injusticebusters logo

Zarzeczny's fiat pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | Rick Klassen responds

The Zarzeczny fiat:
how a Queen's Bench judge was deceived

A Fiat from Czarist Russia?
No, just another piece of Saskatchewan cover-up

SASKATOON, January 30, 2001: Judge J. Zarzeczny's fiat came down today. This is the decision he reserved January 16 after hearing Superintendent Dueck's application to gag Richard Klassen and injusticebusters. In court, he said that "if the defendants (Dueck and the government) wanted a ruling against the website, they would have to go somewhere else."

This judgment tells them exactly where to go. To criminal court. The fiat says that inJusticebusters have violated the non-publication order by publishing material obtained through discovery process in Q.B. claim 271, 1994. This is a lie. But it goes on to say that all the material on a discovery list filed by the defendents in 1994 now becomes discovery material. The truth is that all this material was in our hands before the lawsuit was ever laid and was the very basis for the laying of the lawsuit.

Through smoke and mirrors Zarzeczny has provided Dueck & co. with the basis for the laying of criminal contempt charges against Richard Klassen and Sheila Steele for continuing to make public information they first posted on the internet in June, 1998. It also provides the basis for criminal charges to be laid against the Fifth Estate.

The judgment is now posted. Read it and judge for yourselves. The Correspondence 2000 page can be found here. Our report on the exams for discovery, which Zarzeczny reads as evidence that Richard Klassen has broken the Rules of Court by making public discovery material is simply not true. inJusticebusters reported on the general progress of a lawsuit which is of interest to the public.

Richard Klassen was not allowed to speak because he was still represented by Ed Holgate. Holgate did not believe that injusticebusters was not publishing discovery material and yet he spoke to the matter. Holgate was, at that time, withholding important material from Richard Klassen and refusing to accept any e-mail from injusticebusters. After Richard Klassen finally fired Holgate and took carriage of his own case inn November, 2001, Holgate called us both liars.

The fiat is also interesting in that it orders the lawsuit plaintiffs to pay costs (which would amount to two or three thousand dollars) and gags the plaintiffs or any third parties from talking about the case. No such restriction has been placed on Dueck and the other defendants. Dueck, in 1998, before this website even went up, told the StarPhoenix, after losing his libel case against Klassen that if he "couldn't get [Klassen] in a criminal action, he would go after him civilly."

Quinney, two months earlier had told the StarPhoenix that the accused should go on with their lives and gloated that a case of malicious prosecution had never been won and that the Klassens, Kvellos and Sterlings would not win, either.

January, 2002: Along with more humane interpretations of the law regarding persons' rights to successfully bring forth clear cases of malice, the Supreme Court has also let it be known it will not tolerate criminal police actions which are covered by publication bans.