****************************
Marlene Jennings, Liberal Member of Canada's Parliament, twice acknowledged publicly that my rights have been violated three times.(See details below). Russell Copeman, Member of Quebec's Legislature acknowledged that my rights were violated. But the Montreal Police continue to refuse to investigate these crimes.
Even when our aged mother was removed from her home and held in total isolation by the boastful "partners in crime" for almost a decade, the Montreal Police refused to investigate.
Even when the self-professed "partners in crime" sent me hate mail and obtained a court order declaring that I was insane and dangerous, the Montreal Police refused to investigate. I was condemned in absentia in four minutes with no medical evidence and no witnesses except my accusers. In Canada in the 21st Century. (See the reports in The Suburban weekly newspaper below.)
I am fighting for my life and for justice. Quebec's Human Rights Commission
***************************
On October 7, 1996, I was attacked and robbed in my parents' Montreal home, where I had been living for two years while recovering from breast cancer. At the beginning of October my teenage niece, Dawn McSweeney, and her boyfriend Alex had moved in with us. Within a week of Dawn's arrival, I was suddenly attacked for no apparent reason and without any warning. In shock, I managed to call 911.
One of the two officers who responded to my distress call 'helped' me out the door without as much as a coat. In front of my assailant, the officer told me that I must never return. This police officer's unilateral decision to evict me, forbidding me to return home, gave all my most precious belongings, and my aged parents' lives and property into the hands of Dawn McSweeney.
This action was taken without any investigation. There was no legal procedure. No hearing. No court procedure. No trial. No judgment. No background to support such an action. No justification. The officer just decided to do it. And then - he did not file a report.
Widowed, unemployed and fighting cancer, the Montreal Police abandoned me in the street alone, cold, homeless and destitute. My entire life was locked up behind me, in the hands of my teenage niece, Dawn McSweeney. I pleaded with the police to file a report, to go to the house and see for themselves the proof of what I was saying. They refused again and again. For six months, the police refused repeatedly to file a report. At 60, I had to start life again - from scratch.
Quebec's Police Ethics Commissioner, Denis Racicot, wrote to me: "The police have large powers and vast authority .... The case is "definitively closed." Large powers - to help criminals? Vast authority - to rob widows ?
I appealed to Quebec Premier Jean Charest. He wrote to say that the theft of all my jewellery and the fruit of my life's work and the personal treasures my husband left to me, is "a civil matter of an unfortunate nature." Grand larceny is a civil matter ?
After the robbery, Dawn's mother, Debbie McSweeney, our youngest sister, obtained power of attorney from both my parents. Every other member of the family, social services, fire protection inspectors and even police detectives, were barred from my parents' home thereafter.
In April, 2004, the home of our youth looked like something out of an Alfred Hitchcock movie, doors and windows overgrown with dead vines. I called for help and learned that my mother had been removed from her home. So I went to the police station to file a missing person report. The officer could not file a report - because Debbie, told him by telephone that she knew where mother was. To see your mother or get information about where or how she is, you have to file a civil suit. "But you will need a lawyer." But that would take months ! Can't the police check on my mother now ? Sorry.
The following is a matter of Public Record.
In June, 2007, we learned that our mother had died. She was buried on June 21, 2007 after being kept in total seclusion by Debbie and her associates from the day of the robbery. Suddenly, on June 26, I started receiving hate mail and threats to drop the robbery case were posted on my blog. I reported that to the police immediately. The next afternoon, June 27, two police officers came to my door with a court order to have me committed for a 30-day mental evaluation, accusing me of being insane and dangerous. I was released from the hospital unconditionally on June 29, 2007.
The Suburban weekly newspaper carried that story in two parts,
on September 5, 2007 and on September 12, 2007.
The following is also a matter of Public Record.
Weeks later, I found out why a complete stranger wanted me silenced: My accuser, the mise en cause who applied for the court order, was one Kenneth Gregoire Prud'homme, a person I do not know and with whom I have never spoken. This same Prud'homme is named as the liquidator of a will in my mother's name created when she was 92 years old, handicapped mentally and physically and had been totally under the physical control and influence of Debbie and this group for a decade. Their will was notarized and executed, but OUR MOTHER DID NOT SIGN THAT WILL. All the children were included in the wills my parents had made. Only Debbie and Dawn McSweeney and Kenneth Gregoire Prud'homme benefit from the bizarre 2005 will.
