Just Business the Book

The Final Words

2011-07-14T16:47:00.001-04:00

The Final Words
July 14, 2011
Don MacAlpine.... this blog prints out to about 5 pages and takes at least 10 minutes to read... it is meant as a lead-in/review of the more important blog that follows....

No. I am not disappearing. No. This book, Just Business, is not going away. However, I do know that it will take until October 1 to have the second edition ready. So, as suggested, I am sliding away from this “blogging” to concentrate on smashing these blogs and the relevant parts at the http://TakeBackDemocracy.ca ( ) pages down into a book that will be more in the size that our supposedly time-strapped citizens would be prone to pick up.

As one “Time Management” trainer told me in one course that I took, it is never that we do not have enough time for any one thing on “our lists”. We simply choose to make it a lower priority.

So, some things for the citizenry to chew on before I get to some final observations relevant to my July 11 “blog”, Democracy Ain’t Sexy.
"A Nanaimo BC citizen" received my book this spring. We carry some common concerns. We correspond regularly. So, in the emails that flew off about the last blog below, this observation came back.

“... Don: Your recent content has reminded me of an observation that Bob Hansen ... and a guest made during an on air interview -- to paraphrase (with editorial license): that the reason why the more oppressive governments are finding it hard to keep the lid on ‘their’ citizenry is because they, as a matter of daily life, insist on keeping the lid on life secured too tightly, while, conversely, the West's more ‘liberal’ “democracies” don't sweat the little things, and in that way giving vent to life's daily irritations amongst 'their’ citizenry... and in that way letting the steam escape that would otherwise threaten the stability of the world’s more enlightened nations. [The original (commentary) being more concise and every bit as explicit in its revelation.]

Similarly, a usenet commentary I once read, posted by one (Romanian? Yugoslav?) who, unlike many of his relatives, survived the NAZI occupation of eastern Europe -- that unlike the iron boot that was felt elsewhere in Europe during the height of the German Empire's mid-twentieth century Adventure, life in Berlin remained quite pleasant almost up until the time of the regime's collapse.

So, as long as we are free to drink beer at our favourite sporting spectacle, vent in the streets afterwards, or seek the visitation of vigilante retributions upon those who vent in the streets, life is good in the west??? As it is when we're invited to pee in our panties at the thought of catching a glimpse of a royal parasite or two? The Babble Machinery. ...”.

When I asked my friend to allow me to post this as a public comment at the Just Business book site (it will be under book/blog reviews, eventually), he did say that he had not written it carefully for public consumption. He did suggest “... “Babble Machinery” will need a pointer to H.G. Wells' short story, When the Sleeper Wakes ...” and added these thoughts: “... It would be nice, as well, if Bob could ID the who, when and where of his interview. Much more eloquent in its concise act of discovery.

And after sending I had the thought that I should have added ... a pointer to that bit in the Declaration of Independence where Jefferson observed that people will endure tyranny so long as they are able. Again, much more eloquent in the original. ...”.

I would also add that Canada is not to the state of the European nations, whose resources have been ravaged again and again. The United States of America, with its population ten times Canada’s, is. It made the stupid move of arrogant ignorance of that reality that Great Britain forgot as colonies suddenly awakened to the fact that Great Britain could be starved if it was stood up against. That is mostly why “democracy” became a negotiated thing in my nation Canada.

Awakening one person at a time until we reach 12,000 plus?

My friend had responded to an email fired off on July 13 to the Federal Minister of Justice and his provincial counterparts. Yes, we can always construct things better if we “have the time”. I do have other things in my life also, so I am not going to reword this until it becomes part of the book, Democracy Isn’t Sexy, if it does. I had said this in that email:

“... Amazing. Glass smashes after a night of hockey violence, and 12,000 respond via this new "social media".

Canada's institutions of democracy are taken over by people who act like the Brown Shirts who so rapidly infiltrated supposed institutions of policing and justice. We forget that smashing glass led to first, the suppression of voice and then the open murder of any who opposed the partisans in institutions of governance, justice and policing.

So, this is an invitation.

I delivered the following letter to the town council that contains this invitation now being extended to anyone with the resources to be crossing Canada or the gumption to get out of their big city radio booths (yes, those elitists radio hosts of our national media, this is a dig at you, CBC). MEDIA: Make appointments via email, if you really want to talk.

Drop in before the leaves fall and the credibility of democracy in my nation falls even further.

Just because many of you did not hear the "smashing glass" of injustice that I, and others, like Barry Hennessey's Alberta family and Diane, of southern Ontario, and too many others, have experienced does not mean that you should not awaken.

I trust, therefore, that I will be overwhelmed by concerned citizens who want to take time to talk about why we should be concerned and what we can indeed do to change this nation back to what we were legally promised it would be.

In 1948. Again in 1982. And then in the assurance that our Criminal Code of 1989 would indeed protect us all from the abuse of power and privilege gained via our vote.

Those legal obligations have been removed by the Brown Shirts of the new allegiances under modern names that have taken over our Parliaments, courts and policing institutions.

No. We should not be waiting for the smashing glass. As Brigitte DePape urged, it is time for change through a peaceful but law enforced revolution that yanks the unlawful from their positions that they illegally gained through the abuse of our vote.

It is in our power to end the silence to all of this before the smashing glass appears around all of us.

I trust that many will do what they can by sending friends and family to my final blog, which will face stark revision so that the citizens will have a book of essays for the record... and in the hope that we end all of this before we are to the state of Libya and Egypt.

I momentarily watched CTV news last night and the newest news that stock markets plunged again. Our world reels from the dishonesty in governance and the governance of our daily business. It is in our power to end this by standing up against it. One by one. To 12,000 and beyond... ...”.

