Friday, December 11, 2020
Dear Andrew Kinley
I would like to start by apologizing for the tone of my last letter. On rereading it I found it a little ‘pokey’ and felt perhaps I had expressed myself without respect to the dignity you deserve. If my words caused you to feel I denied you dignity, I sincerely apologize and promise to endeavour to do better in the future. I think I probably felt dishonoured myself, and that is why I had my hackles up, so to speak.
I have a little bit of experience in helping resolve conflicts, and have found that just about all conflicts are a result of one party feeling they have been denied dignity they felt was due. We will call them the first party. Often the second party has no idea the first party felt a denial of dignity. They (the first party) will then respond aggressively to the second party, and being unaware of the denial of dignity felt by the first party, the second party will feel they were the first denied dignity. Now suddenly we have two parties in conflict, both feeling the other initiated the conflict by denying due dignity. I guess I felt I was denied due dignity, for no other reason than I am not a member of the Law Society.
I have also found that most conflicts can begin to find resolution the moment either party sees there is at least an attempt to provide the previously expected due dignity.
You mentioned in previous correspondence that the Law Society Act restricted Lisa from employing me to act as her agent. You also expressed that you would if necessary inform the appropriate authorities of my actions. I took that as a threat. I do not like threats very much, if at all, and am instinctively inclined to deal with them immediately. Towards that end I have crafted a letter for these ‘authorities’ and intend to send them all a copy concerning this issue. I would like to know exactly which authorities you would have felt comfortable reporting me to, so I can be sure to include them. So far I have identified as possible authorities who would be interested in this issue as the Premier of the Province, The Chief Justice of New Brunswick, The President and Executive Director of the Law Society of New Brunswick, The Chief Crown Prosecutor, The Attorney General of New Brunswick, all manner of journalist and radio broadcasters, and the public generally. If you have any other ‘authorities’ you would like to be informed of my actions, please let me know as soon as possible. I will inform them myself of my actions, and my reasons for acting.
Last night I was awoken by an epiphany, and decide to look up on Canlii the Law Society Act to which you had previously referred, to see if I was correct in my beliefs. I could not find an Act titled that anywhere. Imagine my surprise when I finally found the Act to which you had referred and found it was actually titled ‘An Act Respecting The Law Society Of New Brunswick”. My epiphany was that this Act was not generally applicable to those who are not members of the Law Society. What if this Act was what we the public could use to restrict the Law Society, and not designed to be used by the Law Society to control the public? And here I find evidence of that right in the title. Just to be sure we are on the same page, the term ‘respecting’ means ‘in regard to’, or ‘concerning’. It caused me to ask a question: what if this Act is only applicable to members of the Law Society, and is not generally applicable to the general public, and neither you nor anyone else has the right to point to it to stop one member of the public from acting as a lawful agent for another member of the public, either in court or out? What if its applicability is quite limited to the Law Society itself? After all, we find evidence supporting that position right in the title of the Act!
I then looked at the section dealing with the object (or purposes) of the Society covered by that Act, and found the following.
The stated object and duty of the Society are as follows:
to uphold and protect the public interest in the administration of justice
to preserve and maintain the rights of all persons
to ensure the independence, integrity and honour of its members
to establish standards for the education, professional responsibility and competence of its members and applicants for membership,
to regulate the legal profession, and,
subject to paragraphs (a) to (d) to uphold and protect the interests of its members
In the absence of this Act, no one would have anything to which they could point to claim that Lisa could not employ me to act as her agent, or to do any of the things which you claim constitute practicing law. Those would be considered rights. Certainly this Act does not restrict the ‘upholding and protecting of the public interest in the administration of justice’ to the exclusive domain of the Law Society. Nor can that Society claim that they and only they can act to preserve and maintain the rights of all persons. That would be a ludicrous position.
Thus, when interpreting this Act and seeking to determine whether it can be used to stop a member of the public from acting as an agent for another member of the public, the title itself tells us that this Act is not in regards to them at all, but is only respecting the Law Society of New Brunswick. It is not (going by the title) applicable to those who are not members of that Society. It certainly is not designed to allow the Law Society to remove our rights.
