Victims of priest abuse will get ‘fair treatment,’ diocese says

Victims of priest abuse will get ‘fair treatment,’ diocese says

The Roman Catholic Diocese of Antigonish said Wednesday it’s committed to providing compassion, compensation and counselling to victims of sexual abuse and regrets the matter is the focus of a new class action lawsuit in Nova Scotia.

“The Diocese of Antigonish acknowledges that sexual abuse did occur with certain priests, some of whom have already been criminally convicted and punished for such horrific crimes,” Bishop Raymond Lahey said in a written statement.

“The victims deserve a fair hearing and fair treatment, and they must be treated with respect and with dignity,” he said.

“While we must sort through the complexities of this new class action litigation, we are committed to providing compassion, compensation and counselling to these victims.

“As well, in consultation with them, we hope to structure a service of reconciliation and healing where we can deliver a formal apology to the victims and their families.”

Bishop Lahey was responding to Tuesday’s news of a lawsuit filed against him, the diocese and the Roman Catholic Church on behalf of people who say they were sexually abused by priests over several decades.

It is the first lawsuit filed under Nova Scotia’s new Class Proceedings Act and claims the church failed to warn or protect children from the sexual deviancies of priests.

The claim, filed by Ronald Martin, has not been proven in court. Mr. Martin alleges he and his brother David were victims of the same priest, the late Hugh Vincent MacDonald. But Ron only learned of his brother’s alleged abuse when he read it in David’s suicide note in 2002. The note sparked a criminal investigation.

Bishop Lahey said the diocese offers psychological counselling and “a less adversarial settlement process for claimants who want to avoid the unwelcome aspects of conventional litigation” and who want to avoid the class action process.

He said the diocese respects the rights of lawsuit claimants.

“While we regret that this matter will now involve somewhat complex court proceedings new to Nova Scotia, our door remains open to explore all avenues of resolution and closure for people who have been genuinely victimized.”

Printed in the Chronicle Herald,

Learn more here…


Cornering the Government

Cornering The Government

“Corruption Reigns Supreme! Read about the slight of hand and obstruction of justice against Mr. Branson”… Connie Brauer
For more info click here
Cornering The Government
By Loma Wharton – Oregon
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 7:46 AM
To: JAIL4Judges
Subject: Re: Why Don’t Judicial Reformers Side With J.A.I.L.?

Hi Ron, thank you. Stay Tuned, we are going to default the Board of Commissioners and bring this out into public eye.  Not sure if you have our web site, but take a look at it and share it with your list.  Lom

Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 6:40 AM
To: JAIL4Judges
Subject: Re: Why Don’t Judicial Reformers Side With J.A.I.L.?

It is really because of commerce and privatizing governments, our County of Douglas Oregon became a private business in 1955 and is listed on Dunn & BradStreet with our commissioners as the executives for the county.
Loma Wharton
Chairperson The Liberators 11 for the Public Interest
Oregon Lawmen Coordinator
NO DIRECT UN-APPORTIONED TAX CONFIRMED BY THE SUPREME COURT – Chas. C. Steward Mach. Co. v David, 301 U.S. 548, 581-582(1937)

