked paragraphs are, clarity was left out.
After this Slingerland continues to make each paragraph relate directly to Leo Skorski and only him, well until paragraph 11. Here Slingerland takes a walk on the wild side again. Paragraph 11 states, “On or about February 2 2014, the Plaintiff became aware of an article and You Tube video published on the website known as Mayorgate, in which the Defendant, Skorski was interviewed by the Defendants Alexander Davidoff and Alexandra Davidoff...” The rest of this paragraph is the repetition of what Skorski had said.
So out of the 15 neatly stacked paragraphs only 2 now relate to me and artist Alexandra Davidoff. The first is considered to be by its ambiguously arranged words, and the second more clearly aimed at Alexandra and I. Only the sheer ludicrous nature of paragraph 11 cannot be ignored.
Slingerland has miraculously found the date! In her original Notice of Action this was not stated! According to time limitations and the case law that I had provided in my Statement of Defence, after both the Notice of Action and Statement of Claim, Slingerland now conveniently pulls February 2nd out of a hat.
In the Defence to Counterclaim Slingerland does not state who her paragraph 2 pertains to. Those paragraphs 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 she quotes can only relate to the Statement of Defence for Alexander and Alexandra Davidoff. In my Statement of Defence, under the subheading of Alexander Davidoff I had provided the case law and Supreme Court decisions on this very issue. So it appears that Slingerland decided to do the rabbit and hat trick, and deny the facts again. Yet Slingerland is not very attentive, and her neatly stacked paragraphs are only a farce. It seems the book learning was missing something after all.
Our Statement of Defence was divided into two subheadings as already stated. First was the subheading under Alexandra Davidoff, it was shorter and rightfully so. The lies by lawyer Slingerland relating to Alexandra were insane, needing little in polite response. Though it is important to note paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. Those paragraphs state the same defence and refer to the same case law as the ones that Slingerland denied in paragraph 2 of her Reply to Counterclaim.
Legal language I have come to understand has to cover every possible interpretation, understanding, meaning and actuality of statement. Basically in simple terms it has to cover all angles and close all possible loopholes. Lawyer Slingerland apparently denied the veracity and relevance of case law and Rules of Civil Procedure relating to her lack of knowledge and actions as brought up under the subheading of Alexander Davidoff. Yet lawyer Slingerland did not deny the same case law and its relevance to the Rules of Civil Procedure and her lack of knowledge and actions as raised under the subheading of Alexandra Davidoff.
As it now stands lawyer Slingerland has not denied the “allegations,” the statements of fact in paragraph 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the Statement of Defence. Then it has to be taken that lawyer Slingerland concedes them to be true. Maybe like a school girl she will claim that she meant to claim that she meant to, or that by ambiguously denying them will work, or that as she only denied paragraphs 15, 16, 18, 19 then surely everyone should accept her excuses. The law only relies on clear and precise language, not misconception and deceit.
Deceit is something lawyer Slingerland slings around rather freely on behalf of her clients the Board of Directors of the Paderewski Society Home. Slingerland began her deceit claiming that artist Alexandra Davidoff “writes” the articles on Mayorgate. Then in her Statement of Claim that changed to a new lie, this time lawyer Slingerland claimed that Alexandra “operates” the website known as Mayorgate. Now in her Defence to Counterclaim Slingerland has changed that to Alexandra had “interviewed” Skorski. Three changes, three lies and Slingerland as a lawyer has to prove those lies. As a lawyer, sworn in as an officer of the court, Slingerland needs to explain if she is being instructed by the Board of Directors of the Paderewski Society Home to lie, or is it simply her decision.
At this time the image of lawyer Slingerland manically pulling out one deceitful trick after another, as the senior partners Ronald Martens and Peter Lingard sit back and watch appears to be appropriate. Both partners had been made aware of the breach, the willing breach of law by a lawyer representing their legal firm. As they watch one lie fall after another they have decided to let that lawyer to continue to defame and to lie. They cannot walk away from responsibility in this case.
In today's society law as a profession rates as high as politics. No one can believe that O.J. waved good-bye to justice without a good, and expensive mouthpiece. The law itself is as blind as the broad holding those scales. None of our rights are guaranteed unless we are willing to fight for them. Truth and dignity does not always win out in the end, and in reality rarely does as fewer and fewer people care about it. Corruption in St. Catharines is simply, as it now appears, a way of daily life. Although it is not only in St. Catharines but a plague that continues to fester throughout. Sadly as Canadians we do not rock the boat, we do not fight for each other very much. In the end all suffer from this attitude.
Lawyer Rachel Slingerland, a licensed and sworn officer of the court has willingly broken the law. She used illegally obtained documents to make an attempt at criminal harassment. That was not enough for Slingerland. She then lied and backed off from her lies in relation to an innocent individual. All of this done on behalf of the Board of Directors of the Paderewski Society Home. It has been stated in a letter by Slingerland that she meets with the Board to discuss these issues. This is the same Board who wants people to believe that they initially gathered out of the goodness of their hearts to donate their own time for no financial gain to help seniors in their community. How many of them know of the criminal breach of law by their lawyer? How many of them know of the lies stated by their lawyer on their behalf? How many of them care?
Both Ronald Martens and Peter Lingard are fully aware of the criminal breach of law by their lawyer Rachel Slingerland. Neither partner saw fit to end this farce.
Send comments to: firstname.lastname@example.org