🚀 go-pugleaf

The following is a verbatim extract from Jack Cram's submission made May 30
as to why he should not be cited for Contempt of court for claiming that 
the courts of BC, and the Law Society of BC have been seriously corrupted.

Section G, which starts on page 17 thru 23 of his 40 page submission detai
the cronology of what happened around Dr. Gossage, who was about to take the
stand for Jack Cram when the council for the Attorney General made a sudden
motion to have Jack Cram examined for mental competence to stand trial.

If Cram's allegations are correct, some people (me included) fear that during
this time, Dr Gossage may be prevailed upon to either not testify, or to
limit his testimony in this matter.

_______________________________________________________________________
From the submission of Jack Cram:
_______________________________________________________________________

G.   Chief Justice Esson:


I  have  already  addressed  the rather amazing  coincidence  that  Chief
Justice Esson, Mr. Leask and Mr. Crossin (all who had reason to discredit
me)  arranged  for the lifting of a gag order prohibiting publication  of
allegations  that Dr. John Gossage is a child molester, which  gag  order
had been in place for an entire year (350 days), on the very day that Dr.
Gossage was to be giving expert evidence on behalf of my client.

It  is noteworthy that Dr. Gossage, who had a professional responsibility
to  inform me of the allegations against him so I would be aware  of  the
risk  of  those allegations affecting my clients' case, did not  tell  me
about those allegations because his lawyer, Mr. Crossin, told him not  to
tell me.  That was obviously unethical and malicious advice.

What were Mr. Crossin's motives?  Mr. Crossin just happens to also be the
lawyer  for the Law Society, for Jackie Morris who is the Chief Justice's
choice as his legal assistant, and Paul Cote and Frank Slivinski who  are
defendants  in my action against Mr. Kaplan and others and who  are  also
the  subject  of the very serious complaint of unethical conduct  that  I
have  made  to  the Law Society.  Obviously, Mr. Crossin has  a  multiple
conflict of interest but I suppose, when you represent the Law Society as
well  as the Chief Justice's assistant there is not much to worry  about.
And what chance do the complaints against Messrs. Cote and Slivinski have
of  receiving impartial treatment in view of Mr. Crossin's dual  role  as
their lawyer as well as the Law Society's lawyer?  And what chance do the
complaints against Dr. Gossage have of being impartially tried and  heard
considering Mr. Crossin is Dr. Gossage's lawyer, the lawyer for the Chief
Justice's  assistant and, by being the lawyer for the Law Society  in  my
action  against the Law Society and Mr. Leask, Mr. Crossin  is  obviously
"in  bed" with Mr. Leask as well.  And yet, Mr. Leask is supposed  to  be
Mr. Gabelmann's independent special prosecutor!

Why  do  you  suppose Mr. Crossin would not want me  to  know  about  the
allegations against my expert witness, Dr. Gossage?  Was it for the  same
reason  that he and the Chief Justice chose February 21, 1994,  the  very
day that Dr. Gossage was to be testifying on behalf of my client, to lift
the year-old gag order with the media alerted in advance that that was to
happen?

And  why  do  you suppose Mr. Gabelmann's choice for a special prosecutor
(Mr.  Leask)  has  failed  to  provide  a  report  with  respect  to  the
allegations  against Dr. Gossage after 15 months have gone by?   And  why
would  the  Chief Justice, the Attorney General's special prosecutor  and
the  College of Physicians and Surgeons "shield" Dr. Gossage and keep him
from prosecution? Is it because he knows too much about who else might be
a child molester?  Does Dr. Gossage have a little black book?

The chronology of events in the Gossage matter is as follows:

     Fall  of  1990  -  I  am  pressuring the Law  Society  to  take
     disciplinary  action  against  Christopher  Trower  for   gross
     unethical conduct found by Mr. Justice Callaghan in Post '83 v.
     Constantini and Trower.
     
     January 1991 - Dr. Gossage testifies as an expert witness in R.
     v.  Golovin,  defended  by myself.  This trial  which  involved
     allegations  that Mr. Golovin had sexually abused  four  former
     foster children, resulted in the resounding dismissal of all of
     the allegations and charges.
     
     January 1991 - Peter Leask, whose address [[111 water,]] is the
     same  as  the  lawyers  for the Natives in Delgamuukw,  becomes
     Chairman of the Disciplinary Committee of the Law Society.
     
     March 8, 1991 - Delgamuukw decision is delivered.
     
