I have posted a Petition at this web site where you can also sign:
The petition is to demand an independent review and investigation from Justice Minister Ross Landry, in regards the prey-herding tactics used by the insurance and judicial system where innocent victims of vehicle accident who dare to seek the justice they deserve, are thwarted. The following is a brief as to just some of the abuses that I have faced as a victim of vehicle accident hence giving rise to this petition:
Anyone can become a victim of motor vehicle accident... and then the victim of monopolizing insurance companies, corrupt lawyers and judges.
In December of 2000 a vehicle crossed solid lines and entered my lane resulting in a collision that could’ve been much worse except that by aiming for the ditch I managed to divert a head on collision into a sliding impact. Both vehicles were write offs.
The morning after the accident, I called my Insurer, the Economical Mutual Insurance Company (Economical) to give a report and insist on an accident reconstruction while evidence still remained in the road. A timely reconstruction never materialized, and nor did Economical inform me that the other driver, Mr. Sullivan, was without insurance. After 4 months I retained a lawyer in regards to Economical’s neglect and to deal with unresolved injuries. At about this same time, Mr. Sullivan came out of hiding to sue on my insurance policy for his vehicle and injury compensation, after which my insurer then decided to procure an accident reconstruction and investigation.
Economical then held me partially at fault for the accident and monopolized with other insurance companies, forcing me onto the high risk Facility Insurance where my premium rose from $2,000 to $10,000!! Multiply $10,000 by years penalized and it amounts to a significant sum, AND… enough incentive for scrupulous sorts to form an extortion ring.
Insurance Companies are financially equipped to hire firms that drag out legal actions, creating misery for victims so they “settle” for less.
In order to fight my legal action, Economical hired two prominent law firms – “Stewart McKelvey” and “McInnis and Cooper”, both located in the Purdy’s Warf towers on Halifax’s water front. Judges were once lawyers, and so it stands to reason that many have a vested interest in keeping the public blind to golden handshakes between insurance companies, the judiciary, government officials, and others who uphold corruption within a system that enables insurance company's free reign to “prey herd” victims of accident.
With their deep pockets, Insurance companies have power to put pressure on smaller firms that rely on victims of vehicle accident for a portion of their income, putting them in a position where they subtly “coerce” clients into accepting the “quickie” out of court settlements that generate a fast turnover of clients, Happy Insurance Companies, and of course a bigger profit. Should Insurance Companies be unhappy with the performance of a firm representing vehicle accident victims, they can easily retaliate by using their larger reserves of cash and their influence over the judiciary, in order to drag out insurance claims that the “delinquent” law firm takes on until the financial CRUNCH teaches them a lesson that also sends a “wink/nod” reminder for the smaller law firms to “toe the line” and of course to keep it “invisible” to the public.
The Minister of Justice needs to investigate the actions of my lawyer, Barry Mason, who after many years of representing my case, QUIT when I refused to sign a legal document that was worded contrary to my best interest, a document that was presented to me at a time when the court was set to Hear Economical's Application to have my case dismissed, an application that Mr. Mason neglected to challenge despite its being tabled weeks before. Via a package sent to me by Economical’s lawyer in regards to their Application to dismiss my case coupled with the document that Mr. Mason tried to coerce me into signing, I then became aware of the Originating Notice-- the “Action” submitted to the Court by my lawyer (which did not require my signature?!) and which made NO mention of Economical’s abuses toward me or of the impact that the abuses had on exasperating injuries I sustained during the motor vehicle accident.
The Minister needs to investigate ACJ Smith's Trial Decision which found Mr. Sullivan 80% at fault for the accident for speeding while finding me 20% at fault, stating to the effect that I must have pulled out from the south end of the store parking lot hence causing Mr. Sullivan to swerve into my lane. Investigating as well, why ACJ Smith would take into account where I pulled out from the store parking lot when there is no signage, and more importantly, NO Engineering Report was introduced at trial to determine where the safest spot to pull out is, a report that would take pertinent details into consideration, such as measuring distances to the blind turns existing down the road in EITHER direction. ACJ Smith was aware of these blind turns as evidenced in Trial Exhibit Photos.
