In 2001, Carline VandenElsen was charged with 3 counts of child abduction
after taking her triplet children and absconding to Mexico. She was tried before a jury of 12 and found "not guilty
by reason of necessity." This decision was successfully appealed by the Crown and a re-trial was scheduled for 2005.
Carline was preparing for this re-trial and had more evidence and witnesses to call on than her previous lawyer, Clay Powell,
had wanted to use, including her own 3 children. This re-trial never took place and the charges against Carline were
"stayed", or suspended. We asked Carline to respond to this change of events.
Question: What are your thoughts on the ‘staying’ of the
charges in relation to the abduction of your triplet children
in 2001?
Carline - "I believe the system had no intention of conducting a re-trial
because the criminality would have been exposed. A ‘stay’ was the only alternative if the criminality was to remain
hidden."
Question: Give some examples of the ‘criminality’ you allude
to.
Carline - "At the first trial, solicitor, Clay Powell, in an effort
to hide the corruption, brought forward only the bare minimum evidence to establish the necessity defense. Much to Powell’s
surprise, the jury, nevertheless, acquitted, realizing the abuse my children and I had endured. Powell, in an effort to ‘make
amends’ to the system, ensured that the Court of Appeal could/would overturn the acquittal by:
a) failing to prepare and file a factum and a book of authorities;
b) failing to produce an important case - R. v. Sole in English when the panel
at the Court of Appeal requested it, notwithstanding he had the case in his possession. The Crown had filed the case in French
and therefore the appeal panel could not/did not rely on it.
Powell was not able to summarize the trial, couldn’t recall significant
statements made by the trial judge and he also referred to the triplets as twins. After I made inquiries as to the absence
of a factum, which is required at all Court of Appeal hearings, a one-page, poorly prepared factum ‘appeared’
in the file following the hearing. Further to this, the hearing was not recorded at the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal
sent the case back to trial under a different criminal code charge (s.283 ccc), which was considered a mere oversight by the
re-trial judge, Bonnie Wein. She also failed to throw the decision out, even though it became functus, as one of the judges
on the Court of Appeal panel retired following the rendering.
The outcome of the decision was that I (and anyone else facing similar charges)
would be required to expand the evidence to establish the necessity defense. This would give the non-elected judiciary the
unfettered right to upsurge the jury’s centuries-old right to be the triers of fact, meaning I would have to greatly
lengthen the trial.
As a result, crown attorney, Henry VanDrunen did not have to call a case.
It was very evident that Tony Bryant was not working for me or my children, but rather, for the system.
I attempted to have Bryant relieve himself of his duties , relying on R. v.
Delisle, 1999, 133ccc(3d) 541 (Que.C.A.) : the right to the effective assistance of counsel, a constituent element to the
right to make full answer and defense and the right to a fair trial.
This originates in:
Common law (S.650(3)ccc); Charter- ss.7 & 11. The criminal lawyer’s
mandate must respect my fundamental right to control the conduct of my own defense, which includes the right to make important
decisions, such as:
a) to be represented by counsel
b) to testify
c) to call certain witnesses
When a conflict arises such as with Bryant and myself regarding my defense,
Bryant MUST withdraw from the case, as he can’t act contrary to a client’s instructions, which he did. However,
Bryant would not withdraw and Justice Wein ignored the law when stating Bryant did not have to withdraw.
Once Larry and I advised Bryant on the steps that we would take respecting
the re-trial (which was necessary in order to achieve success), the system had no alternative but to ‘stay’ the
proceedings. It could not risk the exposure of their own corruption.
A further miscarriage of justice was forcing me to attend Ontario for hearings
on two separate occasions when my attendance wasn’t necessary. This forced me to endure significant costs and stresses
since I was also attending hearings in Nova Scotia during these times.
