Statement of Claim
When weighing a recent case, jurors posed a question to the judge: Can you stalk a person through a third party?
Yes, said the Washington State Judge. While the stalking law does not explicitly refer to harassment through third parties, it's broad enough to include that.
Events: Mary McGee left her boyfriend Andre Becklin. In revenge he stalked her and forced his way into her home. McGee got a protection order. According to police, Becklin then got sly, recruiting his friends to stalk her while he hid in the background. Becklin was arrested for violating the restraining order.
Trial: McGee testified that Becklin's friends drove his car past her house, circling the block repeatedly. One friend trailed her around town. Two others filled out written reports for Becklin, detailing her daily life.
Arguments: The defence attorney declared: “Becklin never personally stalked McGee.” The prosecutor said: “Becklin was guilty of enlisting others to do his own dirty work.”
Ruling: The crime of stalking can be accomplished through a third person. If you recruit a third party to intimidate someone, it's still stalking. The term is stalking by proxy.
Becklin was convicted and sentenced to one year in jail. He paid $40,000 in legal costs and lost his right to vote.
15. Over time, the Plaintiff experienced several incidents which cast doubt on the competence of the Defendant YELLAND. The problems were always medically-based and included YELLAND’S obstruction of specialist referrals; his push (twice) for unnecessary gallbladder surgery (which SIL declined); his lack of expertise with the Lupus variant having low-Gamma and low-IgG; and YELLAND’S growing vagueness in general. The Plaintiff SIL coped by educating herself about her conditions and becoming more pro-active in her own care.
16. In September 1999, the Plaintiff SIL had a bone biopsy which resulted in the long-term disabling complication Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy. RSD is uncommon, with little expertise available locally. After a year the Plaintiff asked to see rheumatologist Dr. Milton Baker in Victoria B.C. whom she had consulted previously for her Lupus with good results. To prepare for the new referral, the Plaintiff required documentation of her RSD, to record its progression through stages. But when she requested a two-page RSD Summary from YELLAND, he became hostile and belligerent, and set an exorbitant price which he knew SIL could not pay on her disability pension.
17. The Plaintiff's struggle to obtain that RSD Summary was the precipitating event which caused her to terminate the doctor-patient contract with the Defendant YELLAND. But the Plaintiff had to try three times over ten months before she was able to transfer her case to a new family doctor. The Plaintiff first saw a new GP in August 2000, whereupon the Defendant YELLAND, in spite of his outward words, used misinformation and financial hurdles to yank the case back. The Plaintiff tried again in March 2001, whereupon the Defendant YELLAND initiated a brand-new and repugnant tactic of sexual harassment to intimidate SIL and discourage other physicians from wanting the case. The Plaintiff finally established herself with a new GP in June 2001.
18. Up to age thirty, when the Plaintiff was healthy, she was a studious and bookish person, and had zero encounters with sexual abuse despite working in the male-dominated field of physics and engineering. From age thirty to fifty, the Plaintiff dealt intensively with the medical community, and reports only two minor incidents of sexual harassment; this is a good record considering the power imbalance between doctor and patient. Whenever SIL consulted the Defendant YELLAND, the content was technical, focused on treatment of her diseases. In his court testimony, YELLAND confirmed that: “No lifestyles were ever discussed: Not his, not hers, not anyone's.”
Yelland Admitted in Court:
“Medical appointments with Georgena Sil were wholly and entirely technical. No lifestyles were ever discussed: Not his, not hers, not anyone’s.”
19. Currently the Plaintiff SIL is in a wheelchair, and copes with massive pain and profound fatigue. Her daily life is an endurance contest. After Guillain-Barre onset in 1989, her romantic life (and much of her social life) was put up on a shelf, where it stays. Any physician would expect horizons to shrink back in a patient with multiple diseases. When YELLAND embarked on his sexual harassment campaign, his trigger was vulnerability (not glamour).
20. Between March 2001 and May 2002 (when the legal case began), the Defendant YELLAND subjected the Plaintiff SIL to four distinct incidents of sexual abuse including sleazy language, lewd gestures, and sexual touching. YELLAND’S modus operandi was to incite the abuse through other people by telling all and sundry that SIL “liked and enjoyed” ribald behavior. Initially the Plaintiff traced just one incident to YELLAND. The rest appeared senseless. In November 2001, the Plaintiff surmounted several obstacles to obtain her Clinical Notes from Dr. Yelland, which held unexpected evidence linking the Defendant to all the abuse incidents. The Plaintiff discovered the connection long after the Yelland lifestyle letters were in circulation.
