Affidavit (p 3)
A court Affidavit typically has exhibits attached to corroborate and expand upon the points. When the Affidavit is published online, the full set of exhibits cannot be replicated, as some are lengthy.
That applies to the Affidavit printed here. Thus to aid clarity, some paragraphs have been amplified beyond the original by adding verbatim quotes from the exhibits. Main areas:
¶ 5Dr. Yelland's falsification of the end-date of doctor-patient contract. Complicit with his lawyer Hirschfeld, Yelland attempted an end-run around abuse complaint.
¶ 17DNA analysis from the RCMP Laboratory: the Y-chromosomes prove author of lifestyle letters was male.
¶ 28Dr. Yelland's chart: Breach of HIPA, and breach of the Medical Profession Bylaws. These actions, done with illogical haste, are evidence of mala fide agenda.
24. State of mind of Saskatoon Police Officer Sgt. James Bracken: At the Preliminary Inquiry, Sgt. Bracken admitted that after a nine-month investigation with no closure in sight, he became “desperate for any suspect.” Sgt. Bracken abandoned proper investigative procedure and succumbed to pressure from Dr. Yelland (Exhibit R).
25. When the lifestyle-letters were circulating, I was already happily established with a new GP named Dr. Barry Dick. We were occupied with two projects: (1) An Immunoglobulin (IVIG) treatment for Lupus, and (2) Realizing my long-held dream of moving out-of-province to access specialists having a volume of experience with my uncommon conditions. My residential move was imminent just as the charges were laid.
26. State of mind of Saskatoon GP Dr. Joel Yelland: He demonstrated unnatural possessiveness in an escalating pattern. From the start in 1998, Dr. Yelland obstructed my relationships with specialists whenever he learned that said relationship was productive. His method was to withhold my diagnostic reports from the specialist and to express corrosive rage. When I asked for my medical records, I saw the evidence for this in the chart. I decided to transfer my case to another GP, but Dr. Yelland obstructed my efforts there too:
It was my decision alone to terminate the doctor-patient contract with Dr. Yelland. It was not his decision, and it was not a joint decision. These events – obstruction of specialist referrals and boundary violations – will be covered in a separate Affidavit, as documentary proof is lengthy.
27. I verily believe that Dr. Yelland was driven by a similar irrational possessiveness in April of 2002, when I was poised to move out-of-province. Without just cause, and to meet a hidden agenda, Dr. Yelland laid criminal charges against me despite my innocence and my protestations of innocence. This kept me in Saskatoon and forced my continued interaction with this predator.
28. The state of mind of both principals found expression nine months into the police investigation, when two key events occurred in a single day:
Consent protocols were shunned. Dr. Yelland violated both the Medical Profession Act, and the Health Information Protection Act (HIPA), by freely distributing my personal medical records without my knowledge or consent. Sgt. Bracken had no authority to extract original pages from my chart without a court order or subpoena. Police never gave me the option of providing an alternate handwriting sample (with non-personal information). The illogical haste, and the mammoth breach of due process, defines a mala fide agenda.
29. The lifestyle-letters first landed on the police desk in July 2001. The investigation spanned nine months. During that period, Dr. Yelland conceded that he was in a financial and/or legal quagmire with a long list of people. The Muirhead Disclosure, along with Dr. Yelland's testimony at the February 23, 2005 Preliminary Inquiry, sets down the list of suspects that Dr. Yelland blamed, in sequence, for authoring the letters. These were:
30. Taking a broader perspective: There is a large pool of people with a motive to write the lifestyle-letters. In the Klassen decision, Judge Baynton observed that Dr. Yelland got between 200 to 400 child-abuse referrals from Social Services in a four-year period ending in 1991 (Exhibit T). The media dubbed that case the Saskatchewan Scandal of the Century. Despite Dr. Yelland's notoriety in that case, he continued to get abuse referrals at a steady pace.
[Note: I knew Dr. Joel Yelland as just another Saskatoon GP whom I consulted for care of my autoimmune diseases. With appalling negligence, the College of Physicians and Surgeons failed to warn the public about Yelland's dark interests. We knew nothing until autumn 2003 when the media covered Richard Klassen's malicious-prosecution trial in Q.B. Court. A year later, Dr. Yelland under cross-examination at my Preliminary Inquiry had no choice but to confirm his close orbit of the criminal world. See below.]
When Dr. Yelland took the witness stand at my own Preliminary Inquiry in November 2004, he said under oath that he “has testified in court at least one hundred times in child and sexual abuse cases, mostly for the prosecution.” (Exhibit B, pages 377-382). Beyond the twelve members of the Klassen and Kvello families, how many were wrongly accused by Dr. Yelland? How many innocent people have spent time in jail? How many families had their children taken away? Their motive would be poignant and furious.