So, yes, eventually, I will get to the invitation sent to citizens across this nation. However, first I want to urge you all to read the blog, Democracy Ain’t Sexy that follows below. If 55 pages of reading daunts you, think about what another newly acquired friend had to say as she broke away from it to entertain friends in her home. Now retired from the Toronto teaching profession, she has written her own book on the vulgarities she encountered in Toronto schools. We are exchanging books to exchange ideas and concerns. That is democracy.

She wrote, yesterday, “... I have been reading your essay “Democracy Aint Sexy”. It is extremely interesting and a very good read. Your thoughts seem to flow so fast that I wonder if you are able to keep up. I cannot complete the reading now as I have to pick up a friend .... I am having her and her husband for lunch. ...”.

Making time, she wrote back later in the day, “... I just finished reading your essay. It was greatly informative and an eye opener. I can feel your frustration, passion and anger. Your aim and desire to change the legal and political systems in our country is exemplary. You are courageous and persistent. You are the Michael Moore of Canada.

There are two things that can happen to you. One, you become famous, rich and successful and the second that you get burnt out. Don't let the second happen to you. But one thing is sure, you have made people think, question and ponder. Change will come in small doses, but it will. ...”.

These are encouraging words although I hope that I never attain the girth of Michael Moore. Ironically, Moore was one American whom I sent a batch of materials off to in the days when such “men of stature” were brave enough to post their contact information on the internet. That was in the era when his “Bowling for Columbine” gained fame. I was just into my trench warfare against corrupting lawyers and politicians when I watched this movie.

Moore, we all know, seems to thrive on momentary notoriety and then disappears to whom knows where. I simply want change, and justice, not to become rich and famous.
As my Toronto friend says, I do have faith that we can and will get there. I keep promising that I will post the “how’s” at my TakeBackDemocray.ca page. I make point summary hints at the end of the Democracy Ain’t Sexy blog. I trust that the citizens will have the patience that I have been forced to have for a decade now.

However, before I get to the warning/invitation sent to my town’s fathers, something that will be added to the final essay that comes out of the Democracy Ain’t Sexy blog.

“... I live in a small town in a province of Ontario in a nation called Canada. There is another small town in Ontario that is called Orillia. Ironically, it is also where the headquarters for Ontario’s top cops are.

The town has some reluctant history of its own. A writer, who gained some national fame for his satire, lampooned the citizens of that fair town. I had to read some of his essays when I went to high school.

The humour was deprecating. The small town, of that day, citizens were offended. While citizens like I would never know who the characters were based on, many in the town screamed foul when Stephen Leacock clearly wrote about them.

Now the town holds a festival. There was at one time a special award, with some monetary value assigned to it, handed out in Leacock’s name, also.

Aw, that the critical essay gained as much allegiance as the use of humour! As two more friends said, even in commentary to my correspondence responded to by those “two others”, it is often posthumous recognition that gains authors and artists glory. I am not gunning for fame or glory. I am simply seeking justice.

But, on July 13, my hope has sagged.

Ryan’s eager pounding had quietened for a couple of days. On this unluckily numbered day, to some, a “young lad” who is now getting bald appears. Sean was a kid when I signed his name up on hockey registration sheets. In the days before I resigned from small town hockey and its condoned violence, I knew this kid. He is now working as a contractor. He is making good taxed money off of Ryan’s endeavours.

I am saddened because, in his absence, I have returned to Ryan’s lot and taken more pictures. After all, there had been some more noise as the Clearwater/Kovacs’ machine disappeared. There had been more pushing and shoving and more material dumped into the ravine I have already talked about in “that blog”. I simply took the pictures to add them to my pictorial records before Sean returned.

Small town arrogance breeds small town stupidity.

There is a heating and plumbing man in town with the last name of Mahoney. Behind his back, I have heard him called “Phoney Mahoney”. That nickname I have never figured out. Maybe it is because he now walks around with one of those mobile phones strapped or glued to his head. Or maybe it is because others call him “Baloney Mahoney” that the phoney implication is made.

I only know that once I had to battle him on town council. He was a citizen member of the public works’ committee. He had been doing some work which he claimed was the fault of the town. He began to enter the debate in a matter where he would end up having a vote on the resolution that might be had. I simply pointed out that we already had the facts of the case before us. It appeared to me, I dared to venture, that he was trying to add additional influence to the debate that was to result in a vote.

He exploded and insisted that my position that he withdraw from the debate was stupidity. I reminded him that the Public Works Committee was not an avenue for self promotion but an opportunity to bring issues and ideas forward to meet the public’s interest, not just his. He stormed out, resigning loudly. I did not miss him for this and he did not talk to me for the longest time.

I do not know the man’s political affiliations but I do know that his dad was on the local executive of the Liberal party. Regardless, on the afternoon of the 13th, I knew that he appeared in Sean’s working space for one of two reasons. His other coffee buds were either not available and he needed to chat with someone. Or, he was here to make a view of solidarity clearer.

You see, he had sat in a coffee shop regularly where war veteran Don Doiron and I would sometimes end up at. Doiron, if you read the book, was a good friend of Mahoney’s dad. Both of them were both good Liberals and served on that party’s local executive together.

Mahoney sat and coffeed with a cop who had tried to arrest me a second time because I had shown up late for one of my sign-in sessions at the cop shop. It did not matter, you see, that one “duty counsel” lawyer had said on the day of my first arrest that I should be released completely, with no conditions, because of my non-existent Criminal record and my history as an elected official. That “legal professional” made that declaration after a fairly lengthy talk that ended with him telling me that he would not be available on the next day for my “bail hearing”.