Realize that in the absence of that Act, there would be nothing anyone could point to which would justify removing Lisa’s right to have me act as her agent. Since the right to choose anyone to act as an agent, champion, advocate or counsellor existed prior to this Act, and this Act cannot be used to remove existing rights, the only way to properly interpret this Act is to do so without denying her the right to choose me as an agent. Your interpretation removes her rights, and thus offends one of the stated objects of the Society itself.
That brings me to the term ‘uphold and protect the public interest in the administration of justice’. Clearly, out of all the available definitions of the word ‘interest’ the one we are dealing with here is ‘a stake, share or involvement in an undertaking’. We have a stake in the administration of justice, and no interpretation of this Act can allow for a diminishment of that stake.
Your interpretation does not maintain and preserve the rights of all persons, but erodes and denies certain key ones. Your interpretation does not uphold and protect the public interest in the administration of justice, but claims a monopoly on upholding and protecting that interest.
Now the questions become who is right and how do we determine the correct interpretation? The idea of using the existing courts which are seemingly hijacked by the Law Society, and manned with judges all of whom were once and possible future members of the Law Society will not allow justice to be seen to be done. The reasonable apprehension of bias is simply too large.
Luckily the law is all about remedy and I see a path that will allow that to be accomplished. We can determine this by convening a grand jury, operated by the public themselves. Their interest and stake in the administration of justice certainly justifies this action. Therein I will argue my position, and the Law Society can argue theirs. If their interpretation is superior, I trust that grand jury to find in their favour and will accept that ruling. I wonder if the Law Society will agree to that? If not it really does not matter, for the question will be ‘will a judge accept that finding?’ Personally, I think any judge who refuses to do so is on a fast track to retirement for it will completely erode the publics faith and confidence in the justice system and the administration of justice.
It is my intention to represent Lisa in court, and I believe quite strongly she has the right to have me do so if she so wishes. I strongly believe the Act titled “An Act Respecting the Law Society of New Brunswick” is an Act respecting only the Law Society of New Brunswick, and does not remove her previously existing rights, and I am compelled to act by the need to preserve and maintain her rights.
You should be aware of a few things. I hope I do not come off as pokey or arrogant, but I know a little about conflict and its resolution. (After all, I grew up with six sisters and served in the army as an Infantry soldier.) And when I am engaged to act for someone as I am with Lisa, it is not for money. It is because I am usually their last resort, and with no one else to turn to, their pleas awaken my detest for bullying, abuse of authority and general injustice, and I become driven by my faith. Would you like to know what she told me, with a near tearful voice which broke my heart? She asked me if I can’t just get them to treat her fairly. That is all she has ever wanted. To be treated fairly. And her disability (she is on the spectrum) which manifests as a severe distrust of and opposition to authority, is often seen as an attack by those with a mandate to exercise authority and used by them to justify abusing their authority to ‘teach her a lesson about who is in charge’ which just increases her level fo distrust. Her expressing that distrust is often viewed by those with authority as ‘aggression’.''
It is unfortunate that you could not have simply treated me with the respect and dignity you would have afforded a member of your Law Society. I think we may have gotten along, and when you had all the facts, you would have helped find a resolution to this issue, without needing to beat up Lisa on behalf of your client. I think they both would have benefited. But now I have to go rein in the Law Society, and then get back to you within an adversarial relationship. It truly is unfortunate when all we really had to do was communicate with respect, and you simply refused to do so.
If this issue ends up going to court, the first step will be a demand for a voir dire, to determine her right to appoint an agent or attorney of her choosing. Part of the evidence presented will be the finding of a grand jury.
In closing, please provide me with the names, addresses and roles of any ‘authorities’ you would have reported me to, assuming they are not already mentioned.
Sincerely and without malice aforethought, ill will, vexation or frivolity,
I AM
Robert Artur Menard
Acting as Agent for Lisa Chamberlain,
to preserve and maintain her rights.
