Update April 3/09. Cosgrove has resigned. There is some justice after all but not much yet.
Now let us see if Parliament's family jewels are still in place to finish the process or as was the only other case in Canadian history he will resign. (See Citizen article following) Given he is disgraced enough will he stay the course and wait to be the first Canadian Judge in history to be fired. It doesn't seem likely. Hopefully Cosgrove is the leading edge of greater removals for incompetence and corruption. Note in the 2nd following Ottawa Citizen article below the reference to "man" as in "Removal sought over botched murder trial of Kemptville man" The perp referred to as a man is actually a women. Whoops - who could possibly think of a women as a killer at the Citizen. Are your gender feminist leftist bias's showing I wonder out loud?
Cosgrove and many other Superior Court Judges perform a form of gender apartheid on Fathers with social engineering like never before seen. This has been going on for almost 2 generations of children. Here is how it works. Under the no fault system a woman can lie, cheat, steal, commit criminal acts and blame the husband. Two thirds or more of divorces are initiated by the female. She will obtain, in almost guaranteed fashion, complete legal and physical custody of the children unless she is a drug addict with a needle in the arm riding on the back of a motorcycle at her court appearance. Did you read about the mom who fed her toddler cocaine for almost 2 years under the radar of family court judges. The child has permanent brain damage and is now in the custody of the dad.
We see the results everyday in the newspaper. Here are some samples from Dr. Edward Kruk's research. "Some 85 per cent of youth in prison are fatherless; 71 per cent of high school dropouts grew up without fathers, as did 90 per cent of runaway children. Fatherless youth are also more prone to depression, suicide, delinquency, promiscuity, drug abuse, behavioural problems and teen pregnancy, warns the 84-page report, a compilation of dozens of studies around divorce and custody, including some of his own research over the past 20 years."
The female will get child support at a rate that will cause great financial hardship to the dad. Even if he loses his job the divorce industry acolytes at the provincial child support collection agencies will persecute him. Did you know the worst deadbeats proportionately are those rare females who don't get custody. Interesting isn't it. The ratio of custody to females is 9-1 whether contested or not. In uncontested cases the dad's lawyer holds the metaphorical gun to his head and says, no judge will give you any form of physical custody, that's the status quo. Cut your losses and take this deal. You can save your pension by giving her the house. I understand Judge Harvey Brownstone may be breaking the mold. Not enough information is available to corroborate it but anecdotal information shows he even throws the mom in jail for violation of custody orders. Say What? Not only that she lost custody. Her remarks on his book publishers website were removed because of the "unmotherly" prose and expletives she used.
The female will have at her disposal in Ontario $208,000.000.00 of specific earmarked women's benefits courtesy of Ontario tax payers, not including legal aid. This does not include federal dollars. She can try and hide her income and assets stored elsewhere and legal aid will be sympathetic. They will take a lien on the family home even if it is in dad's name solely because of your ex's criminal past. She will receive child benefits from both levels of government, she may get alimony and she may get ownership of the family home if the mans pension is on the line. All of this can happen even if the mom has been a net drain on the family income through her criminal activity. Just think of a family who has a business operated by the mom and the dad provides a steady stable income to subsidize it and pay off the mortgage of the family home. What if the female slips money from the business under the table to avoid taxes while it is losing money. She is playing the dad to subsidize her and get tax free income. Don't get me started on her taking a run to the local DV shelter to get a "leg up." These are just some of the permutations in our justice system - oh sorry - not justice at all. Lets call it what it is Family Law AKA FLAW.
The legal system is in great disrepute. Its hard to say how much more men are willing to take. Over 3,000 men commit suicide each year across Canada. If only 400 of those, a conservative number, were directly related to FLAW it would be an epidemic greater than SARS but it flies under everyone's radar. How many victims of FLAW are those we read about having just killed family members? Did they pass the breaking point thanks to judges like Cosgrove who will now get a gold plated pension of $170,000.00 dollars a year for incompetence and corruption. Go figure. If a visible minority were treated the way men are in family court there would be outrage in our liberal media.
OTTAWA, March 31 /CNW Telbec/ - Following a public inquiry held at the request of the Attorney General of Ontario, the Canadian Judicial Council has completed its review of the conduct of the Honourable Paul Cosgrove of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. After finding that the judge engaged in serious misconduct, the Council is recommending his removal from office.
An overview of the reasons contained in the report follows. The full report is available on the Council's website.
Section 99 of the Constitution Act, 1867, provides that a judge may only be removed from office "on Address of the Senate and House of Commons."
In accordance with the Judges Act, the Council has presented its report to the Minister of Justice, with the recommendation that Justice Cosgrove be removed from office. The matter now rests with the Minister and with Parliament.
The Canadian Judicial Council is composed of the chief justices and associate chief justices of Canada's superior courts. Information about the Council can be found on its website at www.cjc.gc.ca.
Complaints and Inquiries process:
When someone believes that a judge's personal conduct (on or off the
bench) is in question, a complaint may be made to the Canadian Judicial
Council. The Council examines only issues of conduct and does not review a
judge's decision in law.The complaints process is simple: the complaint must
be in writing, and it must concern the conduct of a federally appointed judge.