Ron Branson’s Response
Loma, I am pleased to see you, and those with you, fighting the powers that be and exposing them. You have asked me to share your experience with the JAILers. Along with your experience, I am also sharing my similar experiences along the same line as yours, which  will be of interest to all.
13 year ago I defaulted the City of Los Angeles for $13,200,000  (13 million dollars) in the Los Angeles Superior Court in front of Judge Alan B. Haber. The Government Code, in conjunction with the California Constitution, Art. 6, Sec. 19, states that a judge has but 90 days in which to render a Default Judgment against the defaulting defendants.
What the judge did was first submit the matter for default judgment in my presence, followed by unilaterally “unsubmitting” the matter for default judgment out of my presence, and then the entire file disappeared from the court records, which hints that a felony charge was at play which law provides such charges for anyone caught monkeying around with court files or removing them from the court building. Not even my state Legislator could call up the file to observe what was happening. I then took the matter to the Chief Counsel for the California State Legislature, and he stated that he had never seen anything like what was happening in the Branson v. City of Los Angeles Case. Notwithstanding that fact, it became obvious that the Legislature deemed the matter too hot for them to handle inasmuch as they would have to indict the entire judicial system in California because the California judges got involved in the cover-up from the bottom all the way to top.
Even though the law written by the Legislature is quite clear, the problem was that the entire judicial system in California was “suspending” the default statute in the Branson Case. I “appealed” the case by way of a Writ of Mandate arguing that I had no remedy by appeal of a non-judgment even though the law provided for a judgment. I argued that I was being blocked from a judgment of default even though the judge submitted the matter for such judgment. According to law, it was due within 90 days of his submission. The Appellate Court, without hesitation, hastily denied the Writ ignoring the law law that mandates they must intercede when a case is finished and a judgment is due but not forthcoming. The reasoning is that there cannot exist litigation in which there can be no conclusion. But this is exactly what was happening.
I then became cynical with the Legislature and compelled them to repeal the default statute Code of Civil Procedure 585(b), because it was worthless. Here we have the California Legislature standing by watching California judges defy their Code which they had expressly passed aimed directly at the judges, and none other. I argued, “Why have a law encumbering the books aimed at judges, when they are the very ones who are allowed to ignore it with impunity? Are judges immune from laws passed by the Legislature?  It is therefore a useless statute!” I even offered to rewrite 585(b) for them to make it enforceable by writing in a provision that whenever a judge fails or refuses to adhere to the law of 585(b), the default clerk shall enter a judgment on his behalf against all the defendants in the case for the full amount pled for in the complaint, which in my case was $13,620,000. They were not amused and thought my proposal was preposterous. Of course, my position was that it was preposterous for them to legislate laws compelling the obedience of judges, which are in reality designed to deceive the public into believing it was the law of the State of California. In fact, I even got to the point of asking why Californians need a Legislature that writes bogus laws that are there only for the purpose of appearance and deception. When this came to the ears of my own personal state senator, the phone was slammed down in my ear and the office refused to talk with me. I now ask, where is my right under the Constitution to petition my legislator for redress of grievance? I was left without a  representative in California.
The Branson Default Case continued to the State Supreme Court, and then on to the U.S. Supreme Court. Thereafter I filed the case in the federal court in Los Angeles, and then on appeal to the Ninth Circuit, in which they came up with a marvellous idea, and said, “Branson just doesn’t like the judge’s decision.” I offered the three Ninth Circuit judges $5,000 each if they would only show me a copy of the “judgment I did not like” since the case was about the lack of a judgment.
Ordinarily, such offer could be classified as judicial bribery, however, they could not charge me thusly because it would have exposed them as they were the ones claiming such judgment existed, and therefore the burden shifted to them. (No one can prove a negative, therefore the burden was upon them to prove their affirmative position that the judge had indeed entered a default judgment I just did not like.)
The case then went up the second time, but this time from the Ninth Circuit, to the U.S. Supreme Court in which I received a second denial. So, yes, I won my case, but the courts all the way from the bottom to the top say “So what, just try and get a judgment from us!” I proved that not only was the Legislature worthless, but so also  was the courts. I commented to someone, America would be better off if we had no courts in this country. The response I got was, “We would then have anarchy in this country if we had no courts.” Ah, yes, thank God we have courts to keep this country on the straight and narrow way!  Behold, this is why I have long contended that every evil way in this country has the fingerprints of the judges upon it.
So the Branson v. the City of Los Angeles Case lays dormant without a default judgment although every law on the book mandates every case be brought to a final conclusion. It awaits the passage of J.A.I.L., after which I may go directly to the Special Grand Jury on the first day it becomes operational, no matter when that may be, in which I may then place the entire California judiciary on the hot seat for willfully violating California Law and the Constitution.
J.A.I.L. will corner all these judges which will in turn force all the judges to corner all the government, for without J.A.I.L. all governments will run roughshod over the People in unaccountability.
“Find out just what the people will submit to and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.”
— Frederick Douglass, Aug. 4, 1857
God bless you, Loma.
-Ron Branson

Handouts for Deprived Judges!

Reminds me of the NS Judges tribunial where judges raise their own salaries. We are the Canadian member of JAIL ….Connie Brauer, 902.798.5267

Handouts for Deprived Judges!
Ron Branson – National J.A.I.L. CIC
Years ago when JAIL4Judges was first founded in 1995, a search was done on J.A.I.L.’s behalf to find any other websites that existed exposing judges. The result was that search engines could find no other judicial websites using every  parameters which could be thought. Findley, eureka, a website was found that was placed up by the judges. And what was their message? The judges were complaining that they were not being paid enough for their labors as judges. Since that time, I have been sensitive to this message from judges. No matter how much they are paid, judges are always pushing the message that they need more pay. It kinda makes one feel sorry for these judges having to live just above  poverty level which is actually situated among the top one-half per cent of all American salaries.
To date, their message since 1995 has not changed. If J.A.I.L. sent out a message every time these judges got out their hankies and cried to us to open our wallets to them, you would soon get bored with their message. After all, near all  judges drive brand new luxury automobiles, live in real estate mansions complete with security gates and cameras, alarm systems, and some of them actually have security guards. Most judges run among the high society of wine, women, and song, lacking nothing. I even retrieved a poster from the wall in the Los Angeles County Court House, (one of the largest courthouses in the nation), which offered a toll-free 1(800) number for judges to call confidentially if they found themselves hooked on drugs, while at the same time the defendants before them were being sent to prison on drug charges.
As to websites exposing judges, they have now popped up since the founding of J.A.I.L. like mushrooms, and have gained the command among search engines as somewhere near the top five position. Even former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor is now publically running around the nation proclaiming that in all her years on the bench, she has never seen the judges under such fire, and she is spending her retirement years seeking to counter this trend of judges having to defend their positions. She says, even one of the opposition organizations calls themselves JAIL4Judges!
Since the founding of J.A.I.L. we have pushed out some 15,000,000 emails pounding away at the judges. A simple Google search of JAIL4Judges will give one a good idea of the impact J.A.I.L. is having made on this nation. Having said this, get out your handkerchiefs and read what the Wall Street Journal has to say about these abused judges who are being forced to survive on their meager salaries.
– Ron Branson
~   ~   ~
The Wall Street Journal

