One valid criticism the commentator quoted below* could have made (and didn't) is that, surely, after so many delays, readers are entitled to know what's coming.Here, then, is a summary, with short descriptions of the records to be cited:The direct connection between Alberta Justice Peter W.L Martin and me was a hearing to determine if I had received all of the records a legal adversary of mine should have given me and claimed to have given me.Before the hearing took place:
In a telephone conference with me and opposing counsel, Justice Martin stated that he had not yet read our “briefs” [which included pleadings, factums and attached records, totalling 1879 pages, according to my manual count]. The next morning, we received a fax from Martin, stating he had read the pleadings. [Source: fax from Justice Martin’s office] Justice Martin had previously told opposing counsel and me that he was also in another trial at the same time. [source: court transcript of telephone conversation with Peter Martin and opposing counsel]I later calculated that in order to read the briefs at one go, and assuming that he began after his other trial adjourned, it would have taken him 31 hours to read through all of the pages in the briefs at the rate of one page per minute. So it seems clear to me that he would not have been able to actually read overnight all of the pages in the briefs.In my opinion, the Alberta case law on judicial immunity from malice/ill-will torts would tend to foster and support the growth of arrogance in judges. [Source: http://cid-0bcdffb6f4cf5aab.skydrive.live.com/self.aspx/The%20Honourable%20Mr.%20Justice%20Peter%20Martin/Ref%2014.%20S.G.%20v.%20Larochelle,%202004%20ABQB%20123%20immunity%20from%20malice.pdf ]The next thing of note days before the actual hearing was the startling arrival at my home of a courier with a package from the opposing party, with records and a letter stating that I "may not have received" all of the records I had demanded. The letter further stated that copies of the letter had been sent to opposing counsel and to Justice Martin. [Sources: courier receipt, letter, records from the opposing party] In his subsequent ruling that I had in fact received all of the records I had demanded at the time of my demand, Justice Martin made no mention of that johnny-come-lately package of records and letter from the opposing party. [Source: ruling on demand for records from Justice Martin]The next surprise was on the day of the hearing, when Justice Martin abruptly announced in court that he did not have my original complaint/brief with him; and, further, he did not think he had received it. [Source: court transcript of hearing]
After the hearing, I sent two emails to Justice Martin's office, requesting confirmation that he had not received the brief I had personally delivered into the care of the trial coordinator at the Edmonton courthouse. Although Martin's assistant promptly acknowledged the emails, I received no answer from Martin himself. [Source: emails with Martin’s assistant]
Finally, with the help of his then-assistant, I demanded and received an appointment to query Peter Martin, on the record, by telephone conference, in which said conference, counsel for the opposing party participated. [Source: emails with Martin’s assistant]
During that telephone conference, Peter Martin agreed that, contrary to what he had stated in a fax before the hearing, he had in fact not read my original and main brief on my complaint about records before the hearing regarding the same. [source: court transcript of telephone conference]
[Reference: Alberta Court of Appeal Notice to Legal Profession re the importance of factums being read by judges as a condition of judicial fairness]
In his subsequent ruling, Peter Martin stated that I had received all the documents I had demanded when I had demanded them. His ruling flatly contradicted the evidence which the opposing party had stated shortly before the hearing that it had sent to him. [Sources: Martin ruling on records, written admission from opposing party]
Other statements made by Justice Martin contradict the written evidence available to him in that brief of mine which he later agreed he had not read before the hearing. [Source: Martin's ruling on my hearing, my copies of official records provided from other parties]
Appendix 13, 'more Alberta Justice,' does not concern acts of Peter Martin, but does concern a related matter.
*http://poormansjustice.blogspot.com/2009/02/peter-martin-post-appendix-1-fame.html