No special forms are necessary. No legal counsel is required. No fees are
charged. To the extent possible, the Council reviews anonymous complaints in
the same way as complaints that are signed.
When a complaint is made, the question before the Council is ultimately
whether or not a judge's conduct prevents that judge from discharging his
duties as a judge. In such a case, the Council must decide whether or not to
recommend that a judge be removed from office.
Complaints generated by the Minister of Justice or a provincial Attorney General
When a complaint is made by the Minister of Justice or a provincial
Attorney General, subsection 63(1) of the Judges Act allows for the process to
immediately establish an inquiry committee.
Complaint generated from the general public
A complaint is first reviewed by a member of the Judicial Conduct
Committee. A complaint can be dismissed when it is clearly frivolous or does
not fall within the mandate of the Council. In roughly half of cases, the
complaint is studied in more detail and the judge in question, as well as
judge's chief justice, are sent a copy of the complaint and asked for their
comments. The complaint is often resolved at this stage, with an appropriate
letter of explanation to the complainant.If the complaint cannot be resolved
at that stage, the file can be referred to a Panel of up to five judges for
further review. When a Panel concludes that the complaint has merit but is not
serious enough to move to the next stage (a formal hearing by an Inquiry
Committee) then the Panel may close the file with an expression of concern, or
may recommend counselling or other remedial measures.
When the complaint may be serious enough to warrant the judge's removal,
the Panel can recommend that the Council establish an Inquiry Committee. After
completing its investigation, an Inquiry Committee reports its findings to the
Canadian Judicial Council. The Council then decides whether or not to
recommend to the Minister of Justice of Canada that the judge be removed from
office. In accordance with the provision of Canada's Constitution, a judge may
be removed from office only after a joint resolution by Parliament.
For further information: Norman Sabourin, Executive Director and Senior
General Counsel, (613) 288-1566 ext. 301
Pull Cosgrove from the bench: judicial council
Removal sought over botched murder trial of Kemptville man
Ottawa resident Steven Foster says it's no victory, but "we do feel vindicated" that the judge who set free his father's murderer may finally be pulled from the bench.
The Canadian Judicial Council said Tuesday that Justice Paul Cosgrove should be removed because he so thoroughly botched the 1998 trial of Julia Elliott, accused of killing and dismembering Lawrence Foster, a Kemptville mechanic.
"You can't turn back the hands of time, the trial can't be had again," said Foster. "I think the justice system has done what it had to do to patch up its own rooms."
The council said public confidence in Cosgrove's abilities has been "irrevocably lost" and no "alternative measure to removal" could restore public confidence in the judge, the judicial council said in its 16-page decision.
"The judge's misconduct was so serious and so destructive of public confidence that no apology, no matter its sincerity, can restore public confidence in the judge's ability to impartially carry out his duties in future," said the report by 22 chief justices and senior judges of the judicial council.
Removing a judge from the bench requires a joint resolution of Parliament, and Cosgrove is only the second judge recommended for dismissal by the judicial council.
A spokesman for Justice Minister Rob Nicholson said the report is being reviewed.
In early March, Cosgrove appeared before the judicial council in a last bid to save his job after an inquiry committee of the judicial body found there were grounds to justify recommending his removal from the bench for misconduct during the Elliott trial.
Cosgrove did not dispute the inquiry committee's findings of misconduct. But his lawyer, Chris Paliare, urged the panel to consider the 32 character letters written on behalf of Cosgrove, his complaint-free record following the Elliott case, and his "utmost" regret and acknowledgment of his actions.
He said removing Cosgrove from the bench would be akin to "capital punishment for a judge."
On Tuesday, Paliare said the decision was "obviously disappointing," but he had not had a chance to speak with Cosgrove about it.
In 1996, the judicial council recommended the removal of Quebec Superior Court Justice Jean Bienvenue, but he resigned before the minister of justice's address to Parliament.
It's likely Cosgrove will do the same, said Grant Huscroft, a constitutional law professor at the University of Western Ontario.
"I would expect the judge to resign at this stage," Huscroft said. "There hasn't been an instance of a matter like this getting to Parliament in the past, and I wouldn't expect this to get to Parliament."
Cosgrove, a former federal Liberal cabinet minister and mayor of Scarborough, Ont., was appointed to the bench in 1984.
In 1998, he sparked outrage with his decision to clear Elliott of first-degree murder
in the death of Foster, whose body parts were found in the Rideau River near his Kemptville, Ont., home in 1995.
Cosgrove ruled prosecutors and police committed more than 150 violations of Elliott's Charter rights, but the Ontario Court of Appeal overturned the stay in December 2003, saying, "there was no factual basis" for Cosgrove's findings, and he had "misused his power."
A few months later, former Ontario attorney general Michael Bryant made the rare move of asking the judicial council to investigate the judge's handling of the case.
Meanwhile, Elliott returned to her home in Barbados. She was later found in Costa Rica and extradited back to Canada, where she pleaded guilty to manslaughter and received a seven-year sentence.