Respecting Bryant’s letter to me on April 28, 2005:
Why did the system arrange for a summer jury trial when these are never scheduled
in summer, but only in spring and fall? It is fully believed that a summer trial would ensure the children’s absence
(on holiday) as would Craig and Jan be gone, all whom I would have had to locate and serve subpoenas, since the crown was
not calling them. A summer trial would also excuse farmers, as well as decrease the number of potential jurors due to their
knowledge and partiality to the case.
In regards to jury selection questions, why were only 4 questions authorized
by Wein? I never did see the questions Bryant brought forward.
Re. Page 2 - Bryant’s ‘intent’ to seek leave to bring further
pre-trial applications?
R.v.O’Connor for 3rd party disclosure only requires what the SSC decided therein; which is ‘to show relevancy and subpoenas for
the files’. Psychological abuse of my children and me and credibility of proposed witnesses - relevancy. Admissibility
is determined at trial (see R. v. Finck, 2000). Further to this, defendants do not swear affidavits! Hence the right to remain
silent. What was Bryant up to?!? R. v. Connor (3rd party records) was critical to my defense and to protect my children. Accumulated
psychological abuse commenced at the time of conception to the period of ‘perceived danger of imminent harm’ -
imminent defined as being a future event from the time of ‘taking’ and or ‘detaining’. (see R. v.
Finck, 2000 & S. 285 ccc - the necessity defense). The ‘mistake of fact’, which also applies here, is an onus
only on the balance of probabilities. The files needed by the defense which Bryant refused to call were:
The fertility clinic at the University of Western Ontario: Craig allowed me to be subjected to ongoing, painful medical procedures. Craig and
I also entered into a written contract whereby any child born to me would be raised by us as husband and wife. When Craig
attended court unbeknownst to me, the written contract became void and I should have obtained all legal rights to my
children.
The ‘Triplet Trust Fund’ at Canada Trust: Who opened it? When? How much money was accumulated and where did it go? It was later learned the Craig’s lawyer,
David Barenberg, became the trustee of that account, which was an extreme conflict of interest. Full financial disclosure
is needed since a misappropriation of funds is highly suspected.
The law firm of Barenberg & MacDonald: Why did Barenberg meet with both Craig and me on December 14, 1995 while we were still married and then attend court
as Craig’s lawyer on December 20th? This was particularly unlawful, as was serving me with his own drafted legal documents
following our meeting in his office. In addition to this illegal goings on, the court hearing of December 20th, 1995 was
never recorded. This was the proceeding where I lost all legal rights to my children. No one from the family attended
and nor is there any record of what happened during that proceeding. This should have been a police matter as it translates
into theft of 3 children. It should also be noted that Craig and I purchased a family cottage on December 18, 1995, two days
before that fateful hearing. Craig later obtained all monies when that cottage was sold.
Stratford Regional Police Department: Sgt. John Wilson, head investigator of the original case became a henchman for Craig, Jan, Barenberg and the system
to further the protection, to hide family and criminal court corruption in and around my litigations. This included different
means used to discredit, humiliate, accost, and intimidate me and others who supported me. This amounts to psychological abuse
and quite possibly criminal behaviour.
Stratford Enforcement Office: There was no judge’s jurat (signature)
with the file containing all documents that affected the public auction/sale of my house on Hibernia Street. This equates
to a civil servant being responsible for that sale without any judicial intervention. Wow! Highly illegal. Craig’s lawyers
obtained all monies from this transaction.
Revenue Canada: How
can anyone receive unexplained bills/assessments for 10’s of thousands of dollars and be expected to pay? These bills
arrived at the time I was charged for ‘abducting’ my triplet children. Prior to that time, I owed no one, including
Revenue Canada. I was further denied the right to an appeal or any adjudication.
Double Jeopardy- Justice John Desotti
Bryant failed to argue miscarriage of justice when the family and criminal
court adjudicated the same subject, infringing on the presumption of innocence contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms,
the Canadian bill of rights and the Criminal Code of Canada. The identical situation occurred in Halifax and is currently
a ground of appeal.
Page 3 of the letter- re interviewing the children - No One owns a witness.
