Hello,
Angie Geworsky would like you to visit the following online campaign, by iPetitions:
www.ipetitions.com/petition/Klassen_malicious_prosecution
Message: Please sign the petition and pass it on to as many people as you can. Thank you.
Angie Geworsky.
Please visit Sheila Steeles website
www.injusticebusters.com/
for the full story on this case. This story is the one Sheila posted when she first launched her site.
Justice Minister Quennell Claims the Klassens are guilty!
by Angie Geworsky, June 6, 2007
The following is in response to the following items printed in the Saskatoon StarPhoenix:
Quennell stance on Miazga case highly troubling followed by Quennell’s response in a letter to editor.
Justice Minister Frank Quennell believes that “no prosecution should proceed unless the prosecutor has an honest belief”... he goes on to say “those interested in my actual position in the matter can read the opinion of the Court of Appeal Justice W.J. Vancise in the Miazga v Kvello appeal.”
The Justice Minister forgets to take into account the following:
Miazga was sued for not having an honest belief in the guilt of the Plaintiffs, based upon a full conviction and/or founded on reasonable grounds, and of the existence of a state of circumstances which, assuming them to be true, would reasonably lead any ordinarily prudent and cautious person, placed in the position of an accuser, to the conclusion that any of the Plaintiffs charged were probably guilty of the crime or crimes imputed.
The above allegation alleged in the Klassen/Kvello civil suit can be seen in paragraph 42 of the original claim. Seen in its entirety below:
At all times material hereto, the Defendants or one or more of them, did not have an honest belief in the guilt of the Plaintiffs, based upon a full conviction and/or founded on reasonable grounds, and of the existence of a state of circumstances which, assuming them to he true, would reasonably lead any ordinarily prudent and cautious person, placed in the position of an accuser, to the conclusion that any of the Plaintiffs charged were probably guilty of the crime or crimes imputed.
Justice Baynton, who found Miazga guilty of “malicious prosecution” had this to say in his December, 2003 Judgment:
Paragraph: [363] I am satisfied by all the evidence on this issue that the defendants did not have an honest belief that the plaintiffs had committed the assaults alleged by the [R.] children nor did they have an honest belief that the plaintiffs were guilty of the offences charged against them. [emphasis added by myself]
Justice Baynton goes on to say the charges themselves were not based on reasonable and probable grounds.
Paragraph [378] he states; “I am satisfied on a consideration of the evidence as a whole, that there were no reasonable grounds on which the defendants could base an honest belief in the probable guilt of the plaintiffs of the crimes charged against them. I am also satisfied that the three defendants did not have reasonable and probable cause to initiate and continue the proceedings against the plaintiffs within the meaning of the case law I have cited.”
Baynton dismisses an allegation alleged by the plaintiffs that the defendants Dueck and Bunk-Ruys “conspired” to injure the plaintiffs, because the plaintiff's did not argue it at the civil trial. He was right in doing so.
On John Gormely this morning June 6-07, a caller asked John why it was that Miazga was not charged under the Criminal Code, Gormely replied by stating he had heard of no provisions under the Criminal Code which would allow for criminal charges for maliciously prosecuting someone. John went on to a commercial break as he was now headed for another topic. After the commercial break was over, John immediately announced that two callers had called in to the station, who he believed may have been lawyers or police officers quoting a section from the Criminal Code. John then read section 465 (1)(b) of the Canadian Criminal Code which under the heading “Conspiracy” reads:
“every one who conspires with any one to prosecute a person for an alleged offence, knowing that he did not commit that offence, is guilty of an indictable offence...”
Justice Baynton found that Miazga did not have an “honest” belief in the plaintiff's guilt, the opposite of honest is of course “dishonest”. The Criminal Code uses the words; “conspires” with “anyone” and rightfully so as the charge itself falls under the heading “Conspiracy.” However; the criteria for the offence is well laid out when it states that to prosecute a person for an alleged offence, knowing that he did not commit that offence is a criminal code offence, need I say more? It was found that Dueck and Miazga “did not have an honest” belief in the guilt of the Klassen family, and therefore they should not have charged and prosecuted them.
Whether or not there would have been enough evidence to have satisfied a Criminal Court that Miazga was guilty of malicious prosecution is not the issue, the real issue here is that it is a criminal code offence, and should be treated as such. It is horrifying to learn that even those in our legal system did not know this. Justice Minister Frank Quennell now stands by Miazga because he feels that Miazga was justified in believing that the Klassen family was guilty, and that we should turn to the decision of the dissenting Justice Vancise, which he wholly agrees with.
It is clear form the 2003 Justice Baynton Judgment as well as the 2007 Judgment from the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal that the Klassens are innocent and anyone looking at this case should have known that right from the start as Sheila did.
Show machine tags (
Hide machine tags (
Anyone can see this photo 
Saved!
Anyone will be able to see this on the map 
Finding location...