Two faced lying hypocrites
- Each nomination must be accompanied by three letters of support from CBA members stating reasons for the candidate's nomination;
- The full name, business & home address, telephone, fax and e-mail information of both the nominee and the three nominators shall be included with the nomination.
It would be interesting to find out who provided the three letters of support from CBA members. Are they other WT lawyers such as Glen How &Associates?
Recently it has come to my attention that Lawrence Hughes' lawyer was making inquiries as to the relationship between Glen How& Associates and the Canadian branch of the WT Society. It seems they wanted this information for the ongoing civil litigation that is going on.
My question is: Have other WT lawyers who are members of the CBA recommended Shane Brady for the pro bono award in order to distance the WT from any suspicion of behind the scenes influence in the Bethany Hughes case? I cannot believe that any lawyer working to promote the beliefs of a religious organisation and being paid expenses to do so should be considered as working pro bono for the general welfare of the public.
Brumley has little to nothing to do with the Canadian Legal Department. Glen How has a quiet loathing for the man. (Added by edit. My mistake. It was Don Ridley that Glen loathed. Nevermind.)
The Canadian Branch tries to keep Brooklyn Legal at arm's length for the most part. Even since Don Kirkland took over as Legal Department Overser in Canada (was John Burns), Brooklyn is kept at a safe distance.
Interestingly, despite using the name "W. Glen How & Associates" Glen was never the overseer of the legal Department which was the same entity.
The main lawyers used in Canada are:
JW lawyers: Glen How, John Burns, Linda How, Daniel G. Pole, David Gnam, Andre Carbonneau, Sarah Mottrille-Hamilton, and Grant Fedoruk (Edmonton). The latter two are seldom used now.
Other non JW lawyers, David Day (wife is a JW), Eugene Meehan (not sure the connection). there are others but the names escape me right now.
But interesting link anyway.
I agree with your comments Belbab. It should be answered who nominated and what are the criteria for pro bono as far as the CBA is concerned. The answers to these questions should dictate whether or not to expend any further energy on this issue.
With regard to Lawrences lawyer trying to find out what connection Glen Howe & Assoc. has with WT, I certainly hope he gets his act together. My experience is that by the time they get to trial WT legal will now everything about him. He isn't going to be litigating against some innocent dummies (although I believe they like to portray themselves that way). My experience is that WT litigates with the cunning and ruthless style that has been made legendary by the U.S. insurance industry or Big Tobaco - no holds barred.
The venon is coming out of me. This makes me ill.
Letter writing I am in.
Read it it hubby. He is going to call the paper.
Eugene Meehan is the lawyer who was retained on an agency basis in this case. He specializes in Constitutional law and works for Lang Michener in the Ottawa office. Lang Michener is a high priced Toronto based firm. Meehan acts as a consultant for cases that are being presented to the Supreme Court. Why he would be retained is odd since Glen Howe & Assoc. have an abundance of experience presenting to the Supreme Court of Canada (I have my opinion on why but really it is not necessary for this thread and it is only a speculation).
I would also like to know who paid for travelling expenses for Brady to go to Calgary (you know, for his Pro Bono Assisted Suicide work).
Finally, I would also like to know who were the three nominators??? Let's assume Glen Howe was one; who were the other two?
Does the CBA make the name of the nominators public?
~Quotes, of the "Always Asking Questions" class
If you wouldn't mind, could you PM me with (and/or post) the details as to which newspaper your husband was going to call.
PS - also a shameless bttt
Bttt. ('cause this is big deal)
Isn't this whole issue relating to lawyers emancipating mature adolescents so that they can make their own decision regarding medical treatment? Personally I approve of that kind of action - there are many teenagers who are well able to make their own decisions regarding numerous topics, and they should be able to do so legally. I get the impression (correct me if I'm wrong) that Mr. Brady is receiving the award because of his work representing mature minors who wished to make their own medical decisions. Remember - this can go both ways - a mature 14 year old should be able to choose her/his medical treatment, and if it be a blood transfusion, well I'd say that I'm glad we have lawyers who are willing to argue that these mature teens have the right to choose YES or no.
I'd be careful about "demonizing" Mr. Brady simply because we feel so passionately about this particular case. Maybe he is just fighting for the rights of certain minors to choose their medical treatment, regardless of religious influences - that can be a good thing. Don't confuse this, however, with mature adolescents who are brainwashed by their religion and family into thinking they must behave a certain way. In the case of such individuals, however, there is no magic age whereby they feel themselves free...there are many adults who are equally enslaved to a WT teaching regarding medical treatment.
Hopefully I'm making sense here...I feel that adolescents who are mature deserve to have a voice and be able to make their own decisions, and I'm supportive of anyone who helps make that happen. I do not support brainwashing a la WT.
For the most part I agree with you regarding the rights of mature minors to make an informed choice. Note INFORMED. If either of these girls decided to accept blood, Mr. Brady would have dumped them as clients, since they no longer would qualify for WT Society assistance.
Shane Brady is a paid employee of the Watch Tower Society. He was not there defending the rights of these teens. He was representing the interests of the religious body. His entire trip was paid for by the Organization as were all the disbursements for this case, just like every blood case before this one.
William Kaplan, author of State and Salvation (A fairly positive book about the legal battles of the JWs in Canada) had to admit that although the JW legal battles of the 50's and 60's paved the way for many of the freedoms we enjoy in Canada, the Watchtower Society cannot be viewed as a humanitarian organization since they were only protecting their own interests and were not out to set precedent for anyone but their own adherants' religious activities.
Their literature and legal activity demonstrate they care little (legally) for anyone outside their faith, and in many ways trample the very rights of their adherants that they demand from the courts for their own organization, such as freedom of association, freedom of speech etc.
So it is not about 'demonizing' Shane but rather the hypocracy of taking care of their own selfish interests while claiming to represent a sick child, and then accepting an award for ultruistic conduct. Pro bono imo infers done at no charge. Shane's activities were simply part of his Bethel assignment. Not worthy of award.