     March  26,  1991 - Megan Ellis, whose address is  also  at  111
     Water  Street, the same as Peter Leask and the lawyers for  the
     Natives in Delgamuukw, commenced a civil action for damages for
     sexual  assault on behalf of Tracy Singer against John Golovin.
     Tracy  Singer was one of the four complainants whose  complaint
     had  been rejected just two months prior.  Tracy Singer was  on
     welfare,  unable  to  support three young  children  and,  yet,
     somehow  able  to  finance a major lawsuit,  including  a  very
     expensive  report from Dr. Roy O'Shaughnessey  -  the  Attorney
     General's  usual choice for a forensic psychiatrist.   How  did
     Tracey  Singer afford this because Legal Aid does  not  support
     this  kind of action?  Was the Attorney General paying, or  was
     the Law Society or the Natives' Trust Fund providing payment?
     
     April 1991 to March of 1993 - very little happens in the Singer
     v.  Golovin  action except the exchange of documents  and  some
     discoveries.
     
     Fall  of  1992  -  parents of a child patient  of  Dr.  Gossage
     complain  to  the New Westminster police that Dr.  Gossage  has
     molested  their child.  The police stall the investigation  and
     the  Crown  refuses to lay charges.  The parents then pressured
     the Attorney General to have a special prosecutor appointed  to
     investigate.  Somehow there was no publicity at all about these
     allegations at that time.
     
     Fall  of  1992 - Renate Andres-Auger, a Native lawyer  who  was
     representing the mother in a custody trial:  Gurvin v. Tingren,
     is  subjected  to  every form of harassment,  surveillance  and
     covert activity by the Law Society and Judiciary. Jackie Morris
     is  "at  the  helm" of the Law Society's secret  communications
     with  this  Court  and  with the efforts  to  find  reasons  to
     discredit  and  suspend Renate Andres-Auger.  On  November  13,
     1992,  Jackie  Morris tells Renate in front of  five  witnesses
     that she is incompetent, that she should cease representing Ms.
     Tingren  (Ms.  Tingren disagrees) and that "She might  as  well
     stay at home and teach Cree to her children."  On November  20,
     1992,  Jackie Morris is central to the arrangements and results
     of a secret meeting between Judge Marion Allen and Trudi Brown,
     at  which  they  discuss Renate and her  client  in  derogatory
     terms.  The  Tingren trial was still in progress:  to  continue
     that very day.  It was predetermined that Renate and her client
     would  lose  because  otherwise they could  not  discredit  and
     suspend Renate for being incompetent.
     
     December 9-16, 1992 - Renate Andres-Auger is suspended  without
     a  hearing when she was without counsel and to the knowledge of
     the   Law  Society,  seriously  ill.   Jacqueline  Morris   was
     instrumental in bringing about this suspension. The  suspension
     occurs two days after the Gurvin v. Tingren trial was finished.
     The  day after the trial was finished, Robert T.C. Johnson, who
     is  presently the Law Society Treasurer, was seen entering  the
     offices of James Schumann who had been opposing counsel for Mr.
     Gurvin.
     
     December 21, 1992 - I am first contacted by Renate and  attempt
     between  then  and  mid-February 1993 to  have  her  reinstated
     because  there is no valid basis for her suspension.   The  Law
     Society and Courts stonewalled those efforts.
     
     February 14, 1993 - Chief Justice Esson hires Jacqueline Morris
     as  his law officer.  She would be responsible for liaison with
     Governments, the Law Society and other agencies.  It was Jackie
     Morris who coordinated the destruction of Renate Andres-Auger's
     practice  during the Fall of 1992 and told her that "She  might
     as well stay at home and teach Cree to her children."  The fact
     that Ms. Morris was offered and accepted this position was  not
     disclosed to myself or Ms. Andres-Auger until July 7, 1993.  In
     fact,  in  late  May  1993 I wrote both the Chief  Justice  and
     Associate Chief Justice about Ms. Morris and the action  I  had
     taken  against  her and neither disclosed that they  had  hired
     her.   But the Court did attempt to assist Ms. Morris  with  an
     expedited hearing of her application to dismiss the claims made
     against  her  without disclosing that she had been hired.  This
     was  outright deceit and favouritism by the Chief  Justice  and
     the Associate Chief Justice.
     
