Saturday, May 21, 2011

Herman Van Ommen and Harold Gaffney

When senior citizen Harodl Gaffney complained to the Law Society of British Columbia that Vancouver lawyer R. Keith Oliver had committed the criminal offence of violating a Court Order, the Law Society of British Columbia appointed Herman Van Ommen  to investigate the complaint and Herman Van Ommen exonerated R. Keith Oliver on the basis that R. Keith Oliver did not personally benefit from the funds he, wrongfully, in violation of the Court Order, took from his trust account where the funds were held, in part, for the benefit of Harold Gaffney.

Well, a crime is a crime and, in our opinion, it was either naive or corrupt for Herman Van Ommen to exonerate R. Keith Oliver did because there was no evidence that R. Keith Oliver took a direct benefit from the funds.    
This case is discussed more fully at the Justice4You Web Site

More coming ... 

Friday, May 20, 2011

Herman Van Omen and the Destruction of Canadian Lawyer Karl Eisbrenner

Herman Van Ommen, a Weasal of a Man
Herman Van Ommen is a partner with the giant Canadian law firm of McCarthy Tetrault.  Herman practices law in Vancouver, British Columbia, and frequently represents the Law Society of British Columbia in cases involving allegations of professional mis-conduct by lawyers.  It was in this capacity that Herman Van Ommen crossed paths with British Columbia lawyer Karl Eisbrenner who was exposing political corruption in British Columbia, that most corrupt of Canadian provinces.

The Law Society of British Columbia has a reputation for deviousness and corruption which should come as no surprise to readers because Vancouver and other parts of British Columbia are controlled by various organized crime groups.

Karl Eisbrenner presented a problem for the Law Society of British Columbia and his story is better told at the web site dedicated to his memory . On this blog our focus is the role of Herman van Ommen and the devious strategy of character assassination by psychiatry employed by the corrupt employees and the Law Society.

When the Law Society of British Columbia decided it needed to dis-bar and dis-credit Karl Eisbrenner and his cliients, 188 senior citizens whose retirement lives were thrown into chaos by an allegedly illegal mining operation carried on by British Columbia politician, Bill Barisoff,  they hired Vancouver psychiatrist, Dr. Jeanette Smith, to conduct a psychiatric assessment of Karl Eisbrenner.  Dr. Jeanette Smith wrote a report in which she declared that Karl Eisbrenner was delusional about the case he was working on.  The problem with the report of Dr. Jeanette Smith is that she never interviewed a single witness and never read a single affidavit from the case - a fact she admitted under cross-examination by Mr. Eisbrenner at his disbarrment hearing. So, how could she possibly state that Karl Eisbrenner was delusional about the facts if she never checked the facts.  This is not rocket science. It is common sense and basic science.

The problem for Herman Van Ommen is that, as a lawyer, he should have known, and, probably, did know, that the report of Dr. Smith was bogus.

Firstly, we say Herman Van Ommen should have known the psychiatric report was bogus because as a competent lawyer, Herman Van Ommen, would have known that a psychiatrist cannot determine that a lawyer is delusional about a lawsuit without checking the facts and, based on the record of the proceedings at  the Law Society hearing that disbarred Karl Eisbrenner, Herman Van Ommen would have known that Dr. Jeanette Smith admitted under Oath that she had not checked the facts of the case to see if Karl Eisbrenner was delusional or not.

Secondly, we say that because he was the Law Society lawyer, Herman Van Ommen would probably have been well aware of the Law Society strategy of character assassination by psychiatry - a strategy the Law Society has used in other cases.  

So, in our opinion. when Karl Eisbrenner appealed his disbarment to the British Columbia Court of Appeal, Herman Van Ommen knew that the disbarment had been procured by fraudulent means and, by remaining silent, Herman Van Ommen, in our opinion, engaged in obstruction of justice and carried out fraud on the court.