the continuing story of SCBC No. S168471

No. S168471Dr. Malcolm Rondeau demands
further and better particulars of the following :

1. With respect to paragraph 8 of Part 1 of the notice of civil claim,

            That section is explaining the conditions I was going to see the doctor about.
Those are the pre-existing conditions I was seeking treatment for.

2. —
3. provide particulars of

the “Libel of schizo-affective disorder” you have alleged, specifically of all matters
related to the publication, including, but not limited to, the following:

1. The exact words you allege were defamatory of you;

Schizo – Affective
Delusional

1. The alleged defamatory meaning of those words;

Schizo – Affective is not fully accepted by the DSM-4, which is the current standard of psychological definition. It is purposefully not included because of its diagnostic basis which is simply observation and personal description making it a subjective not empirical diagnosis which has the ability to be misused by unscrupulous physicians to commit malice, defamation, or actual crimes against patients. Delusional/Schizotypical diagnosis requires multiple observers in a group assessment setting and still maintains procedural errors based on cultural biases of the participants and possible  communication errors based on social differences between the participants.
Dr. Rondeau is not a psychologist, he is a general practitioner. He is not qualified to make that assumption or diagnosis. Especially using that particular disorder which is specifically in dispute by the psychological profession because of its historical misuse.
He saw me at least 6 times possibly as many as 20. We should determine this. He never saw me for more than 15 minutes and we never discussed anything other than physical health concerns. There was no proper assessment of mental health. I didn’t go there for that.
The Plaintiff claims a Statement of Fact that the Dr. wrote delusional and schizo affective on his notes because of the Plaintiff’s assertion that he was born with congenital intersexuality that is a common family trait. The only way to assess some forms of intersexuality is with ultrasound or CT scanning. No assessment of any kind was given regarding intersexuality the doctor simply giggled and wrote his libelous notes and then had his assistant place them in the medical records and communication system shared by all doctors.

1. Whether the alleged defamatory meaning is the natural and ordinary meaning of the words, or whether there is an inferential meaning;

                         There is additional inferential meaning to to the terms.
They suggest “crazy”/”unreliable thinking”/”cognitive malfunctioning”/etc.

1. Who the recipients of the allegedly defamatory words were;

Other Physicians, Lawyers, Judges, possible employers, employees of the MHSD and social services, and disability plan employees.

1. What the circumstances of the publication of the allegedly defamatory words were, including, but not limited to, the following;

            (i) Whether the allegedly defamatory words were oral or in writing;
            They were in writing but possibly oral as well as other physicians or MHSD employees, etc. might have called the Dr. and received oral misinformation or libel about the client. The phone records were requested, I may request more.
(ii) The date and time of the publication of the words; and
I have to find the document you sent to me with the doctors notes. It is dated. It was obviously during the short period I was his patient.
            (iii) The occasion on which the words were published (i.e. were they published in a police report? in a medical record to be reviewed by other physicians?).
A medical record to be reviewed by other physicians,judges, police, etc.

2. With respect to paragraph 13 of Part 1 of the notice of civil claim… provide particulars of the injuries you say were caused by the alleged negligence or other conduct of Dr. Rondeau.
   Again, these were pre-existing conditions. Dr. Rondeau’s Negligence and libel caused them to exacerbated and the period before their treatment was elongated by several years. Each of those conditions was affecting my life already and they not treated or even properly assessed by Dr. Rondeau.
   I was already in daily pain and in extreme distress living outside, by committing this Assault/Battery, Libel and Negligence Dr. Rondeau caused me to fear other physicians, and rightfully so, as even today we can see in the documents you retrieved from Dr. Szewchuk for us that I was FORCED to accept a mental health designation in the MHSD application process because at the very first interview with her she approaches the client interview with documentation stating “delusion and persecutory beliefs”.
   So beginning each patient – doctor interview, for the last several years, with EVERY DOCTOR, I am faced with this BIAS which colors the diagnostic process, and I find that I am receiving more libel from other physicians as a result of an INTENTIONAL libel committed by Dr. Rondeau.

3. With respect to paragraph 1 of Part 2 of the notice of civil claim, wherein you advise you

are seeking “$300,000-$750,000 in compensation for the damages incurred by these
actionable causes”, provide particulars of the alleged damages sustained, including, but
not limited to, the following:

1. Whether you are pursuing a claim for general damages (pain and suffering);

Yes, I am. Daily pain and suffering. For years. Excruciating pain. With every step.

1. Whether you are pursuing a claim for lost wages;

There are economic costs. I was on simple Welfare at the time, having the Disability form correctly filled would have given me approx. $400 more in subsistence allowance and $400 more for what I could approach a landlord with for rent. By causing every doctor after the defendant to approach me as delusional I  found it impossible to get my MHSD form filled out by anyone else.
There are other benefits as well that I was entitled too such as $2000 .per year more for dental, various educational or devvelopment or career development allowances, etc.
I’m sure we can calculate it and it will reach about $40k over almost 10 years.

1. Whether you are pursuing a claim for past medical care;

Yes. None of the conditions I went to Dr. Rondeau for has been acceptaably solved at this time because every physician after Dr. Rondeau has treated me as if I had a cognitive malfunction. Which I don’t.

1. Whether you are pursuing a claim for future care costs;
   Not necessarily but I reserve the right to alter my opinion later.
2. Whether you are pursuing a claim for any expenses you have incurred; and
   I think you should pay me $500 per time I walked to court, which was 6 times so far.
3. Whether you are pursuing a claim for any other type of damages.

The federal supreme court has already stated that in cases of sexual assault damages are to be assumed.
I will at some point further on discuss the matter with some form of counsel that will help me expand this I am sure.
I do intend to push forward The Tort of Conspiracy and will provide evidence of the Dr.’s family involvement with the Masonic Lodge System of British Columbia and also provide evidence of their specific cult beliefs regarding persons with intersexuality. I do not know what damages in such a matter come to. I brought this requested material up at the case planning conference before Master Scarth and it was summarily refused without explanation. However, this request WAS presented in concise detail to Justice Warren previously and although she did not write an order she verbally instructed Ms. Barnum to produce the requested material and Ms. Barnum verbally gave her acknowledgement of the request from the Court. I will ask for this transcription immediately.
I assert Malice and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, and these factors along with the Sexual Assault/Battery are Aggravated by the Doctor’s position as a Fiduciary Agent (for the MHSD) and the damages to be calculated are further aggravated by the destitute state and homelessness of the plaintiff at the time (as well as extreme winter conditions).

In addition, this could have been resolved in the lower court, and so I would ask for that to be considered by the court, as the Perjury of your client and staff in asserting non service, when in fact the notice of claim was personally served by myself, caused this matter to take far longer and use much more resources than it should have.

I can continue in this regard but this I believe this is what you requested and you will have an expanded and revised claim later.
I don not think it is useful for me to place amounts on these damages, as such things already have established precedent and with such precedent are current valuations in damage calculation.
This should give you enough clarification and understanding of what I am seeking for you to come to approximate calculations yourself.

Attn: Jonathan D. Meadows, JoAnne Barnum,