Roadkill Radio.com

NEWS RELEASE – February 23, 2009

New trial is being sought in Simpson-Mair defamation case

Opinion poll – 80% say Judge was either biased or appeared to be in a conflict of interest

VANCOUVER - Social policy activist Kari Simpson today released details of her request that the trial of her defamation lawsuit against broadcaster Rafe Mair be voided (i.e. have the decisions set aside and the process begun anew) and furthermore that an independent inquiry be appointed into how the judicial system allowed the apparent misconduct of the judge appointed to hear the original case.

Simpson announced she soon will be asking the B.C. Court of Appeal to void the outcome of Simpson v. Mair et al, a case that began in October 2003 in B.C. Supreme Court before Madam Justice Mary Marvyn Koenigsberg. It involved complaints that Mair in a series of comments and editorials on CKNW and elsewhere had falsely and maliciously slandered and defamed Simpson, but at the same time the Judge's spouse and in some aspects the Judge herself were defendants in a somewhat similar defamation case. Justice Koenigsberg's decision favoured Mair et al but was overturned by the B.C. Court of Appeal (2006) then the defendants' appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was successful (2008).

Simpson says that at the time of the original trial she was unaware of Justice Koenigsberg's apparent bias and conflict of interest. "There is little doubt that my right as a Canadian citizen to a fair trial has been seriously violated in this case," said Simpson, explaining that the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision somewhat enlarged the definition of free speech but still indicated that for comments to be considered fair they must still be truthful and in Mair's case many of his claims are provably false.

"I am both appalled and alarmed by what I have recently learned about the conduct of Justice Koenigsberg and her spouse Mr. Lubomyr Prytulak but I am also disturbed by how our justice system has let all this happen," said Simpson, promising to pursue her own case until her name is cleared but also to participate in wider concerns about the efficacy and integrity of the court systems in B.C.

Mr. Prytulak is a described holocaust denier and a contributor to websites that feature anti-Jewish rants, and Justice Koenigsberg admits in court documents to financially supporting him so he can “pursue his non-remunerative endeavours.” Court documents state that a million-dollar-plus case filed in January 2003 against Justice Koenigsberg’s spouse included charges of defamation, religious intolerance, hatred, ridicule, scorn, embarrassment and humiliation, several of which allegations were also at issue in Simpson v. Mair et al. A second lawsuit against Mr. Prytulak citing the same facts was filed by a California lawyer named Gary Kurtz.

Then to make matters worse in November 2003 the Canadian Human Rights Commission advanced a complaint against Justice Koenigsberg’s spouse at the same time she was sitting on the Simpson v. Mair trial. The Canadian Human Rights Commission states the charges as "…communicating or causing to be communicated material which is likely to expose persons to hatred or contempt based on grounds of religion and national or ethnic origin."

In order to assess whether the public would approve or disapprove of the judge's conduct, Simpson revealed the results of a public opinion poll she commissioned which in a series of questions about real and hypothetical cases of judicial bias clearly and overwhelmingly found that there would be a high disapproval of a judge with Koenigsberg's conflicts of interest continuing to sit on such a case and that by doing so she was either biased or at least appeared to be biased.

The public opinion poll commissioned by Ms. Simpson was done by long-time professional pollster Glen Robbins of Robbins Sce Research. The poll took place in recent weeks and asked 400 people five questions concerning the conduct of judges, with the fourth question generally describing but not identifying the circumstances involving Justice Koenigsberg:

Question#4-

A judge’s spouse is sued in court for telling lies about a prominent public person and is found guilty. Hate and the extreme political leanings of the judge’s spouse are factors in the case. At the same time the Judge is assigned to a case involving hate and other similar facts. What is the right thing for this judge to do?

1. Refuse the case because the judge would be biased - 31.27%

2. Refuse the case because the judge could be perceived as being biased - 48.11%

3. Stay on the case - 10.90%

4. Undecided - 9% (Rounded)

Those and other questions concerning the “bias of judges” or the “appearance of bias” led pollster Glen Robbins to conclude “The public not only expects but demands that judges are not to be biased and do not appear to be biased either.”

