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: demtruth@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment