LEFEBVRE: Michael Baker, unaware or unconcerned?

----- Original Message -----
From: Hon. Michael Baker
To: andrelefebvre@
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2005 10:27 AM
Subject: Re: MORE iNFORMATION is available in the case of Mona-ClareFinck

Dear Mr. Lefebvre:

Thank you for your e-mail about the child custody issue.

The family matter you referred to and related criminal matters, have both been addressed in Nova Scotia courts. I am satisfied that matters were dealt with appropriately and I am of the view that there is no public interest in a further inquiry.

The best interests of the child are paramount and the actions of child protection authorities are examined carefully by the Supreme Court, as is required by our legislation. The legal process for child protection is described at www.gov.ns.ca/coms/families/pdf/child_welfare_brochure.pdf.

Thank you for taking the time to share your views.

Michael G. Baker, Q.C.

-------

Dear Mr Baker,

I appreciate you took the time to personally write back.

It is very unfortunate however that you seem to be unaware of the importance of this request. More and more people are completely agreeing that a public inquiry is the only mean we have to serve the public interest as too many questions remain unanswered even after the trial. Which focused on criminal charges stemming from the standoff and not on the content of a court order that certainly has never been proven valid.

What happened to the Fincks had nothing to do with the proper administration of justice, although you expressed satisfaction at the outcome. It does not matter what Carline and Larry were like in court, so much as why they were driven to such extremes in order to resist such order and try to defend themselves against alleged abuse of power on the part of the CAS. So many more similar cases exist today to make us all wonder why you are not stepping in to make changes. And restore justice to the Fincks. Why continue to defend a system that failed them? Why not correct the wrongs? Isn't what justice is about?

There exist another level of injustice that is shocking the population and it concerns directly the circumstances that forced the Fincks to run from a CAS court order, and the excessive use of force to get the baby anyways. The use of a taser gun on a suspect already in custody, a handcuffed woman, is also very disturbing. Some people have some explaining to do.

As you yourself should know through your own experience with the Lunenburg CAS, there has been many instances of abuse of power on the part of CAS, as well as lack of passion in being involved in serious cases of child molestation, leaving children in criminal hands because of very poor judgment on the part of CAS workers. Or was it because of sheer corruption or favoritism?

Parents need to be able to trust. And right now, the CAS has lost that trust. And restoring it can only be done publicly. There is a dark history of Nova Scotia in terms of child abuse by government agencies or orphanages. Our slogan: never again.

This is such a situation. The public nowadays is VERY informed, and many are doing very extensive investigative work, sharing information over the web and connecting the dots. If this situation was legally sound, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

You are basically telling us you are implicitely trusting the whole chain of command that was activated in Nova Scotia from the CAS all the way through the trial and the sentencing. If this is the case, then don't think that you realize how hurtful this is going to be for your Ministry as well as the exercise of justice in Canada. This has a deep impact on the ability of the population to trust the political and legal institutions of our country.

If we, citizens, know enough of the truth to rally thousands of other citizens in support of a public inquiry, then we have to wonder what it is you're trying to do by denying this one. It is well-known inside and outside of Nova Scotia that there is protectionism within the legal and law enforcement system. We are acquainted with the existence of rules governing child protection and have also read public documents revealing that these rules have been violated by CAS workers in some cases.

Consider seriously the odds, Mr Baker. Either you participate in a cover-up, either you open the door to further reform the CAS. There are thousands of victims of the CAS in Nova Scotia.

Further, the insistence of your office to refuse a public inquiry could be seen as very suspicious when considered in light of your history with the CAS. No offense, Mr Baker. Justice does not mean righteousness.

I plead with you, before God and the Queen, to consider again the consequences of a denial of a public inquiry in the Fincks case. Their case is not unique as you know. Why would insurance companies refuse to cover the CAS ...

http://www.grahamsteele.ca/media2003a.html#anchor21634

We need to see some kind of deterrent for sloppy work in the case of agencies who are endowed of civil and criminal power for the protection of our children. Because of your past history, you are obvioulsy the last person who could convince anyone that he is ignorant of those cases of abuse.

We take into consideration the fact that since 1999, there as been no annual reviews of the Child Protection Services in Nova Scotia. That too is of grave consequences.

Mona-Clare Finck has been damaged not by her parents, as was the reason invoked to take her away, but by the CAS actions. And compounded by subsequent interventions by other instances based on that basic error.

Make history: grant a public inquiry. If not for justice sake, at least do it because it makes a whole lot of sense politically and socially. Finally reform the CAS in a way that would ensure the true protection of the children, and not mean the decimation of families.

Thanks for taking time to read despite your busy schedule,

Regards,

Andre Lefebvre