But, on the day of my bail hearing, if you read my book, I listened in astonishment to a newly assigned “duty counsel” lawyer say that he had not even read my file. Then, despite my relating to him my conversations on the previous day with “that free lawyer!” provided by “the courts!”, this new “legal professional” almost allowed the cops to put an ankle bracelet on me until I protested loudly against this stupidity.

So, yup, the cop does not care about the standard of justice only the rules as they will have them be, I rapidly learned in 2004. Mahoney sat in the coffee shops with this cop in uniform while coffeeing with others. Talking Baloney. War veteran Don Doiron would say hi to a Mahoney who was cold to me at the time. Doiron shook his head, in the meantime, asking what the hell was going on in our nation. He had heard my side of the story and had little use for the cop that Mahoney and buds coffeed with.

I had heard that Mahoney’s coffeed legends gained him grand reputation. Before his phone showed up in his ear years after, many could not find him. The saying went that this was because he was in coffee shops or someplace yakking to someone while the work that people wanted to get finished lingered on or was done by his lowly subordinates.

Aw, so, on July 13, I knew that Baloney was in Sean’s space to yak, not work. I also knew that there is a circle of solidarity that forms in business that I am not part of. So, I simply carried on with my work in my own backyard, knowing that they saw me and I not caring that I saw them.

I did observe Sean’s young assistant getting more and more agitated. Sean and Phoney were in deep conversation, I cared not about what. The young, short but muscular lad was obviously looking for directions that his boss was not giving him. This went on for over an hour. It was the subsequent archaic idiocy that astonished me.

Mahoney made much show of leaving after an hour. Sean suddenly awoke to the time passed. He berated his agitated helper, telling him that he should “Work like a man, not a woooo- man!”

Small town idiocy? Not necessarily. If Kate is merely the sexual servant to a “prince”, why should women everywhere not be below men?

And if this is the attitude in our nations’ highest hijinks, why would the antics of a small town cop measure any differently when it comes to the laws requiring the protection of every citizen’s rights over the rights of the coppers and their political friends? ...”.

So, yes, sometimes the national small minds need to be challenged so that, in time, we look to a future that builds on looking to the future instead of the repetitive, “They did it to me so I am going to do it to them!” This was all to end two centuries ago and then, more clearly, because of a war served by vets like Donald Doiron whom too many forget.

No. One man cannot change all of this. But one can hope. Then, so can 12 thousand and so forth...

So, I invite you, if you are passing through Nipigon via the internet or in person to do this. Visit the final pictures of a stoned project in my small town or visit the place in person, if you have the resources. And then consider this invitation, to be posted as signage at that statue to themselves and their friends, built in Nipigon:

First signage:
DEMOCRACY?
Stone Fronts Make Good Propaganda
Works of Fiction, Good Escape from Our Responsibilities
In True Democracies

Townspeople and Visitors Alike Are Invited To Educate Themselves to the Whole Truth
And Why the Stones You Are Viewing (dragged all the way from Ignace, Ontario and chiselled and sand blasted) Make Good Propaganda (See Second Sign)
WARNING: The matter being discussed in the 2011 Essays on The Stone Patio was put before Canadian courts starting in 2002. Judges, linked by political paying with current politicians in Nipigon (town council), Toronto (provincial government) and Ottawa (federal government), illegally corrupted this process. The book, Just Business, is the author’s record of what international and constitutional laws were violated starting in November 2001. It makes a record of the author’s intent to secure justice through courts that eventually meet the legal requirement to be freed of partisan tainting. After all, our courts are supposed to protect honesty in business, not destroy it.
This sign is an instrument of free speech THAT ENABLES THE dissemination of information to expose the illegalities encountered by its author since 2002.
DEFACING OF THIS SIGN OR ANY ATTEMPT TO REMOVE OR OBSCURE IT WILL BE CONSIDERED DELIBERATE DESTRUCTION OF PERSONAL PROPERTY AND AN OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE IN A MATTER THE AUTHOR STILL CONSIDERS TO BE BEFORE CORRUPTED COURTS. CRIMINAL CODE CHARGES WILL BE LAID AGAINST ANY PERSON DEFACING, REMOVING OR OBSCURING THIS SIGNAGE.

SIGN 2:
ESSAYS ON A STONE PATIO
(In The Garden, July 27 “until the snow flies”)
3 to 5 pm Today
(Starts at 3 pm for the first (about 10 persons) to arrive)
(Evening sessions can be arranged by appointment)
172 Greenmantle Drive, Nipigon
You are invited to meet former Town Councillor, Don MacAlpine, in His Yard To See Water Flowing Over the Stones That Werner Schwar, Landscape Architect, Wanted For the Illegal Fiasco, Now in Front of You. A First Edition Book Telling the Full Story, Just Business, is Available (870 pages of hard reading).
Resident of Nipigon, or an American or Canadian Visitor to the Town? It Matters Not. The Story Behind These Stones Exposes How Corrupting Legal Professionals and their Partisan Friends, Of All Political Stripes, Have Corrupted our Democracies.
Come to a Half Hour Summary of How Corrupted Courts Protect Dishonesty in Business. That Is, Indeed, Mostly What Is Responsible for the Current International Economic Crisis. Browse Through Essays That Will Form The Author’s Second (about 200 page) Book: DEMOCRACY ISN’T SEXY

Yes … Corrupted Justice Corrupts Democracy

Feel Free to take a brochure for instructions to get to the author’s house (a 10 minute (fast) walk from here or a 5 minute drive) (Refreshments will be served)
OR take a brochure for contact information…

No, reading the 55 page blog that follows is no walk in the garden. But, Democracy Isn’t Sexy.