Months later, I discovered Dawn McSweeney's own blog on the internet. The heading reads:
Dedicated to partners in crime and kindred spirits.
Voyeurs and well wishers also welcome.
http://graspingatintangibles.blogspot.com/
In November, 2007, my Member of the Quebec National Assembly wrote an appeal to the Conseil de la Magistrature against the judge who condemned me with his court order in less than four minutes without ever seeing me or speaking to me and without any medical evidence, but based solely on the bizarre accusations made by a man I do not know and Debbie who had not spoken with me since 1997. The Conseil de la Magistrature of Quebec replied that the judge did nothing wrong.
I am now 74 years old. I have been fighting for justice in this case for thirteen years. I will never give up. I want to make it very clear that I will not accept money or "compensation" from anyone. I want my parents' true wills to be reinstated. I do not want anything from my parents' estate for myself. I want only what Dawn McSweeney and her associates stole from me. And I want the thieves tried in criminal court.
I am fighting for that rare and elusive treasure - JUSTICE !
I will not settle for anything less.
Phyllis Carter
*************************************
MARLENE JENNINGS, M.P. ACKNOWLEDGED MY RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED
My name is Phyllis Carter. I am a Canadian and I am a crime victim. I have been fighting for justice since October 7, 1996, when I was attacked in my home and robbed of everything I had worked for all my life and everything left to me by my beloved husband. A Montreal Police officer helped the thief and the police have refused to pursue this case from the start. They say their hands are tied and crime victims have no rights.
At the Meet the Candidates assembly in NDG on October 7, 2008, Liberal Member of Parliament, Marlene Jennings, stated before all the candidates and the public, "Mrs. Carter's rights were violated three times". She indicated that there was nothing she could do about the first and second violations because of the system, but she will help me with the third violation - the 2005 will made in my 92 year old mother's name.
The three violations.
1. In 1996, the Montreal Police refused to file a report of the initial robbery. They have continued to refuse to act ever since.
2. In 2007, immediately following the death of my mother, the same group of criminals obtained a court order accusing me of being insane and dangerous. I was released from hospital unconditionally as soon as the doctors found out what my accusers had done and why. After my mother's death, we learned that -
3. In 2005, the same group who call themselves "Partners in Crime" created a will in my mother's name when she was 92 years old and handicapped physically and mentally. My mother was kept in total isolation by these criminals for ten years - until her death. The sole beneficiaries of the 2005 will were the same people who robbed me and obtained the court order against me. Then it became clear why these criminals tried to discredit me and silence me.
Dawn McSweeney and her associates robbed me and my family. I have provided copious evidence to the Montreal Police from the start, but the Montreal Police do nothing.
If the Montreal Police had acted properly on October 7, 1996, Dawn McSweeney and her "Partners in Crime" would never have had the chance to steal all my most precious possessions or to obtain a court order declaring me insane and dangerous. They would never have had the opportunity to make a will in my mother's name, when she was 92 years old and handicapped - physically and mentally. A will from which only the circle of thieves benefited. They would not have been able to keep our mother in total isolation for a decade until her death in 2007.
Everything that has happened since October 7, 1996, can be directly linked to the incompetence and perhaps, corruption, of the Montreal Police and Quebec's so-called "justice system".
I have waited for Marlene Jennings to act since 2008. But I do not just wait. I struggle for justice night and day. Somewhere there is an honest person who has authority and the conscience to do what is right. I continue to search for that person.
Phyllis Carter
*************************
THE CLSC APOLOGIZED FOR THEIR PART IN THE CRIME.
To try to discredit, intimidate and silence me so that I would stop pursuing the criminal case of the robbery that took place on October 7, 1996, the "partners in crime" obtained a court order accusing me of being insane and dangerous.
A social worker at the CLSC helped Debbie McSweeney and Kenneth Gregoire Prud'homme to draft the application for that court order. There were no witnesses and there was no medical evidence. I was never contacted.
