January 11, 2001: inJusticebusters just this morning became aware of the treacherous application lying in wait for the plaintiffs in the $10M lawsuit when they go to Court Tuesday morning, January 16 to discuss how the exams for discovery are to proceed. Dueck's lawyer has already secretly obtained an interim gag order from Judge Paul Hrabinsky, a judge who should not have been allowed to hear the application because he has already stated his allegiance to Superintendent Dueck and sent two people to jail for defaming him.
The brief to the court is deliberately deceptive. As we published February 3, 2000:
. . . On Feb. 2, Dueck's lawyer Mr. Rossmann stopped proceedings to get a Court order before April 15 placing a ban on publishing any of the material disclosed in the discovery exams. Richard Klassen proffered that he would agree to be excluded from the list of plaintiffs lawyer Ed Holgate provided the discovery information. Affidavit of Richard Klassen pledging to allow his lawyer to keep discovery depositions secret from him can be found here. The exams were stopped so the Defendants could apply to the Court for a more thoroughgoing gag order. . .
In the brief accompanying the Jan. 16, 2001 application before the court there is no mention of the April 15 deadline or the part of the transcript where Richard Klassen clearly states that he is prepared to give the other side ten weeks -- adequate time to prepare an application -- at which time he would vigorously oppose it based on sound legal principles. We all assumed that when that deadline passed, the matter was moot. inJusticebusters are uncertain just when Barry Rossmann persuaded Mr. Holgate to extend the April 15 deadline by an additional ten months! We assume that he felt Rossmann would win a court application to extend the deadline as in the halls of gentile justice where lawyers and judges alike whine about their over-burdened schedules, such applications are routinely granted.
Rossmann's new brief charges Richard Klassen (right) with vigilantism and says that publication of the material regarding this case subjects Dueck and the government defendants to physical danger. On the basis of what he is calling intimidation, Dueck is asking that the Court put serious teeth into the existing publication bans (which they have previously made no effort to enforce) by seeking the remedy dismissal of the lawsuit and jail time for inJusticebusters.
Dueck is not now nor has he ever been in any physical danger from inJusticebusters or anyone else who has taken an interest in publicizing this case. Dueck has not been defamed. He has been embarrassed.
Queen's Bench Judge Paul Hrabinsky was also embarrassed when he ordered all the proceedings in the Lucas case sealed from public view. When he sentenced the Lucases in April, 1995 he attached the following to the file:
There shall be an order directing that the identity of any individuals alleged to have been involved in sexual misconduct and any information that could disclose the identity of such individuals, as well as anything which may be construed as defamatory material, shall not be published in any document or broadcast in any way.
This order was so sweeping it was ludicrous. The hyperbole which has passed for the Queen's English in the courtroom discussing this case has beome Babelian. To help cut through the noise, we could go back to the dictionary. Fair comment on matters of public interest is not vigilantism. Embarrassment is not intimidation. The embarrassment of being exposed as a criminal is quite different from the embarrassment of being falsely accused of sex crimes. The first kind of embarrassment happens to people every day in court and is accepted as part of our legal process. The kind of embarrassment which Dueck exposed the plaintiffs to is against the law.
There is a great deal of embarrassment. Social Services, Saskatchewan Justice and the Saskatoon Police are embarrassed that the public now knows they gave Michael Ross licence to rape his sisters for 43 months coinciding with suborning his perjured testimony.
They are embarrassed that the public now knows that they were deliberately led to believe the plaintiffs in the $10M lawsuit were really guilty. Every individual in public office who has touched this case should be shamefaced and stunned by the magnitude of the damage he or she has contributed to. It would seem they learned nothing at all from the David Milgaard fiasco. It is too much to expect head prosecutor Richard Quinney to be embarrassed as he has demonstrated he has no human emotion and no conscience, either.
inJusticebusters are embarrassed for not having been more forceful in telling this story. We have been careful to check every single fact and to err on the side of caution. We have always understood that lives and reputations are at stake.
Michael and Michelle Ross, the persons who the original non-publication orders were designed to protect have been damaged most of all by this process. They have been put in real physical danger, existing on the seamy edges of society in profound poverty and in conflict with the justice system. We are proud that because we published their names they have found some dignity. We are ashamed that we cannot do more.
Dueck's application must be seen as a last-ditched effort by desperate authority to preserve a process which is more corrupt than we can even imagine. Justice in Saskatchewan stands in disrepute every minute Dueck remains at large.
There is no question his actions, as cited on this website and going beyond his involvement with the Ross children, are criminal. He has abused his position of authority in the community. He has smeared and jailed the innocent. He has used what a judge has called "Rambo tactics" to intimidate at least one witness.
The story is out. It has been aired six times on the Fifth Estate and every day people are showing their videotaped copies of the show to their friends. This January people in Saskatchewan aren't talking about the weather. They are talking about the Scandal of the Century.
The web pages of inJusticebusters remain open to anyone on the other side who wishes to give his or her point of view on this story.