     February 16, 1993 - the Writ in which Renate Andres-Auger  sued
     Jackie Morris for the defamatory and racist statements made  on
     November  13, 1992 was issued and served.  We learned  in  July
     1993 that Ms. Morris and the Chief Justice conferred about  the
     effect of this action on her ability to take the position  with
     the  Chief  Justice  and Associate Chief  Justice  and  it  was
     quietly  agreed that the position would be kept  open  for  her
     until the summer.  During that interval, she was to attempt  to
     have  the action summarily dismissed with the aid of the  Court
     giving  five expedited hearing days (which are only granted  by
     the Chief Justice or Associate Chief Justice, and only then  in
     urgent circumstances).
     
     February  17,  1993  - the Attorney General,  Colin  Gabelmann,
     appoints  none  other  than Peter Leask  Q.C.  as  the  special
     prosecutor   to   conduct   a   so-called   independent   Crown
     investigation  into  the  complaints of  child  molesting  made
     against  Dr. Gossage.  More than a year later, Peter Leask  has
     still  not delivered a report.  Has he been asked to  bury  the
     complaints?  If so, why?
     
     March  3, 1993 - Megan Ellis, of the same address as Mr.  Leask
     and  the Natives' lawyers [[111 water]] , brings the Singer  v.
     Golovin damage action to life by setting a trial date: February
     14, 1994 for 3 weeks.
     
     March  10,  1993  - David Crossin as counsel  for  Dr.  Gossage
     successfully applies ex parte in camera to Chief Justice  Esson
     (remember  Mr.  Crossin represents the Chief  Justice's  chosen
     assistant:   Jackie  Morris  as well)  for  a  "gag  order"  to
     prohibit any publicity about the allegations of child molesting
     being  made  against  Dr. Gossage.  There were  several  things
     wrong with this Order:
     
          a.The Chief Justice could not avoid an appearance  of
          favouritism with Mr. Crossin appearing.
          
          b.Gag  orders  are simply not given.   The  Friedland
          scandal  made  that clear.  But it  seemed  that  Dr.
          Gossage warranted special treatment and the media was
          either kept in the dark or parties to this cover-up.
          
          c.Worst  of  all, the gag order did  not  include  an
          accompanying  injunction against Dr.  Gossage  seeing
          children  without  the  presence  of  an  independent
          adult.  Thus, the Chief Justice and Mr. Crossin  gave
          Dr.  Gossage  a  licence  to  continue  to  privately
          examine the children of parents who had [[not?]]  had
          the  means of knowing the risk arising from the child
          molesting allegations.  If, indeed, Dr. Gossage is  a
          child  molester,  then  it was  like  "lambs  to  the
          slaughter."   Considering that it has  been  reported
          that  as  many  as  30 parents have  complained  (see
          Vancouver  Sun, February 26, 1994 - Tab F to  Exhibit
          1) then it seems there is a distinct chance that that
          is so.
          
          The  gag order remained in effect from March 10, 1993
          until February 21, 1994.
          
     July  7, 1993 - I discover and express my vigourous disapproval
     at  the  fact that Chief Justice Esson, Associate Chief Justice
     Campbell, Mr. Justice Hall, David Crossin and his partner, Jeff
     Scouten,   the   Law  Society  and  Jackie  Morris   have   all
     participated  in  a  cover-up of the position  offered  to  and
     accepted  by Jackie Morris with the Chief Justice and Associate
     Chief  Justice.  As  stated in the complaint  to  the  Canadian
     Judicial Council, I had written to Chief Justice Esson, as well
     as Associate Chief Justice Campbell, on May 26, 1993 asking for
     an  explanation  about  the secret communications  between  the
     Court  and the Law Society about Renate and her client.  I  had
     expressly mentioned to both Judges the action taken against Ms.
     Morris  and answers given by her on discovery.  Both the  Chief
     Justice and the Associate Chief Justice answered in writing  by
     letters dated June 1, 1993 and June 15, 1993, respectively, and
     neither  made any mention of the fact that they had  hired  Ms.
     Morris.  The appearance of favouritism was overwhelming.
     
     From "JUDGES ON TRIAL" (Tab 2):
     
          "In   order  to  inspire  public  confidence  in  the
          judicial process it is all important not only that  a
          judge  should be impartial, but that he  should  seem
          impartial. . . " (p. 277)
          
          "He  should be no less concerned to make the  reality
          correspond with the appearance . . ." (p. 297)
          
          "Whether or not [there is in fact favouritism] is not
          relevant;  appearance  of  impropriety  is  no   less
          damaging  to  the  usefulness of the  judge  than  an
          actual impropriety."  (p. 301)
          
          
     February 10, 1994 - The February 14, 1994 trial date in  Singer
     v.  Golovin, where I represent Mr. Golovin with Dr. Gossage  as
     my  expert on child abuse is nearing.  Three things happen that
     day:
     
          1.I  file  the  formal complaint  with  the  Canadian
          Judicial   Council  against  Chief   Justice   Esson,
          Associate Chief Justice Campbell, Madam Justice Allen
          and  Mr.  Justice  Hall.  The complaint  against  the
          Chief  Justice  and Mr. Justice Hall relates  to  the
          cover-up of the hiring of Jackie Morris.
          