My accusers were Kenneth Gregoire Prud'homme, a complete stranger to me, and my sister, Debbie Rubin McSweeney, who has not spoken a word to me since 1997. My mother's death was the trigger. I had to be silenced. A secret was about to be revealed, but I didn't know anything about it then.
The judge issued the court order in four minutes without ever speaking to me or anyone other than Mr. Prud'homme and Debbie. On this basis, two policemen came to my apartment and took me away.
In Canada in the 21st Century.
Phyllis Carter
.....................................................
APOLOGY RECEIVED FROM CLSC (Quebec Community Clinic)
April 1, 2008
Through the intervention of our Member of the Quebec National Assembly, Russell Copeman, I received a copy of the following letter today, April 1, 2008:
Centre de sante et de services sociaux
de l'Ouest-de-l"ile
West Island
Health and Social Services Centre
de l'Ouest-de-l"ile
West Island
Health and Social Services Centre
March 11, 2008
Mr. Russell Copeman
M.N.A. for Notre-Dame-de-Grace
6332 Sherbrooke Street West, Suite 205,
Montreal, Quebec
H4B 1M7
M.N.A. for Notre-Dame-de-Grace
6332 Sherbrooke Street West, Suite 205,
Montreal, Quebec
H4B 1M7
Subject: Complaint from Mrs. Phyllis Carter
(File Number .........)
(File Number .........)
Dear Mr. Copeman,
Following our meeting, I proceeded to investigate the incident that led to Mrs. Phyllis Carter being evaluated against her will.
The Social Worker who assisted Mrs. Carter's sister in this endeavour followed the established procedure to submit a request for psychiatric evaluation. However, while conducting this investigation, in collaboration with the Director of Mental Health program, we realized that the option of informing the respondent (person for whom the request is made), as well as verifying this person's mental health, was not present.
In Mrs. Carter's case, the Social Worker took for granted the sister' statements about Mrs. Carter's behaviour. Therefore, the "Protocole requete pour evaluation psychiatrique" should be revised to include the procedure of verifying the person's mental status before sending in the request.
The West Island Health and Social Services Centre would like to apologize to Mrs. Carter for this experience. The supervisor of the Psychosocial intake, Mr. Claude Girouard, is willing to talk to Mrs. Carter, should she wish to do so. He can be reached at 514 -------- Ext. -----
Users' complaints represent an occasion for the establishment to improve the quality of its services. We thank you for bringing this situation to our attention.
Yours truly,
Diane Joly
Local Service Quality and Complaints Commissioner
Local Service Quality and Complaints Commissioner
# 30
*********************************
| By Anna Bratulic, The Suburban |
September 5, 2007
In Quebec, the Loi sur la protection des personnes dont l?état mental présente un danger pour elles-mêmes ou pour autrui permits someone to be held for psychiatric evaluation for up to 72 hours. The procedure is almost star-chamber like. It merely requires a petitioner and the person whose detention is sought is not necessarily brought in front of a judge before being detained. Like the labyrinth of public curatorship, under which someone can lose control of their own affairs on the recommendation of a bureaucrat, it is a draconian system. Phyllis Carter was caught up in its net. The following story is not meant to draw any conclusions on the specific merits, or lack thereof, of the Carter detention. It is meant to draw your attention to a process that is archaic at best and in desperate need of reform. ? Beryl Wajsman, Editor $"> $">Phyllis Carter was ready to step into the shower on June 27 when the doorbell rang. $"> $">She says her visitors turned out to be two police officers with a court order authorizing them to take the 71-year-old Montrealer into custody in order for her to submit to a mandatory psychiatric assessment. $"> $">Carter didn't argue. She dressed, shut down the TV and computer, locked up the windows and doors, threw some clean underwear into a bag and followed the officers out the door. $"> $">On the way to the Jewish General Hospital, Carter says the officers asked her strange questions. Does she wear a big cross or spout quotes from the Bible, for example. Had she ever killed cats by beating them against walls, set fire to buildings for the sheer joy of watching them burn, fantasized about killing her parents in their sleep, or worn a bullet-proof vest to her mother?s funeral? Had she ever danced naked atop her mother's grave. $"> $">The doctors at the hospital asked similar questions, she said. $"> $">Carter believes a family member made the allegations to cast doubt on her sanity. I can understand that a lawyer would take the case because a lot of lawyers will take any case for money, said Carter during a telephone interview. $"> $">But the fact that a judge granted a court order without ever seeing me, speaking to me, had no knowledge of who I am, just on the basis of such outrageous accusations, is shocking. $"> $">Carter, a regular at borough council meetings and community protests, believes the family member is resentful of her because of a long-standing family feud that has gone on for 11 years. Her dogged insistence on the justice of her position in that feud has landed Carter in hot water in the past. $"> $">Carter admits to having staged a one-woman demonstration to call attention to her plight stemming from the feud about five years ago. Wearing a sandwich board protest sign and holding up a huge cross, Carter paced silently back and forth across the street from the family member's home. Police were called to the scene and Carter was transported to the hospital to undergo a mental evaluation. She says she was released almost