So, I hope that you will take the time to read and think as some people are.

Democracy Ain’t Sexy

2011-07-11T21:07:00.007-04:00

Democracy Ain’t Sexy
July 13, 2011 re-edit
Don MacAlpine

(If you are a first time visitor to this blog, you should visit the About the Law and the About Don buttons at http://TakeBackDemocracy.ca . This blog/mail also references pictures relevant to documentation sent to local town and government officials, and eventually, policing officials. A pictorial essay has been constructed. It is available at the “Download” page at the “Pictorial Essay” link on the http://JustBusinessTheBook.com web page... and, yes, I am still working on updating the TakeBackDemocracy.ca pages.... Don MacAlpine, Nipigon, Ontario)

This blog/essay prints off to about 50 pages. It will take about 2 to 3 hours to read.

Why should the citizen bother? Two short excerpts to spur the responsible citizen:

This first one relates to the news that Kate and her prince have arrived in Canada to celebrate their honeymoon, supposedly. Kate is forbidden from speaking, freely .... “... Canada’s troops were leaving a combat role in Afghanistan. ... Canada’s troops are leaving this oppressive nation. ...

Escapism from reality. Aw, that democracy was about endless sex. Then the whole nation might end up reading this blog? Ahhh, but democracy ain’t a sexy thing! ...

Canada’s troops are in a nation where they are supposedly freeing and protecting oppressed women. There, many walk in fear with shawls wrapped around their faces. The stupidity to all of this is illustrated by that adult child from my own children’s generation.

Remember she who gushed because she had touched the hand of a princess named Kate?

We will send troops to Afghanistan where the religious addiction to old tribal traditions demeans and silences women with wrapped cloth? We will stay silent as Kate walks off a plane wrapped in the riches gained from English tribal traditions and is silenced by what? Tape on her mouth? Or English tribal traditions? Ah, good old Al the “Kaa-Kaa-ReKalling Katy-did-it” lives on in “democracies”, too!

Why do Canada’s Prime Minister and its Governor General and the nations’ cops stay silent to the obvious implication that comes from an English white girl who is muzzled by “rules of tradition” that Canada’s Prime Minister and governor general ignore while they bleat in public about the oppression of those poor gals in wrapped rags, “over there!”? We will take guns and bombs to free those over there and make Kate just an icon of sexuality and sexual submissiveness to a male ruler? Ah, good old Al the “Kaa-Kaa-ReKalling Katy-did-it” lives in “democracies”, too!
The problem is that Canada’s elite try to hide it by calling the man who tapes the mouth of“Kaa-Kaa-ReKalling Diana through Kate”, “princely”. ...”.

AND

“... in a June 5 column in the National Post, Kelly McParland dared to suggest that (fired Senate Page Brigitte) DePape is nothing more than a zealous, uninformed professional demonstrator. But, McParland is the biggest of hypocrites.

McParland writes that DePape forgets that: “... Democracy is a system in which people get together and vote on who they wish to elect as a government. The party with the most votes wins. Recently, Canada had an election, in which almost 15 million votes were cast for 19 parties, some of which even held views similar to Ms. De Pape’s. The Conservative party won by quite a wide margin. The NDP, a party which considers itself “progressive,” also did quite well.

If the NDP had won, its leader would have had the opportunity to shape Canada’s political agenda, and deliver the essence of its plans in the throne speech. That’s how democracy works. Unfortunately, Ms. De Pape appears not to be happy with the system. Something in it does not satisfy her needs. And what is the outcome of an election involving 15 million voters against the personal views of a 21-year-old student?...”.

What is unforgivable is that a national columnist then says this in her concluding paragraphs: “... Stop Harper? Why? Because an election doesn’t produce the result you want? And in favour of what alternative, a ballot of recent university graduates with strong views?

Ms. DePape says Canada needs a local version of the “Arab Spring.” Perhaps she hasn’t noticed, but the Arab Spring is a revolt by oppressed individuals willing to risk their lives for the right to elect their own leaders. They are willing to die so they can make the same kind of democratic decision that Canada just made in electing Mr. Harper.

Why does she want to stop that? ...”.

Ah, yes! McParland promotes stupidity through arrogant stupidity. “WE have a vote!”, the arrogant “experts” of freedom of speech will write. “WE should be happy!”, when dictatorships appear that exclude the voice of even other elected individuals, because they are not members of Harper’s political party or of the National Post’s self-serving “national interests”. ...

This is an arrogance born out of stupidity that forgets this.

In 2006, Stephen Harper, gained power by a slim minority. This man had bashed the ethics of Liberals who abused our taxes to lure Conservative-elected Ms. Belinda Stronach into a Liberal ministerial position so that they could change the balance of partisans in Parliament. Harper, remember, then used our taxes to lure David Emerson, the Liberal, into the Conservative’s slim fold of that era. Visit my earlier blogs and the “About the Law” at http://TakeBackDemocracy.ca button to understand why the “ethics commissioner” who approved these things was an illegal farce.

But, remember that, across Canada, our “judges” are old Liberals or Conservatives. Then remember that, by July 2007, an old Conservative friend had been promoted into the RCMP’s highest commanding office. This happened in a province called Ontario where the cops, I discovered only in 2007, paid into the same limited partisan pockets as our aspiring-to-be-judges lawyers had. ...