          2.Dr. Gossage sends me an "URGENT" fax (which he  had
          never done before in the 10 or so cases we had worked
          on)  confirming  that he would  attend  to  give  his
          testimony in Singer v. Golovin on February 21, 1994.
          
          3.Chief  Justice Esson scheduled the  hearing  of  an
          application to lift the "gag order" against publicity
          relating  to the allegations that Dr. Gossage  was  a
          child molester for February 21, 1994.
In  spite  of  several  conversations between us in preparation  for  the
Golovin  trial as well as another matter, Dr. Gossage had made no mention
of  these child molesting allegations to me. Obviously, he knew it  would
be  important  for  me to know and knew that I would not  use  him  as  a
witness  if I had known.  David Crossin, who represented Dr. Gossage,  as
well  as  the  Chief Justice's choice for his assistant, the Law  Society
and, in effect, Mr. Leask in my action against him, told Dr. Gossage  not
to tell me.

Chief Justice Esson, David Crossin and Peter Leask had successfully  kept
all the lids on the information pertaining to the allegations against Dr.
Gossage for an entire year and chose the one day out of 350 days that Dr.
Gossage was to be in the witness stand testifying on behalf of my client.
They  were  prepared  to destroy my clients, the Golovins,  in  order  to
damage  my credibility.  Why?  Because they realized I was getting  close
through my representation of Renate Andres-Auger and my investigation  of
Christopher  Trower  to the discovery and disclosure  of  the  deceit  in
Delgamuukw  v.  British Columbia and Canada, and  God  knows  what  other
illegal activity.


In four lawsuits where I was representing clients who had brought actions
against  the  NDP  Provincial  Government  or  NDP  controlled  Municipal
Governments, Chief Justice Esson has improperly interfered, in each  case
favouring the Government in question.  In one case he gave advice to Gary
Fitzpatrick,  the  lawyer  for the Government Agency,  which  advice  was
followed.  Mr. Fitzpatrick just happened to practise in the  same  office
and the Chief Justice's daughter.

In  another  case Chief Justice Esson decided issues before even  hearing
from me.

In a third case, Chief Justice Esson adjourned a three-week trial without
hearing from me, even though I had prepared approximately four inches  of
Affidavit material in opposition to an adjournment application which  was
to  be heard several days after the Chief Justice ordered the adjournment
without  hearing  from  me  or reviewing the  extensive  material  I  had
prepared.

Why,  in one of these cases against the NDP Provincial Government,  would
he  make a point of asking who Kari Simpson (my client contact) is?  What
did   that  matter?   Would  it  affect  his  Lordship's  decision  about
assignment  of  Judges  or  an  expedited hearing  date  that  was  being
requested?

Finally,  and  worst of all, the Chief Justice has not  only  condoned  a
breakdown  of  the  independence of his Court  and  secret  meetings  and
communications between judges and the Law Society pertaining  to  counsel
in the process of appearing before the very judges that were hearing that
counsel, but also participated in a 5 month cover-up of the hiring  of  a
Law Society lawyer who was a defendant in an action brought by myself  in
which  the  Court  was  assisting  that Law  Society  lawyer  towards  an
expedited dismissal of the claims against her so that she could  take  up
the position with the Chief Justice.

This  is  the  subject  of the complaint made to  the  Canadian  Judicial
Council  dated  February 10, 1993.  Regrettably,  nothing  more  than  an
acknowledgement has been received from the Council. Like the Law  Society
and  the  College  of  Physicians and Surgeons, the Judicial  Council  is
another self-disciplinary body.  Regrettably, the Canadian public is  now
convinced  that  professionals  have  proven  that  they  are  unable  to
discipline  themselves.   They, including the Judges,  should  therefore,
lose the privilege of self-discipline.


-- 
-- 
Stephen Samuel 		(604)876-0426		samuel@cs.ubc.ca
Only when the last fish is caught, the last river poisoned, the last tree cut-
Only then will you realize that money cannot be eaten. (Cree prophesy)