The Minister must investigate events surrounding my Motor Vehicle Accident of 2000 and the ensuing legal action— May Ocean v. the Economical Mutual Insurance Company and Raymond Patrick Sullivan, as well as in “full context”, the reason why it has continued for years, and why I’m “forced” to the point where I’m unable to proceed with my case as I otherwise would.
The Minister must investigate the conduct of Associate Chief Justice Deborah K. Smith in proceedings involving my case, as well as firms she worked for during her early days as a Lawyer, for evidence of bias, ie: do records show a history of ACJ Smith benefitting financially from Insurance Company as clients versus victims of vehicle accident?
The Minister needs to investigate the conduct of Justice Linda Oland for dismissing my 2011 application to the Appeal Court and why I was not properly notified in regards to a subsequent Hearing that was scheduled offering an opportunity to appeal this Decision, which I learned of via a letter that arrived in the mail “AFTER” it had taken place!!
The Minister must investigate the Appeal Court’s decision to compensate me well below the costs I incurred for my 2009 Appeal of ACJ Smith's 2008 Order to have me assessed by a Psychiatrist in order to determine if I’m competent to represent myself in this case. Even though I had won, the Appeal Courts award for my costs was grossly inadequate—below what the action cost me and what I asked for. This is yet another example of how victims are PENALIZED by the Judiciary for seeking justice, while at the same time sending a message that deters other victims from doing the same. The Minister must also investigate why the Appeal Judges at this time ignored my plea to remove ACJ Smith as presiding judge over my case.
The Minister must investigate ACJ Smith’s decision to divide my case into “Three” separate trials, and why the first “Liability Trial” dealt ONLY with who was at fault for the accident. Again, it’s the same “drag out the case” strategy while preventing aspects of my case from revealing corruption in the system that the judiciary plays a part in.
The Minister must investigate the first Trial proceeding as well as Court Hearings, Documents, Reports and trial exhibits that relate to my case for evidence of bias in favor of Economical by ACJ Smith, the Accident Reconstruction Expert Dr. Stewart Smith as well as many others who misconstrued the truth and evidence in a bid to thwart my right to fairness and justice that my Civil Rights and Freedoms, and the Canadian Law makes provision.
ACJ Smith ignored trial exhibits—RCMP photographic evidence taken on the night of the accident that when compared with photographs taken by my son on the day after the accident, reveals a single long thin strip of rubber in the road left by Mr. Sullivan’s passenger side tire. This strip of rubber along with other photographic evidence revealing damages to our vehicles indicates that Mr. Sullivan’s vehicle was fully in my lane not because he swerved as an evasive measure, but because his vehicles excessive speed coupled with road dynamics— the dip in the road served as a ramp for Mr. Sullivan’s vehicle which resulted in THE EDGE OF ONLY ONE TIREreconnecting with the road for the distance remaining and then during a portion of the impact where initial dents to my vehicle left by his bumper indicates that his vehicle was much higher off the ground than it should have been. Close examination of this tire mark reveals that Mr. Sullivan’s vehicle was in a skid and out of control. My closing arguments at trial are clear in pointing out the pertinent photographic evidence/trial-exhibits to ACJ Smith.
The Minister needs to investigate the truth behind why Economical’s hiredReconstruction Expert, Dr. Stewart Smith, did NOT use this RCMP photo in his first Report. It wasn’t until just before trial that I forced Dr. Smith to account for this discrepancy and provide a second report as to what he thought the long strip of rubber in the road was. Had he included this photo in his Original Report, it would have worked against the best interest of his client, Economical and other motor vehicle insurance companies who put bread on his table. Evidence proving Mr. Sullivan’s vehicle to be “out of control” before even seeing my vehicle would shut the window of opportunity for Economical to hold me partially at fault and for ACJ Smith to then “easily” follow suit. Regardless, the RCMP photo HAD been brought forward and ACJ Smith then simply chose to ignore the common sense evidence that is so damning to both herself and Economical.