... By 1948, the law was that our voice was to be equal in elected places and especially in places of justice. The citizens would choose. It would not be the right of the partisan Conservative and New Democrat to then set down rules that would take the voice of the partisan or the non-partisan out of our elected places.
Partisans like Jack Layton agreed to the designs of partisans in the hopes that one day even he might rule the Conservative partisan. The rule of the law making our voice equal and the vote merely a selection process for whom we chose to speak for us, at all times, became subject to the dictatorship of partisans. They would tell us how we would be allowed to vote and what we then would have to suffer despite the laws of 1948 and 1982.

Worse, they did the same as the Nazis. They filled our courts with “judges” who paid only to their partisan parties, thereby registering their illegal loyalties. Even worse, they did the same as the Nazis and promoted and protected cops who carry big guns, after first registering where their allegiances lay in the partisan world.

McParland is a not only a hypocrite because she ignores this factor. She is a bigger hypocrite because she promotes that we have a vote while those poor Arabs did not. Google search, lazy McParland! Egypt has had “the vote” since 1924, in their “parliamentary elections”. So did “communists” in the same era. So did the Germans, after WWI.

Egypt has had “presidential elections” since 1956.

So why would those Arabs want to revolt? They had “the vote”, for crying out loud!
Even the small town people of Libya got to vote under the autocracy of Muammar Gaddafi. They got to choose representatives at “Basic People’s Congress” meetings, if they dared to attend once per year.

So why would those Arabs want to revolt? They had “the vote”, for crying out loud!

Even Tunisia held “official elections” every “five to six years”.

So why would those Arabs want to revolt? They had “the vote”, for crying out loud!

Might it be because the citizens in Arabia suddenly awakened to the fact that the corrupt abuse of power had been achieved by the creation of “new rules” that gained powers for those who aligned to agree who could be made dictator, permanent or otherwise? Might it be that, suddenly, the Arabian citizens awakened to the fact that, when the cops carrying guns prospered and the judges ruling that this was allowed were found to be aligned with “the rulers”, then the premise of “democracy” was truly a sham?

Might that be why the protests in Libya started outside court houses because cops and judges had allowed this to rot to the point where the dissidents first were jailed? And then, when they asked for blankets to keep them warm in the cold desert nights, 1200 were machine-gunned down? ...

OH, AND BY THE WAY (added July 13) ... we think that our cops being controlled by Liberal or Conservative lawyers is not a problem? This little nugget from my book that has been added to this blog in the appropriate place...

"... Policing is not an excuse for reuniting old high school buds who have their personal allegiances and prejudices gained from early perceptions of a person’s being.
There are things in my youth I would not do again that I know cops would jump on me for as “criminal activity”. Read the book. There is stuff I did as an adult, as an elected official by 2000, that cops did not like that I would do again. Read the book. Cops then subsequently jumped on me for letters that I would write again. Read the balance of these blogs/essays.
In short, elected lawyer Prime Minister Liberal Paul Martin stayed silent for three months for a letter that elected lawyer Conservative Peter MacKay lauded the day after he received it by email. Cops suppressed MacKay’s commentary as they arrested me. In February 2004, the cops stayed silent to their Conservative side because MacKay was just an elected lawyer in opposition. In February 2004, Mr. Martin, the Liberal lawyer, was in the highest position in the land.
Indeed, my book makes reference to sitting in RCMP Sergeant Steve Arthur’s office in Thunder Bay on August 13, 2004. I had been sent to the RCMP by Nipigon’s OPP because they agreed that I had valid concerns. They were confused by “issues of jurisdiction”, so the OPP said. In August 2004, I did not know the partisan paying implications of the OPP. I had read the law, even international law.
I was astounded after Arthur admitted that he had not really explored the details of my complaint. After all, he said, it was clear that I was asking for Criminal Code charges against many in the Province of Ontario. He was clear that, therefore, this made the matter the OPP’s problem. However, he ventured “the opinion” that I should not be spending my time pushing for charges against Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin.
Concerned, I clarified that, yes, he had not read all of my documentation sent to the RCMP. I then asked him who in Canada was above the law. Mr. Arthur sat back in his chair and asked what I meant. I meant, I asked him directly, are you, as a cop, even above the law. I was disappointed to hear the man say that it was his view that he could be arrested only if he had done some dastardly deed. Dealing drugs. Violence of any kind.
I eventually registered my concern about this commentary in writing.
In court in September 2004, the Thunder Bay based government bureaucrat, who sent my “offensive” letter to cops, admitted that it was her Liberal controlled head office in Ottawa that pushed for my arrest. ...".

So, yes, simple citizens sent this via email to invite citizens to read this long, long blog that is also going to be a “short” essay in my next book, Democracy Isn’t Sexy. I hope that you will take the time needed to wend your way through the essay/blog that follows. I hope that you do so while starting to ponder this which I say much later in this blog/essay:

When we stay silent to the obvious, princeless Kate’s muzzling and the blatant violation of property and environmental laws by the partisan implicated small town cop, the arrogantly empowered abuse what is not so obvious until it is too late to deal with the arrogantly empowered.

I hope that you, the citizen, read on and then take your own head out of the silt to start on a path to the responsible democracies these arrogant people have illegally taken away from us.

On now to the original blog that stupid activities by the partisan implicated made much longer than it should have ever needed to have become.

Sincerely... Don MacAlpine, a neighbour to a Nipigon, Ontario cop named Ryan Traintinger who stayed silent as Ryan’s personal privileges were advanced while justice continues to be denied to his neighbour.....