Bryant knows this. Justice Wein either assumes jurisdiction of the criminal proceedings or sends the subject matter to the
Family Court jurisdiction. See double jeopardy above.
Bryant’s suggestion of a ‘new issue’. Bryant can give no
explanation as to a ‘piece of correspondence’. Bryant’s attempt to present the necessity defense with an
agreed statement of facts was absurd. Larry and I have been requesting and were promised a conference call since Bryant took
the case. The major and most important issue was the children’s desire and need to be heard. (see the videotaped meeting
between the triplets and Stratford Children’s Aid caseworker on Sept. 8, 2003)
Bryant suggested that the jury might choose not to follow Justice Wein’s
instructions to the exact letter of the law. Larry and I wanted the jury to follow the judge’s instruction on the S285
ccc. ‘Necessity defense’ - to the psychological abuse I was protecting my children and myself from. Bryant wanted
to simply ‘throw in the towel’ rather than properly present exculpatory defenses. Bryant did not ‘ understand’
(intentionally?) that it was the Crown who had to prove my guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Why would Bryant assist the Crown
in this regard?
Page 4 - How can the Crown call expert witnesses as to the good health of
the children? Bryant knew or ought to have known that there is no evidence for the experts to address. Any expert involved
with the children would have stated the contrary.
Page 5 - Contrary to what Bryant may suggest, he was not aware of the reasons
for the dismissal of my lawyer Burnley (Rocky) Jones. Both Bryant and Jones took oaths when called to the bar, to protect
the administration of justice above all else including the interests of the clients.
Bryant’s letter to me of June 22, 2005
Page 1 There are no videolink facilities at Central Nova Scotia Correctional
Facility. Bryant knew this but knew services where/are available at Dalhousie as this was used on a previous occasion. Bryant
was untruthful about ‘ the phones’. In addition I received no transcripts of proceedings conducted in my absence,
save one. I have no idea how Bryant presented my case.
Page 2 - Endorsement of Wein J. June 22, 2005.
‘Mr. Finck is not a lawyer. In any event he could be a witness at trial’.
Larry did not know me until January 2003 and therefore there is no way he could or would have been considered a witness at
the re-trial.
Page 3 - ‘ Her (Wein’s) endorsement today prohibits you having
Larry in court to assist you but would not otherwise prohibit you from seeking his assistance...’ Bryant and Wein both
know this is nonsense. Larry and I were incarcerated in the same jail and were not allowed to speak to each other or prepare
for legal proceedings. It was (and is) impossible for Larry and I to converse with each other. It is evident Bryant used intimidation
respecting this issue and in regards to the remainder of his letter.
Carline’s letter to Bryant July 11,2005.
This letter is self explanatory. Larry and I attempted to circumvent another
‘fixed trial’ . The letter sheds light on the events that took place in Halifax. I had to be put away to protect
the system that had no intention of conducting a fair re-trial in Stratford. This explains why Larry and I were ‘ hunted’
and why little Mona-Clare was kidnapped. Two mothers met their death at the hands of corruption. The victims? The children
- Peter, Olivia, Gray, Chantelle and Mona-Clare. The system calls this collateral damage - the children suffering abuse to
vindicate a badly broken family law and child welfare industry in Canada. This bureaucracy and all the people who feed from
it have developed into an uncontrollable size. No one seems to know how to fix it and nor can the system afford to fix it.
As for Wein , Tony Bryant and Henry VanDrunen, their work speaks to their involvement.
Re: The Halifax Standoff
Despite tremendous and alarming negative media coverage, Larry and I are pleasantly
surprised at the wealth of support we received and continue to receive. It is comforting to know the increasing number of
those who have taken notice and appreciate what we continue to fight for. Larry and I are truly appreciative of the hard work
of our friends and supporters, who have gone out of their way to assist - they too must fear for our Canadian children. This
includes the psychological destruction at the hands of the child welfare authorities. Children and families are being destroyed
in family court. The family unit is in great peril. For society to flourish the family unit needs protection.