immediately after being seen by the doctor. $"> $">When asked if it was still worth pursuing this issue after all these years, Carter replied: I'll die for this, and if that's crazy, then I'm crazy because justice is more important to me than anything. $"> $">Carter is not sure what prompted her relative to have her committed this time around. Attempts by The Suburban to track down the family member and ask their side of the story were unsuccessful. ( Note: This is incorrect. We learned that this was done to discredit and silence me, because a new will made in my mother's name was about to be exposed following her death.) $"> $">Psychiatrist Dr. Jason Morrison treated Carter at the Royal Victoria this past June. When asked if Carter was deprived of her liberty needlessly, Morrison said: It's really hard to say whether it's needless. The person making the complaint felt there was something; there was something in the information contained that the judge felt there was sufficient information for having granted [the court order], he said. $"> $">However, without getting into the details of Carter's case, Morrison said that after he examined her, he did not think she needed to be in custody and discharged her. $"> $">In fact, he seemed surprised that Carter was brought in to begin with. This is the only time I've ever seen this happen [...] Most often when we have people brought in on a court order for an assessment, it's been very important for the person to be treated in hospital. Its not always the case, but it?s often the way, he said. $"> $">The Suburban attempted to obtain a copy of the court order for Carter's detention to validate her story. However, a clerk we spoke to at the Palais de justice said that such documents are confidential and only Carter would be able to request a copy of her file. Carter says she has sent away for a copy. $"> $">Existing mental health legislation permits family members or people in the community, such as social workers, to request that a person be forced to undergo psychiatric testing if they have reason to believe a person is in imminent danger of injuring themselves or others. $"> $">In Quebec, the Loi sur la protection des personnes dont l'état mental présente un danger pour elle- mêmes ou pour autrui permits someone to be held in an authorized medical facility for a psychiatric evaluation for up to 72 hours, after which they must be let go or their further detention must be justified. $"> $">A person may also contest their detention, however, Carter says she did not openly object to being at the hospital for fear that it would only make things worse. Nor, she says, did she immediately tell other family members about her plight. $"> $">I did not want them involved. I was told afterward, if I had given them [hospital staff] the name and number of any of my relatives or friends who could have immediately told them who I am and what I am, I would have been released immediately. But I wanted this to be played out. I wanted to go on my own merit, without anybody speaking up for me, she said, adding that she did eventually supply the hospital with a name when she thought she might otherwise be stuck there for weeks. $"> $">Margaret Somerville, founding director of McGill's Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law, says that though there have been significant reforms in mental health law in the last few decades due largely because of abuses in psychiatric cases, it is possible for the law to be used in a vengeful way, citing the case of a doctor who had a friend commit his wife, who later won a suit against her husband for false imprisonment. $">Sure [it's possible to abuse the law], but it's very unlikely you'd succeed. The other thing is you could turn around and sue the person who did it. In Quebec I think it would be highly likely that the law would consider this (in terms of moral damages). And in common-law, you'd think things like defamation. Just making the allegation that you're insane and should be locked up could be defamation. $"> $">Somerville says a judge would have to be presented with clear and convincing evidence before authorizing a commitment order. Can you imagine if I just marched into court before a judge and I say I'd like an order to lock you up. You can imagine judges don't give those orders very readily. $"> $">Susy Landreville, a lawyer for the Douglas Mental Health University Institute, said that obtaining a court order for a psychiatric evaluation is usually a last resort for family members, who are often very concerned about a loved one's welfare and torn up about the decision. $"> $">Landreville said that those taken in for an evaluation may not be aware that they need help and are often very upset at family members for doing what they did. $"> $">When people ask us what they should do, we tell them to try to get [their loved one] to go to the hospital of their own accord. Otherwise, it's very traumatizing for them. $"> $">Carter was released on the third day of her detainment, but she doesn't feel vindicated because the stigma of having her sanity questioned will remain, she says. $"> $"> She also fears her relative will make more complaints and she will be taken into custody again. $"> $">There are some people who might like to see me in a little padded cell, she said, noting that the only time she was ever hospitalized for psychiatric reasons was years ago when she admitted herself for a bout of depression after her husband died and she was diagnosed with cancer. Once you are accused, there are always going to be people who are going to doubt your sanity. And because I'm outrageously outspoken, I can expect that, but I'll be damned if that's going to stop me. |
2007-09-05 09:32:41
.....................................................