Two days before Canada Day, on June 29. I am preparing final announcements. I am taking the regular updating-commentaries that I make at the Just Business book site, my “blog” in the modern vernacular. It has been suggested that these commentary essays get reorganized to go into a book. It will become a series of essays that explain why Canadians, and others, need to stop being so naive. I am proposing to make them available in my small town as Essays that can be read on a Stone Patio. In the summer of 2011, my exercise in democracy continues.
And, yes, I am going to get repetitive, “as all get out”. I learned to say “get out” so that I would not be beaten by religious teachers of language. For them, the word “hell” was forbidden. I am going to get repetitive so that you, the reader, come to understand that this too long “short essay” is nothing in the number of words I have been forced to write to protect myself from corrupted lawyers and politicians who corrupt our institutions of “Justice” through the corrupted institution of “our vote”. Oh, yes, hopefully, through repetition, you, the reader will come to understand that Democracy is not a sexy thing. And silence to the record I made in the last nine years as I read and wrote about the law and rogue lawyers “ain’t responsible democracy”, either.
Life is a parable. I am writing about all of this when I stumble across the CTV National news. It is the night of June 29. Grand Monarchy is in Canada for an “official visit”. A possible King-to-be has arrived. Is it Andrew or William? I am left not caring. To the journalist, it is all about his new bride, named Kate. CTV’s own blabber about what she has worn as she got on the plane in Heathrow and what she wore coming off the plane in Ottawa.
Oh, this generation of my children! No mention has been made in the news cast of where the virginal political neophyte named Brigitte DePape now is. The Parliamentary Senate’s Page who held up the “Stop Harper” sign during the queenie speech from the throne, barely a month before, has disappeared. She is no longer sexy enough. The reality television generation of 21 somethings is a now mob in Ottawa two days before Canada’s day. One virginal lady, who is probably, based on the statistics, not virginal, appears on camera. The commentators say that she says that she is not enamoured with the monarchy. Nevertheless, she is positively ecstatic. She has “touched the hand of Kate!”
Oh that democracy was sexy, but it is not.
The reporters are agog. CTV reports that there are over 1300 “journalists”. They are accredited to point cameras at a Prince who tries to act princely. Meanwhile, it is quickly glossed over that his new bride is told to keep her mouth shut.
Journalism, after all, is not about democracy. If it were, there would have been more than 20 of the same crowd of pitiful “reporters” tagging along with the real and really old Queen of England, short weeks before. Ah, but, no. An old hag is no longer attractive in the “we must stay young and never die!” mind set of too many of us. So, the 13 countries rush “journalists” to spy on the humping honey mooners’ every handshake and bouquet thrown at them. They stay away when the real epitome of where democracy has gone wrong in our world appears on Canada’s threshold for her own old “official tour”.
After all, democracy is not sex, but, only selling sex makes money through good escapism-television. Old hags are not sexy to the hypocritical press. Old-hag, guarded pictures do not make them money. And “democratic” journalism is all about the money that can be generated today.
It is so easy to forget that good propaganda was used to sell the naive in Europe that all was well before all hell broke loose in 1939. It is so easy to forget that, by 1948, the then King of England had signed an official document from the United Nations. Indeed, the current Queen looked sexy as she married her own prince and took over the crown jewels as her father died. Yes, thousands followed her in her own sexy wedding and coronation dressage. Following her father, and remembering the men, women and children who died under the bombs and other things that crossed the English Channel and then the miserable discoveries in Europe, she eventually swore that even she was an insignificant icon in the measure of democracy. In 1982, she signed over Canada’s ruling of its own citizens. That was to happen under constitutional law.
Empowered politicians now act like the criminals who bombed her fair city before Canadians died to end all of these illegal traditions by 1945.
The Prince’s grandmother declared this in 1982. She was following the footsteps of her father in 1948. A United Nations’ Declaration came out of the brutality before 1945. Therefore, her standard for conduct submitted to this concept put into law: it would be the law that would protect the seeds of democracy from anarchy and abuse. It would not be the complacent irresponsibility behind the convenient selling of sex that would be used to lull the populace into thinking that the fairy tale of a Prince in fine robes would eventually rescue them all. Meanwhile there is much forgetting that, like the Prince’s deceased mother, Diana, Kate is muzzled in false pretence to what democracy really entails.
Oh, Lady Di finally understood that Democracy is not a sexy thing. She found her voice and dared to speak out with voice. Will Princeless Kate ever awaken to that challenge and be challenged why democracy should be citizens who goo and gaggle at a Prince who listens to a Criminal Prime Minister and the Canadian Prime Minister’s Criminally appointed Governor General wax eloquent with stupid words or stupid jokes as they welcome an over-sexed couple in front of an adoring citizenry that obviously no longer understands that democracy is not about the sexiness any more.
Ah, yes, this stupidity gives me breathless anger, again and again. But, it is the picture of my father in 1940 Canadian Army uniform that allows me to channel my anger into determination to educate the Canadian, and all citizens of our democratic world, that we have a deeper responsibility here.
True democracy is about the real voice promised in documents approved by the prince’s great grandfather in 1948. It is about a constitution of Canada, signed by his grandmotherly queen in 1982. It is, and yes, this is where the reader must pause to think, about why the images of Harper the Harpy Prime Minister on June 29th and his appointed, partisan-implicated lawyer, named the Governor General of Canada, were to be defined the epitome of criminals in their conduct. That would even be the Prince’s position if the Princeless prince knew anything about the Criminal Code that came home to Canada by 1989.
Oh, Democracy is not a sexy thing. It is about wending your way through the tale of what happened in a small town named Nipigon as Canada Day 2011 rushed in and then passed by. Then the citizen might understand why real Democracy ain’t such a sexy thing.