June 14, 2008; Page A10

Here’s a weekend daydream: What if on Monday, you walked into work and gave yourself a raise? That’s what happened in New York this week, when a state judge ordered the Governor and state legislature to pony up bigger paychecks for him and the rest of his judicial friends. It’s the perfect plan – if only it weren’t for that inconvenient detail about separation of powers.

The ruling, by New York Supreme Court Justice Edward Lehner, commands the state Senate and Assembly to pass a pay raise for judges in the next 90 days – and make some provision to retroactively compensate them for the lean years. The four plaintiffs in the suit suggested $600,000 each would do the trick. Multiplied out for the entire New York Judiciary, that would put New York taxpayers on the line for $700 million.

New York Governor David Paterson was unamused. Only the state legislature has the power to set judicial salaries, his office rightly pointed out in a statement. The judge’s decision “flies in the face of the state constitution.”

There’s more where that came from. Still pending before Judge Lehner is a separate suit brought by New York State Chief Judge Judith Kaye, who has retained New York attorney Bernard Nussbaum to sue the Governor and legislature for a raise for all 3,000 New York judges. Judge Lehner will thus be expected to rule in a case in which he is effectively a plaintiff, and in which he is also judging a complaint by his judicial superior.

The suits are necessary, say the judges, because legislators will raise their salaries only when they also raise their own, a fact which has left paychecks unaltered for a decade. That, in Judge Lehner’s words, represents an “unconstitutional interference upon the independence of the judiciary.” After a decade of inflation, judges say their salaries have been effectively cut – something which is prohibited by law.

At those rates, they say they now make less than what’s pocketed by first-year associates at big law firms. But few would consider their salaries fodder for Oliver Twist. Chief Judge Kaye makes the most, at $156,000 a year, while others earn about $136,700. By comparison, Members of the U.S. Congress now make $169,300 a year. A memorandum of law filed on behalf of Governor Paterson and state Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver in Judge Kaye’s case notes that judges are already extremely well paid relative to the state workforce.

We have some sympathy for the judges, most of whom could make far more in private life. But then they also have extended tenure. To attract better people to the bench, we’d be willing to swap higher pay for term limits. New York judges may have a legitimate complaint about salary erosion, but they are exceeding their own legal authority by asserting the right to overrule the elected branches and set their own pay – about as basic a legislative function as one can imagine.

Most judges choose their robes not for the salary but for the honor and significant authority, and, dare we say, the chance to serve the public. The hours are good, the work is interesting and they don’t suffer the indignities of work life that are routine for the first-year associates whose salaries trump theirs. That, as they say, is priceless.


P.O. Box 207
North Hollywood, CA. 91603


Dear Editor, It’s Open Season on Parents and their children.