21. After the legal case began, the Plaintiff SIL reported her experience of Dr. Yelland in a ten-page document titled Georgena Sil: History/Affidavit (dated June 1 & 3, 2002). A wealth of substantiating exhibits were attached. The Plaintiff wrote this to begin her defence. On June 5, 2002 she delivered identical copies to the Saskatoon Police, to the Head Prosecutor Fred Dehm, and to Legal-Aid. The false Breach of Undertaking charges were retribution for this Affidavit, as shown by BRACKEN’S Occurrence Reports and by YELLAND’S letter to the Police Service dated June 6, 2002.
22. From June 30 to July 3, 2002 the Plaintiff was a patient at Royal University Hospital. In a police Occurrence Report, BRACKEN grossly distorted her hospital stay. In fact:
23. Further, the Defendants YELLAND and BRACKEN jointly misused their authority to paste the label of “erotomania” onto the Plaintiff. This repugnant term appears in a fraudulent Discharge Summary purportedly written by a physician named “J. McBain.” However, no such physician exists. The name McBain is not listed in the Canadian Medical Directory for the year 2002 or any other year; the name McBain is absent from the Billing Statement; the Plaintiff had no consult or communication with a person named McBain; and the date on the Discharge Summary is several days after the Plaintiff's true discharge date. Note: The remainder of the hospital chart offers abundant evidence that the Defendants YELLAND and BRACKEN jointly instigated this Discharge Summary.
24. After the legal case began, the sexual harassment toward the Plaintiff did not abate; instead it escalated. Any victim reports abuse in order to stop it, not to see it perpetuate. However, the Defendant BRACKEN ridiculed SIL’S complaint of sexual abuse and treated it as “open season” and an “invitation.” This is the philosophy which prompted BRACKEN to molest a vulnerable underage girl in 2005, for which he spent nine months in jail. Refer to the case R. v. Bracken, 2005, SKPC 64 (CanLII).
25. The police officer BRACKEN (but not the physician YELLAND) embarked on a long campaign to falsely deny the Plaintiff's physical health conditions, despite formal verification of SIL’S medical records and despite Dr. Yelland's extensive testimony in Court. BRACKEN denied the physical diagnoses which the Plaintiff did have, and substituted defamatory “diagnoses” which the Plaintiff did not have. BRACKEN did so frequently, until he influenced the Crown Prosecutor, the attorney who represented SIL, and the Care Homes in which SIL resided. BRACKEN’S intent was to disadvantage SIL during the legal proceedings, to cover up the fact that he falsified evidence in regard to both Informations.
26. In July 2002 the Plaintiff took residence in her first Personal Care Home. Over the next year, she repeatedly was forced to move, and now occupies her fourth Care Home. A great deal of disruption, discord, and finally a move was engendered when the Defendant BRACKEN systematically misled the owner/staff about the Plaintiff's health status.
27. In April 2002, the Plaintiff was poised to move out of province to Toronto, to access specialists with a volume of experience in her uncommon diseases, particularly RSD. Due to the legal case, the Plaintiff has been denied this major resource for the prior five years.
28. The Plaintiff SIL therefore claims against the Defendant BRACKEN and the Defendant YELLAND the following relief:
DATED at Saskatoon, in the Province of Saskatchewan, this 3rd day of July, 2007.
|SWORN BEFORE ME at the City||)||______________________|
|of Saskatoon, in the Province of||)||Georgena Sarah Sil|
|Saskatchewan, this 3rd day of||)|
|July , A.D. 2007 .||)|
|A COMMISSIONER FOR OATHS IN AND FOR|
|THE PROVINCE OF SASKATCHEWAN|
Tuum Est - It Is Up To You
The process of healing also needs to include the pursuit of truth, not for the sake of opening old wounds, but rather as a necessary means of promoting justice, healing and unity.
Pope Francis (Jorge Mario Bergoglio)
Speech, Sri Lanka, 2015
Copyright © 2008-2019 Georgena Sil. All Rights Reserved.