Imagine tearing a nursing infant from her mother’s breast because of
a possible future event and her parent’s political opinion.
As declared in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Rights of
the child, "Whereas mankind owes to the child the best it has to give.’ Is what happened to Mona-Clare the best Canada
had to offer this infant child or was this simply a crime against humanity?
Two favorite strategies the system employs in efforts to hide corruption:
1) government doctored and directed media
2) mental health issues
Government Doctored and Directed Media
With regards to the first, history dictates that the first step in establishing
a totalitarian regime is to control the media. Larry and I have had to endure gross slander, defamation, and libel for years.
Larry, in his fight to protect his daughter Chantelle was totally muzzled from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation - to
all media outlets. Pat Currie, a well respected member of the Canadian Press worked with Larry’s social worker. She
and Larry, feeling/believing they had to stop the criminal abuse of children by the legal profession, had four lawyers criminally
charged in London Ontario in 1998. Cover up reached the Privy Council of Canada. Mr. Currie was unsuccessful in having his
article (considered soft for Canadian standards) published. Not one paper would print the story, not even Frank. Larry and
I met at Mr. Currie’s home in London in January 2003. Several international outlets, initially looking promising decided
not to print: A & E in Chicago with executive director for Bill Kirtus, USA Today and several border city newspapers.
The Law Society of Upper Canada had to vigorously work to protect their liabilities.
In contrast, I had media coverage but it was brutally biased and libelous, which included the segment on America’s Most
Wanted. The CBC documentary, On the Run by Tom Murphy was protected from exposure by Justice Robert Wright and larry and Carline’s
recent trial in Halifax- to hide the violation of a court order (Publication ban on Mona-Clare’s identity). A beat reported
for the Chronicle Herald (Halifax) Susan Bradly testified she knew nothing of the child welfare authorities in Nova Scotia
losing their insurance yet this was one of the biggest stories in recent NS broadcasting and print. Lawyer controlled? There
have been independent reports- Stephen Kimber (Halifax Daily News) and Heather Laskey, however the vast majority of media
reports have been system-favoured conjecture.
My published treatise, America’s Most Wanted Mother was sabotaged by
the legal profession in efforts to hide the criminality in my case involving my triplet children.
Larry and Carline are painfully realizing, they cannot fight against the system
- they can’t defeat it, the people must, with the necessary assistance of the impartial media.
Mental Health Issues
This is another system tactic. Portray the victims as ‘crazy’,
‘off the wall’, ‘lunatic’ and on and on. The system must not have the truth revealed and truth seekers
will pay dearly for their efforts. Larry and I have had to deal with illegal assessment from unlicenced, uneducated assessors
dressed in judicial robes.
Essentially then, Larry and I have been victimized by Michael Baker,
Justice Minister from Nova Scotia, and his recruits, who took our baby, arrested us, assessed us, prosecuted us and jailed
us. Is this fundamental justice?
This is only a very brief synopsis of the tragedies inflicted upon Larry and
me. A public inquiry with a fair adjudication may be the only means to seek the truth. In a totalitarian state appointing
mostly political ‘bag’ men and women to the judicial bench makes it almost impossible to uncover the chain of
command.
Canada has now resorted to imprisoning parents who refuse to give their children
freely, who refuse to quit on their children or fight with everything they have (including primal instinct) to protect their
offspring.
My mother-in-law, Big Mona was also angry. She was awakened by a corrupt police,
‘thy sneaky thief cometh in the night to steal and kill ...’ who arrived with full armament to take her namesake
grandchild. Mona Mary Finck confronted a covert governmental operation with courage, heart, and Uncle Will’s rabbit
gun. Both Mona’s met their fate on May 21, 2004 - death for Big Mona and abusive foster care for Little Mona.
My heart weeps for my baby, for my mother-in-law, for my husband,
for my children and for Canada, which I am now too ashamed to call my country.