Simpson also revealed she has already written to B.C. Attorney General Wally Oppal demanding that he use his statutory powers to request an inquiry into the conduct of Madam Justice Koenigsberg for failing to recuse (remove) herself from the Simpson v. Mair trial and for other conduct that further brings the administration of justice into disrepute, notably an apparently fraudulent conveyance of property in order to evade a judgment against her spouse by a California court, and of questions about how judges are appointed to hear various types of cases in B.C.

In her demand letter to Attorney General Oppal, Ms. Simpson wrote:

Therefore, I am writing to you to request that as Attorney General for the Province of British Columbia you request forthwith a full inquiry into the conduct of Justice Mary Marvyn Koenigsberg by the Canadian Judicial Council.

Specifically:

1. For bias or the appearance of bias in Simpson v Mair & WIC Radio.

2. For conflict of interests or the appearance of conflicts of interests in Simpson v. Mair & WIC Radio.

3. For failing to recuse herself in Simpson v Mair & WIC Radio

4. To determine the knowledge of Chief Justice Donald Brenner about the activities of Justice Koenigsberg’s spouse - Lubomyr Prytulak - activities that included allegations of hate, religious intolerance, libel and defamation etc. at the same time she was assigned to my case involving very similar accusations (albeit in my case false ones against me).

5. To answer a further question about why the Chief Justice failed to inform my counsel and the defendant’s counsel about the apparent or real biases and conflicts that could arise as a result of Justice Koenigsberg’s personal affiliations and problems. The documents prove that he had fulsome knowledge in 2004 about Justice Koenigsberg’s situation involving Mr. Prytulak and all that flows from this scandal.

6. The allegations of fraudulent conveyance against Justice Koenigsberg.

7. The involvement and conducts of Chief Justice Brenner as it relates to the Kurtz v. Koenigsberg et al matter.

8. Any and all other matters that will no doubt arise when you request an inquiry by the Canadian Judicial Council, including but not limited to her handling of certain other high-profile cases. That is, was there any pattern in the cases she was assigned to handle, and/or any pattern in the decisions she made, which may bring into question the integrity of the justice system?

Simpson has also written to the Chief Justice of the B.C. Supreme Court, Chief Justice Donald Brenner, and requesting information about his knowledge of Justice Koenigsberg’s personal problems at the time she was assigned to her case. Simpson acknowledges that there are serious implications for him as well because he presided over the case involving Justice Koenigsberg and the allegedly fraudulent conveyance of their property into her name alone.

In her recent letter to Justice Brenner, Simpson included these questions:

Then there is the serious matter of fraudulent conveyance. Why one month after a California court awards a large monetary award to the lawyer defamed by Justice Koenigsberg’s spouse does she transfer a house she jointly owns with Mr. Prytulak into her name solely? Any common read of the Fraudulent Conveyance Act will prove that this transaction was highly suspicious if not illegal and Justice Koenigsberg was doing all this just six weeks before she delivered the decision in my case. Is this judge fit to sit upon the Bench?

"Much critical evidence was kept out of the trial by the judge's failure to follow the rules. These rules required the production of the true facts and prove many of Mr. Mair's key claims and defamations were not only unfair but false and that is just one example of a fundamental injustice that now needs to be redressed with a new trial before an independent judge," said Simpson.

There is no doubt that Kari Simpson will be seeking to have the trial voided by the B.C. Court of Appeal. Concerning her quest for justice and whether she trusts the Courts Simpson states:

I must admit these revelations about Justice Koenigsberg and Chief Justice Brenner are most troubling and certainly bolster the critics claim’s that the problems within our justice system are extensive. It also explains much about the Justice Koenigsberg’s decision in my case, her agenda now easily mapped out; her destination had little to do with truth. This case provides an opportunity for those entrusted to safeguard the integrity of our justice system, our Attorney General - Wally Oppal for one, to prove to British Columbians that there is no tolerance in matters of judicial impropriety or even the appearance of wrong-doing. Do I trust the courts? Hmm, let’s just say the jury is out for now.

Also included with this release:

Ø Request Letter to Chief Justice Brenner for information concerning knowledge of Justice Koenigsberg’s personal problems

Ø Demand Letter to The Hon. Wally Oppal for an Inquiry by the Canadian Judicial Council

Ø Glen Robbins Sce Research POLL

Ø Comparative Timeline between the two defamation suits Justice Koenigsberg was involved with.

Ø Case Backgrounder