Nanc and I would like to wish everyone who has read this blog and stood by us throughout this ordeal a MERRY CHRISTMAS! (and other holidays!) We know that you are many and diverse. We thank you with all our hearts. We hope that our efforts, and those who helped us, will make life a little better for some.
Churchill WAS right when he said: "Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."
Good Luck to all those who stand up for what is right, put everything on the line, and move the stakes a little further down the road to a truly just and civilized society....
and kick some narcissistic sociopaths in the ass!
Friday 25 December 2009
Tuesday 22 December 2009
FOR THOSE WHO THOUGHT IT WAS ALL OVER...
This nightmare continues, but Nanc won again today. Meanwhile, the abuser bought two farms this year. Who came out ahead? Thank God for the wisdom of the Justices on the SCC, or Nanc would have had nothing but her scars.
FROM THE SCC
MOTION FOR RE-HEARING / DEMANDE DE NOUVELLE AUDITION :
32098 Nancy Rick, also known as Nanc Rick v. Berend Brandsema, also known as Ben Brandsema, and Brandy Farms Inc. - and - Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (B.C.)
Coram: McLachlin C.J. and Binnie, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron and Rothstein JJ.
The motion for an extension of time is dismissed. Had the motion for an extension of time been granted, the respondents’ application for a rehearing on the issue of costs and for an order that the trial judge’s order on costs be restored would have been dismissed. The appellant is entitled to her costs of the motions.
Saturday 21 February 2009
IT'S A WIN!
Nanc WON!!!
We are very happy with the outcome. This does allow Nanc to close a long, dark chapter in her life. It does clearly state the duty of full disclosure (you mean it wasn’t before???). It does clearly state that one spouse cannot create vulnerabilities in their partner and then take advantage of them (again, this wasn’t clear before???).
We think, however, that the decision begs a couple of further questions:
1. OK, the husband hid money and misrepresented values to defraud his wife. His “penalty” is then to repay the amount he owed in the first place. Um, where is the disincentive to keep doing this? The SCC has just said that it is still worth trying to do these things! If you do get caught, the worst case scenario is that you will have to pay the rest of what you owe! If you pull that in a commercial negotiation (selling a product or business, etc,) you will be charged with fraud and go to jail, or at least pay hefty fines. In this case, it is more akin to ENRON, Conrad Black, etc. Nanc was a full partner in the businesses and had done more than her fair share to build it up over the years. Now the ex gets the full ongoing benefits of her efforts for a minimal one time cost. Why are the rules different when a spouse is the shareholder being defrauded rather than public shareholders or partners? Is this really the public policy message that the SCC and legislators want to send?
2. It is clear from the media reports that most reporters did not ask the questions, “what does the judge mean by ‘mental instability’? What particular ‘mental disability’ was present in this case? Where did it come from?” The answers will surprise most readers of the media stories: Nanc has PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome). Yes, the same mental instability that some soldiers suffer from following prolonged and intense life threatening combat. Her therapist (an expert in PTSD that treats police officers and other emergency personnel) called it the worst case he had ever personally seen. Where did she get it?
We are very happy with the outcome. This does allow Nanc to close a long, dark chapter in her life. It does clearly state the duty of full disclosure (you mean it wasn’t before???). It does clearly state that one spouse cannot create vulnerabilities in their partner and then take advantage of them (again, this wasn’t clear before???).
We think, however, that the decision begs a couple of further questions:
1. OK, the husband hid money and misrepresented values to defraud his wife. His “penalty” is then to repay the amount he owed in the first place. Um, where is the disincentive to keep doing this? The SCC has just said that it is still worth trying to do these things! If you do get caught, the worst case scenario is that you will have to pay the rest of what you owe! If you pull that in a commercial negotiation (selling a product or business, etc,) you will be charged with fraud and go to jail, or at least pay hefty fines. In this case, it is more akin to ENRON, Conrad Black, etc. Nanc was a full partner in the businesses and had done more than her fair share to build it up over the years. Now the ex gets the full ongoing benefits of her efforts for a minimal one time cost. Why are the rules different when a spouse is the shareholder being defrauded rather than public shareholders or partners? Is this really the public policy message that the SCC and legislators want to send?
2. It is clear from the media reports that most reporters did not ask the questions, “what does the judge mean by ‘mental instability’? What particular ‘mental disability’ was present in this case? Where did it come from?” The answers will surprise most readers of the media stories: Nanc has PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome). Yes, the same mental instability that some soldiers suffer from following prolonged and intense life threatening combat. Her therapist (an expert in PTSD that treats police officers and other emergency personnel) called it the worst case he had ever personally seen. Where did she get it?
Wednesday 18 February 2009
DECISION TIME!!!
The decision will be posted tomorrow at 10:45am on the SCC website.
A door will close upon the past for Nanc. This has been a devastating experience for her, and less so for me, as well. There is no putting the past behind while something like this is going on. We are both ready for the end - and the beginning of a new life. Nanc's great concern at this time is that the SCC recognise the human rights issues underlying her personal story, and provide some protection for the spouses who come after her.
May there be an end to the inequity!
A door will close upon the past for Nanc. This has been a devastating experience for her, and less so for me, as well. There is no putting the past behind while something like this is going on. We are both ready for the end - and the beginning of a new life. Nanc's great concern at this time is that the SCC recognise the human rights issues underlying her personal story, and provide some protection for the spouses who come after her.
May there be an end to the inequity!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)