But, first let us think about this. I wrote this book called Just Business. I conditionally donated copies to educational institutions across this land or their entrenched educators. I revisited one office at Lakehead University’s Aboriginal Student’s Association. I visited the young lad, Ian, at that organization a few weeks after. His concern was that I told stories that were not “independently verified”.
This is stupidity of the highest measure in any democracy. If someone writes about injustice, verify its authenticity. If the story is simply dismissed, we commit the very sin that led to the grandmother of the Prince and Princess wondering if her royalty might survive the bombings before 1945.
Worse, we make the diary of Ann Franks’ insignificant as a sad record of our human history. Ann is that teen-aged Jew from Holland who should have survived the unthinkable had someone listened to the Jewish German business man whose rights were first taken away when Hitler began to rant after 1929. When we use the “verifiable-facts”-excuses that become even like Ian’s, we make even the denial of First Nation’s accounts of residential school abuse and other horror stories of the denial of rights in Ian’s people’s own history our collective, base stupidity.
If you do not think that I write the truth, especially if you are a “journalist” or a politician or even a police man, your job is to verify. It is also the duty of all citizens not to fall silent for the sake of princes versus paupers or dictators versus children of any kind.
Democracy ain’t about exposing the sexy story of Princes and what the Wieners (yes, that American Senator, fallen because his own name epitomized where his brain was defined) do in democratic social circles. It is about exposing the story before the Jewish or First Nation child or business person has their rights taken away, to then have their story ground into the dirt by the boots of those who have taken their rights away.
Aw, but in Canada, too many citizens wish that Democracy was a sexy thing where a somewhat sexy DePape simply holds up a handmade sign and then all of democracy’s problems are, poof, gone! Now that would be a princely tale as good as a tale in the belief that, because handsome William (or is it Andrew? They all look and sound like the same puppets to me) is bonking a gorgeous-female-something, while her mouth is taped shut by invisible powers, all of democracy’s problems will be, poof! Gone!
Ah, but democracy is not such a sexy thing. It is sad that, on Canada Day in 2011, more events in a small town called Nipigon should wake up citizens of Canada to why they should have thrown up as they watched Stephen Harper and his appointed Governor General trying to sell to Canadians that democracy is a sexy thing. Or even Princely at all.
So, to the tale that journalists and politicians do not want to tell because, as in Munich by 1929, insignificant events could be swept under the rug. That was enabled because an anarchist had seized the notion that democracy could be made sexy by making many people think that their world would get better if they just allowed him to become the dictator to their once democracy. The Unsexy Thing About Democracy is that, after 1945, the clear message, even eventually agreed to by a prince’s grandmother, was that the principle of equivalence of all human beings would supercede even the powers gained by the elected, or the appointed of “the queen”.
And, so, as we move into a Canada Day tale in Nipigon that should signify why Canadians should stand up and shout at the images of Harper and his Harpy Governor lauding a princeless equation, first consider this.
By 1939, Hitler began his ravaging rampage because neighbours did not care about what happened to neighbours. Cops relished their self promotions and gains even as the rights of their neighbours disappeared. Lawyers, loyal to the partisans, were promoted by the partisans to become judges. Corrupted judges oversaw corrupted courts which then declared that it was fine that the partisan took away the rights of the citizens.
One small law became insignificant to the cop and the lawyer and the judge and the partisan, first. One small concept of all citizens being equivalents before all laws, forgotten. One citizen, first, denied rights defined as small and insignificant by partisans in power. One mass murderous affair is now mocked and forgotten in princely Canada on July 1, 2011.
My town, Nipigon, is small. But, what happens by that day is the epitome of why Canadians need to heed DePape’s courage with greater depth but to educate themselves to why so many citizens first heralded her and then fell too ominously silent.
I have cops who are neighbours. The one who lives right beside me is named Ryan Traintinger. Ryan’s mother is “white”. His father looks “First Nation” in the books of some. That is because the “white” man Traintinger fell in love with a First Nation lady and spawned Ryan’s father.
This, evidently, complicates Ryan’s perception of what a cop’s first duty is to. We will get to why I say that later. But, the citizens of all democratic nations should think about this reality in Nipigon. And, yes, these are all nice people whom I would dearly love to play some tennis with and maybe trounce their “asses”, in the arrogance of an 18-years-old John McEnroe mind in a 59 year old body. But, arrogance leads to stupidity in the actions from “nice people”. We already listen to the stories of how many “nice people” first became complacent servants to propaganda before 1936. Many were then simply overwhelmed into servile service to the crassness of those who became arrogant simply because they “had the power”.
So, let us pause here. You, the citizen, can go to the “About Don” button at my TakeBackDemocracy.ca web page. There you can get the summation story of my firing by Conservatives in 1982 and what I illegally faced in those “hearings about justice”. That was the year that Canada’s constitution came home. You can read the book Just Business to understand the full details of why I started to know, in 1982, that something was already corrupted in Canada’s democracy. You can read all of the details why it took a politicized arrest in 2004, that implicated the antics of the New Democrats, Conservatives and Liberals, to really educate me. That arrest also led to my discovery that our institutions of democracy bear no more credibility because they are no longer credible under the law. So, yes, the record is there for the journalist and the citizen to educate themselves to, fully.
But that book does not make a record of this base premise of justice and democracy that small town cops and big time politicians have forgotten by 2011. The dangerous reality is that citizens are made so cynical by 2011 that they no longer care.
It is past 1982. I am back to work as a government forester some years after I win my job back. I am late for a meeting in Thunder Bay. A forestry technician named Jean MacIsaac is in the passenger’s seat in a honking GMC version of a modern SUV, Stupidly Ugly Vehicle. I know that I am speeding but, to that date, there has been an unwritten code. Government officials might be stopped by low flying cops but they would not be charged for speeding.