Dr. Yelland scoops up virtually all of Saskatoon's child sexual abuse cases, which gives him professional isolation in the field – something no other MD would accept, in any specialty. The motive emerges upon weighing the pros and cons: Dr. Yelland has no one to talk shop with to keep his mind sharp; no one to discuss difficult cases with; no one to relieve him when he is ill or on holiday – and no one to scrutinize him. Dr. Yelland is the Saskatchewan equivalent of Dr. Charles Smith, the forensic pathologist from Ontario who was at first lionized and relied upon for rapid convictions; then shielded in the face of growing warning signs; then disgraced when chilling miscarriages of justice came to light.
31. In the Klassen case, Dr. Yelland's medical report leveled accusations of ‘satanic rituals’ such as ‘eating eyeballs, drinking blood, and killing babies for sacrifice.’ He examined a Ross girl and saw scars, but did not question the child, the birth parents, or the foster parents as to the cause. He never obtained the chart from the child's pediatrician. Instead, Dr. Yelland labeled the scars ‘knife cuts from satanic rituals.’ The real cause of the scars was a car accident.
Judge Baynton, in his landmark decision, impeached Dr. Yelland for ‘clouded judgment’ and ‘irrational thinking.’ Judge Baynton wrote: “The little confidence I had in Dr. Yelland's objectivity and professionalism left me when he unabashedly stated that he ‘believes the kids absolutely,’ and that he believes ritualistic abuse existed in the Klassen home because ‘the children's evidence is clear.’” To this day, Dr. Yelland shows no remorse (Exhibit T).
Judge Baynton made it clear that Dr. Yelland is of unsound mind. Dr. Yelland holds irrational beliefs; he is capable of shattering innocent lives in quantity and is therefore anti-social; and he has sufficient zeal and charisma to influence people in a position of power who then act on his beliefs. This certainly meets the profile for mania, which is the active phase of bipolar disorder (also called manic-depression). This profile was first described in the Klassen case. The ‘lifestyle letters’ merely echo that insight.
32. An astonishing number of websites exist, all independent of each other (and of me), which report Dr. Yelland's negligence, personality changes, and sexual misconduct. The following are just a few examples (Exhibit V):
33. At my Preliminary Inquiry, our lead investigator Sgt. Bracken testified for the Crown that the lifestyle-letters about Dr. Yelland were ‘reprehensible.’ Simultaneously in his own real life, Sgt. Bracken chose to journey down the same malevolent path as described in the letters. He is a child molester. Refer to R. v. Bracken 2005 SKPC in which Sgt. Bracken, a 29 year veteran of the police force, was arrested for grooming a vulnerable underage girl during 2004-2005. The girl had “enduring emotional scars from childhood sexual abuse, and was susceptible to influence.”
Only a predator would view that an an invitation. Sgt. Bracken did. Because this young girl had been abused before, he “viewed her as sexually available.” Sgt. Bracken pestered her with phone calls; he began “talking dirty”; he molested her; and he took it for granted she would travel with him to a nude spa in Jamaica “where women do anything to make men happy.” Sgt. Bracken was sentenced to nine months in jail, and he retired from the Saskatoon Police Service in disgrace (Exhibit W). This is the character of the police officer who linked himself up with Dr. Yelland.
34. I verily believe that the following quote from the law book Stalkers and Their Victims does provide valuable insight into Dr. Yelland's mala fide and possessive conduct, which began with obstruction of my specialist referrals, which escalated to sexual harassment when I tried to locate a new GP, and which ended with criminal charges against me to prevent me from leaving Saskatoon. The excerpt (Exhibit X) explains:
“The perplexing and occasionally bizarre role reversal whereby the individual claiming to be the victim is in actual fact the stalker can arise in a variety of psychopathological contexts. The shame and humiliation experienced by certain narcissistic individuals in response to the termination of a relationship can provoke intense rage and retaliatory action in the form of false accusations and lawsuits in which the true victim is claimed to be behaving in the manner which has characterized their accuser.
“The stalker who accuses his victim of harassment may succeed in obtaining a restraining order. Regrettably, this manipulation of the legal system all too often achieves its aim by bringing together both parties in the courtroom, further traumatizing the actual victim, and gratifying the actual stalker's wish for revenge and/or contact with the object of his preoccupations.
“There are several broad contexts in which false claims of being stalked may emerge. In one, the stalker preempts his victim's complaints by accusing the object of his unwanted attentions of being the initiator of the communications and approaches.”
I write this Affidavit solemnly believing it to be true and knowing that it has the same and full force and effect as given under the Canada Evidence Act and the Saskatchewan Evidence Act.
Tuum Est - It Is Up To You
In court, you will hear the word exhibit used in three distinct ways:
Police Exhibits – documents or physical items of evidence gathered by police, which combine to form the res gestae of a case. They are numbered Exhibit 1, Exhibit 2 …
Affidavit Exhibits – documents attached to an Affidavit which authenticate and enlarge upon the points. Each document is notarized with a stamp specifying Exhibit A, Exhibit B …
Court Exhibits – documents or physical items filed as evidence when court convenes during a Preliminary Hearing, Trial, or Tribunal. There is both Prosecution evidence (P-1, P-2 … ) and Defence evidence (D-1, D-2 … )
Copyright © 2008-2019 Georgena Sil. All Rights Reserved.