ACJ Smith also ignored other pertinent RCMP photographic evidence that discount’s the measurement Dr. Smith took from the “Crush” at my driver’s door which he used to determine the speed of Mr. Sullivan’s vehicle at impact in his first Report. In his second Report he refers to the “crush” as a “fitted glove" matching the front of the Sullivan vehicle that that had been obliterated. A “fitted glove” can only occur if the collision was a direct hit, such as what occurs with a T-bone collision. Indeed, in one of his Report Diagrams Dr. Smith makes it APPEAR as though my vehicle had been "T-boned" at the outset, with Mr. Sullivan’s vehicle simply ramming into my driver’s door and totally ignoring photographic evidence (see above photo) that indicates a sliding impact that extends along the side of my vehicle BEGINNING from above the bumper at my driver’s side front fender. This doesn’t mean that the “Crush” existing at my driver’s door can’t be measured and used as Forensic evidence, but what it does mean is that the speed of Mr. Sullivan’s vehicle which is determined by this method, can be increased when given proper consideration to the initial sliding impact resulting in the corner of Mr. Sullivan’s bumper descending while moving along until locking into the back of my wheel well and causing my tire to contort outward (see above photo), after which my vehicle had swivelled around to the point where our vehicles became perpendicular – in a "T" position to one another that then led to the indentation at my door. It’s simple common sense from examining the photo evidence, that Mr. Sullivan’s vehicle had been slowed significantly from the initial impact event… before the dent in my door was made. Mr. Sullivan’s vehicle then, had been travelling well over the 100 km/hr arrived at by Dr. Smiths CRUSH measurement at my door. The posted speed is 70 km/hr!! ACJ Smith relied on inaccurate measurements that determined the speed of the Sullivan’s vehicle which she then used in determining where I must have pulled out from the lot. With that said all her calculations in this regard are redundant when she had no right in the first place to “guess” where it’s safest to exit.
This is just the tip of the ice berg as to the hard evidence made available to ACJ Smith indicating that I’m 100% NOT at fault for the accident. The problem that ACJ Smith faces in acknowledging this is that it proves Economical and the monopolizing insurance companies didn't have grounds to hold me at fault, hence making their prey-herding tactics evident.
The minister of Justice must investigate why ACJ Smith refused to allow my “Abuse of Process Motion” via Civil Procedure 88 to come forward in order to deal with perjury and other abuses at trial, and why she claimed in her 2012 Trial Decision that there is no proof of my claims of being threatened when in fact the proof is endless, the most horrific being my daughter’s testimony on the stand as well as in a prior written/sworn statement testifying to the fact that her own insurance had more than DOUBLED after Insurance Company’s prey-herded me onto the high risk Facility Insurance and after my complaint to the Superintendant of Insurance and the Minister of Insurance failed to bring about an appropriate response-- an investigation. Needless to say, when my daughter asked for the reason to be put in writing, her insurance was reduced back, but in the meantime they sent a message—a veiled threat.
The Minister needs to investigate the Superintendent of Insurance and the Minister of Insurance (David Morse at the time), who are supposed to be “watch dogs of the people” designed especially to protect victims of motor vehicle accident from being taken advantage of at a time when they are down and out. That this Government Organization and Minister had turned a blind eye to abuses within the insurance system is further evidence of wide scale corruption—illegal conglomerate activity that gives ruthless Insurance Companies free reign to terrorize and make your loved ones pay if you don’t conform, and THAT is why the Justice Minister needs to be accountable for making sure that a full and independent investigation into this matter is forthcoming, and THAT is why I continue year after year trying to keep this issue on the burner as my finances and energy continue to be snuffed out, and finally, THAT is why you need to sign this petition, not just for me, but for yourselves and for our children who deserve a healthy and progressive democracy and world.
The Minister must investigate into the conduct of the Competition Bureau, when in 2011 they rejected my complaint and refused to conduct an investigation.
For more information please go to my facebook group re: Help me fight a BIG BULLY!! https://www.facebook.com/groups/5083118443/?ref=ts&fref=ts Keep in mind that when facebook migrated my group to their new format, much had been lost, including the list of members, although the photo's are still present and I’m uploading pertinent documents.
No comments:
Post a Comment