The Suburban
September 12, 2007
Tribunal took four minutes in Carter detention
Contradictions on face of court order
| By Anna Bratulic, The Suburban |
$"> $">However, Carter, 71, was neither present at the hearing nor did she know such a petition was being made against her. $"> $">According to provincial court documents obtained by The Suburban, closed-door proceedings in Carter?s case began at 10:03 am on June 27, questioning of the petitioner (a member of Carter's family) took place at 10:05 am, and an order for her to be taken to hospital for an evaluation was given at 10:07 am. $"> $">Later that day, she was taken by surprise when two police officers showed up at her door to escort her to hospital for a mental evaluation. She was kept for a few days until a psychiatrist at the Royal Victoria released her on the grounds that she did not pose a danger to herself or others. $"> $">This all happened to me based on something that somebody looked at for four minutes. [...] If it could happen to me, imagine what it would be like for an immigrant, a shy person or someone who's not educated. Imagine what it would be like for someone who really had had some mental problems in the past, and somebody comes knocking at the door and you haven?t done anything, she said. $"> $">Caroline Stewart, coordinator at Action Autonomie, an organization that advocates on behalf of rights for the mentally ill, suspects the judge was probably convinced to issue a dispense de signification. $"> $">This exemption allows proceedings in such cases to carry on without the defendant because it is felt that if they knew they might do something rash, like harm someone or run off. $"> $">Stewart says it is not difficult to persuade a judge to issue an exemption. According to a study published by Action Autonomie in 2005, of the 391 requests to put someone in interim custody for clinical psychiatric examinations, only three people were given notice to attend their own hearings. $"> $">The court ruling in Carters case refers to an 'absence of consent' as one of the reasons why an exemption and subsequent mental evaluation were ordered, yet at the same time states that it waives questioning of the respondent and exempts the applicant from serving the motion on the respondent. Carter insists no one ever gave her an opportunity to consent, or for that matter, to refuse to consent to anything. $"> $">"It's one of the things we denounce", says Stewart. "Too often an exemption from service is issued and people cannot get their voices heard... From the moment that a person concerned is not involved in the procedure, such as by being present, for example, it creates a situation where the law can be applied too broadly[...] We ask that people always be present at court in order to be heard and be represented by a lawyer. When that does happen, we see that, sure enough, the applications are rejected." $"> $">Quebec's Mental Patients Protection Act states that a person may have to undergo a mandatory psychiatric examination if there is reason to believe they might be a danger to themselves or others. $"> $">Stewart estimated that, on average, proceedings last about six minutes. "There are some that are two minutes, some that are a minute and a half, some four minutes. [Short hearings] are frequent, but criticized because it's too little time to assess someone's level of danger [to self and others]." |
2007-09-12 10:52:39
Still the Montreal Police refuse to take action against the criminals in this case.
***********************************
NO PEACE WITHOUT JUSTICE !
Luke 18
***********************************
#30
No comments:
Post a Comment