I would like to respond to Mark Mercer, Halifax. (Heads Should Roll, June 16/08) He suggested we call our MP’s and MLA’s and ask what they would do if our children were taken by the Children’s Aid Societies and judges, like Larry Finck and Carline VandenElsen’s child was taken. I fully agree with him. Remember, the apprehension order was made before the birth of the child and no parental neglect was sited. The Children’s Aid Society of Halifax took the child based on the vague “possible future harm” clause of the Children and Family Services Act. After the the judge agreed to apprehend the child she was promoted to Assistant Chief Justice.
Well, I already contacted the politicians several years ago and here are the results. MP Scott Brison, no response, MLA Chuck Porter,Hants West, refused to talk with us and when we stormed his office he grudgingly gave us a few minutes. No action taken. Prime Minister, previous and current, no action. Premier of NS, previous and current, no action. Attorney General, previous and current, no action, 52 MLA’s no action, 300 + MP’s, no action, Federal Attoreney General, past and present, no action, Children’s Aid Society of Halifax, no action, Halifax Regional Police, no action, RCMP, no action.
We even filed a lawsuit which was dismissed without predjudice and were told to get a lawyer. Right! Who’s got $50K?
Now we come to our own situation. We are still paying child support to the mother, for our nearly 22 year old son, who’s whereabouts have been unknown for over two years. No less than nine judges in NS have refused to terminate child support. The last judge we had, ordered us to pay $10K in surety costs before he would hear our case. A total violation of Section 24 of the Charter. We only want what every parent in Canada is intitled to and that is to stop supporting an adult.
No Charter Rights exist in Canada. Nobody knows where to file them, not even the beaurocrats. Check out my website,
or call 902.798.5267 and make a donation for our Legal Defense Fund. We are also parents without any parental rights. In both cases not one person was charged. The only one who is hurt are the children and the non custodial parents. There are millions of us in Canada. Who’s next?
Live Free,
Connie Brauer
1061 Mines Rd.
Falmouth, NS B0P 1L0
Phone and Fax: 902.798.5267 (Office hours 9-8 AT)
Skype Me = connieandvic

A good day for Canada: May there be more ahead

A good day for Canada: May there be more ahead

For more info Click on Ralph Surette

WEDNESDAY, June 11, was a very good day for Canada, the after-effects of which must not be lost.

It’s not just that the native peoples have heard the words of apology they longed to hear – those, after all, are a half-measure since the damage done by the residential schools and racist policy remains and mostly can’t be undone.

Even more to the point is the other side of the equation: that those of us of the dominant European ancestry have officially acknowledged the wrong, indeed our society’s deep moral failing on the matter, and made our confession.

The four party leaders all rose to the occasion eloquently. Parliament was lifted out of its usual morass of recrimination and acrimony and was never more dignified. What gave it the grace it arguably doesn’t deserve, having been the instrument of the native people’s pain, was the statements of the native leaders themselves.

This essential part of it almost didn’t happen. The government at first didn’t want to take the extraordinary step of allowing them to speak in Parliament, and only relented at the last minute.

Perhaps it was afraid of what they would say. I felt a twinge of trepidation myself as national leader Phil Fontaine, in ceremonial headdress, rose to speak. After all, having attained the podium at last, he had the power at that moment to put the nation to shame.

He could have said: The presumption of moral superiority which your society brought to these shores has been brought low. You came with the Christian Gospels in hand, and proceeded to defile them with your policies, government and churches alike. The pain you inflicted on our people was inhumanly vile, and your wickedness as a nation is now revealed. We, who have endured, reject your legitimacy and will resist your presence in this land forever…..For more info click here.

Canada has a long history of family abuse. The apology has been long overdue.

Connie Brauer


From standoff to solitude

Finck gives first interview since getting out of

jail after high-profile Halifax standoff

Wed. Jun 11 – 8:35 PM
Larry Finck

[Larry Finck says it’s hard not knowing where his and wife Carline VandenElsen’s four-year-old daughter is. The girl was taken from the couple after a high-profile standoff in Halifax in May 2004. (TIM KROCHAK / Staff / File)]

Larry Finck says it’s hard not knowing where his and wife Carline VandenElsen’s four-year-old daughter is. The girl was taken from the couple after a high-profile standoff in Halifax in May 2004. (TIM KROCHAK / Staff / File)

He shifted his weight impatiently from one foot to the other and set his heavy backpack down on the floor outside the courtroom.

“Are we mad at anybody?” asked the man whose life has been turned upside down since police pounded on his Shirley Street door in Halifax four years ago.

“We’re not angry — we’re disappointed.”

With his straggly hair and beard and trademark green winter jacket and scuffed work boots, the 54-year-old is still recognizable. He’s missing a few front teeth, but otherwise Larry Finck is the same haggard, frustrated father fighting the same issues.

It’s the first time Mr. Finck has spoken with the media since he got out of prison on statutory release on March 29, 2007, and he had a lot to say.

He served two thirds of his 4½-year sentence on charges stemming from a tense standoff with police and Nova Scotia Children’s Aid officials in May 2004 that ended with his mother dead and his infant daughter in the care of the province.

After an appearance at the Halifax Law Courts Wednesday morning, Mr. Finck angrily asked reporters why no one had contacted him in the past year to find out “what didn’t come out” at his 2005 trial.

The Chronicle Herald did try to reach Mr. Finck and his wife, Carline VandenElsen, through friends last year but requests for an interview were denied. …… read more here

We still want a public inquiry into how it is possible that an unborn child can be removed from her parents upon birth by Justice Debra Smith and Halifax Children’s Aid Society? Where are the safe guards for family, where is the justice, where is the human rights where is the Charter Rights???? – Connie Brauer