|Herman Van Ommen|
The strategy of the Law Society of British Columbia was straightforward. Get Mr. Carten into the hands of a psychiatrist, destroy his reputation and professional status and, co-incidentally, destroy the legitimacy of the allegations he was making about the corruption inside the Ministry of the Attorney General.
Unfortunately, for the Law Society, Mr. Carten was two steps ahead of them because, in 1997, he had obtained a legal opinion from the Toronto Office of McCarthy Tetrault, the legal firm that employed Herman Van Ommen, and that legal opinion verified the allegations made by Mr. Carten. Click here to view the legal opinion by McCarthy Tetrault.
Nonetheless, the Law Society of British Columbia was so intoxicated with its own power and so manifestly corrupt that it blithely pushed on and assigned Herman Van Ommen the task of executing the strategy of character assassination by psychiatry and Herman Van Ommen, instead of doing his professional duty of ascertaining the truth of the allegations of corruption inside the Ministry of the Attorney General retained Vancouver area psychiatrist, Dr. Stephen Kline and Dr. Kline issued a devious letter calling into question Mr. Carten's sanity, when he had never met Mr. Carten, never spoken with his family doctor, never examined his medical records, and had only read a handful of, approximately twenty, letters written by Mr. Carten wherein he expressed the opinion, "the political opinion", that certain lawyers and judges in British Columbia were corrupt, hardly a startling opinion given the nature of British Columbia society, but one that was very dangerous when put forth logically and coherently by someone as well schooled and experienced in the law as Mr. Carten had become over his 22 years in private law practise. Click here to read more about Dr. Kline and his colleague, law society bencher and psychiatrist Maellor Vallance.
The plan backfired on the Law Society. Mr. Carten immediately called foul because Herman Van Ommen had a clear conflict of interest due to the fact that McCarthy Tetrrault has been retained by Mr. Carten several years earlier on the matter. Mr. Van Ommen withdrew with his tail between his legs.
The Law Society persisted, hired Vancouver lawyer, Henry Wood, who followed the same strategy and informed Mr. Carten that it was the position of the Law Society that he could not practise law again in British Columbia unless he agreed to undergo a psychiatric assessment by one of their hand picked psychiatrists. Mr. Carten was aware of strategy of "character assassination by psychiatry" employed against other British Columbia lawyers, i.e. Jack Cram and Karl Eisbrenner, and suggested that, in the interests of fairness, the Law Society, a de facto government agency, use a psychiatrist who was not dependent on the continuing goodwill of the Government of British Columbia, such as one who practised medicine in Seattle, Washington, or Los Angeles, California. The Law Society declined Mr. Carten's reasonable offer.
When Mr. Carten filed a complaint with the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, the Attorney General selected a member of the Law Society of British Columbia, as all Tribunal members were, to hear the complaint which was later dismissed. This is how the crooked game is played in British Columbia.
So, Mr. Carten took the Law Society of British Columbia, Herman Van Ommen and McCarthy Tetrault to court, Canada's Federal Court, and, over the next three years, 22 people linked to the lawsuit have suddenly died, many in circumstances that suggest they were murdered. Click here to visit the Graveyard of the Guilty.
|Justice Ian Binnie|
We caution the reader that simply because Justice Ian Binnie suddenly resigned because it was pointed out, in court documents, that he could not sit on the case due to a conflict of interest does not make him a criminal. However, the reader should also be aware that Justice Ian Binnie had the option of remaining on the court, where he earns about $250,000 a year, and simply not participate in any hearings involving the case.
In the editors opinion, Justice Ian Binnie quit his job because he was being questioned about his knowledge of the crimes and he did not wish to answer the questions, and the option for him was to answer the questions, or resign.
So, we will let the reader be the judge. Is Justice Ian Binnie a crook?