The lights behind me come on. An unfriendly young cop has nailed me with a relatively new phenomenon called a radar gun. I have seen him go by. I have looked down at my speedometer. I know that I am speeding but I am astounded at the speed that he says I was going. I simply say that I did not realize that I was “going that fast!” This young man in uniform is curt. He does not knock down the “official record” that has shown up on his radar gun. I am not only going to pay a fine. I am going to “lose points”.
It is not that I have not been stopped for speeding in my private vehicles before. In that era, there is no such thing as “cruise control”. My size 13 shoes tend to weigh heavily on the accelerator. The cop says that I was going “this fast”. I ask Jean if she thought I was. She did not. We arrive at our meeting even later. I am puzzled why this cop has not just waved me on or let the obvious markings on my vehicle pass me by the “speeding allowed” code that I have had from previous transgressions in these kinds of vehicles. After all, this is not my private vehicle. I am not just a common citizen in this moment. I am a government employee, for crying out loud!
The puzzle ends on the morning next.
Doug Vincent is a Conservation Officer in my government-Natural Resources’ offices. He appears in my office and asks to close the door. Doug has a reputation. It is said that he would arrest his own grandmother if he finds her with too many fishing lines in the water. Then he would charge her with littering if she spat her dentures out in her subsequent fit of rage.
Doug has charged two Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) officers with too many ice fishing lines in the water. Doug has broken the unwritten code, that policing officers are above the law, unless they get really dastardly. I suddenly understand why the young cop was so intense as he wrote me up for my speeding violation on the day before.
Doug asks if I felt harassed or intimidated during the writing up of these traffic rule charges. “Doug”, I said, “I was speeding. I broke the law. I will accept the penalties that are being applied.” He asks if I am certain. He will talk to the Nipigon commander of the OPP if I feel in any way that the charges were made in retribution. I do get the government vehicle checked out for a possibly malfunctioning speedometer, because Jean had said she did not think I was going “that fast”. I end up paying the full fine and losing points.
The point becomes this. Some people viewed Doug Vincent as an unyielding hard ass. Eventually he left the Conservation Officer position because he had destroyed his back. I was Union Steward at the time. I filled out forms to help Doug fight the inside stupidity of management staff. They were trying to screw him out of dollars and sensible treatment. I do not know where he is now but he is a man of the law whom I respected for his position about the law.
And, yes, there is a place for unions in our societies but it is not in the back pockets of the politicians when they hope to strengthen their members’ rights while the citizens’ rights decline.
All laws were to be respected. I respected Doug for that. I respected the fact that the supervisor of Conservation Officers in Nipigon, Lorne Townes, was also rapidly demoted. You see, one of his own Conservation Officers was returning from a rare helicopter flight. The officer knew where Lorne lived. The officer was surprised to see that Lorne had dammed up a small stream leading into an important brook trout creek in the area. The officer was more surprised to see that Lorne had not applied for the necessary permits. Talk to Blake Beange, if you need “verification”. The failure to respect environmental laws got a “supervisor” of law enforcement officers, whose primary duty was to catch poachers, into hot water.
This was only because an officer of the law had the courage to tell his supervisor, “Not even you, sirs, are above the law!” Subsequently, the verdict was that Townes was not above the law. Indeed, he had a special duty to show that he was committed to the respect and protection of all laws.
1982. A constitution arrives in Canada that says this. No one is above the law, any law, even if their official status in our society is “government employee” or even “lawyer” or “politician” or, most ominously of all, “cop”.
So, back to that Nipigon cop named Ryan. Ryan’s sister is married to a cop named Chuck Currie. Chuck and his wife, just conveniently for the family nature of things, live across the street from each other. Chuck lives in his parent’s house where he started his career as a rookie cop. Chuck, when a rookie, entered a bar where my daughter was of legal drinking age, finally. Later I learned that she had under-age friends in the bar with her.
Chuck sat down with my daughter who had chosen a life style that I had not. I chose a drug free life but did not deny my daughter her freedom of choice, when she came of age. Chuck was out of uniform. Still, he was a young man sworn to uphold all laws at all times and to set an example in or out of uniform. Chuck eventually hated my guts because I was an elected official at the time.
I found out that my daughter had abused my trust. She had used my vehicle to trundle her underage friends into a bar. There Chuck then sat and said that he “did not want to know their ages!” I, an elected official at the time, dared to register my concerns with Nipigon’s commanding OPP officer. Chuck faced great heat. He survived because I dared to chastise the commanding officers about their pettiness over an issue that I felt a fledgling officer should only have faced a stern admonition for.
That was before 2000. In that year, I also registered my concern about small town boys being made cops in small towns which they had grown up in. We will come to the significance of that later in this tome of an “essay”. But, in time, you will understand why the respect of small laws is critical, not pettiness, if the citizen is to consider the cop credible in their positions of “protecting and upholding justice”. For us all.
By 2011, Ryan has been beside my house for more than two years. From our taxes, he has gained. He has convinced the town that he needs an, about, 60 foot by 60 foot lot in land that was designated green space by the town. He needs to take the taxes that he prospers by to build himself a big garage to store his bigger and bigger toys in.
Why would he care what happened to a neighbour beside him? Why should he expose that the town’s council he applied to, to overrule the previous town’s declaration that the “green space” would be “green as long as the rivers flow and the grasses blow”, now contained well-positioned partisans who are named Conservatives on partisan listings? Why would Ryan, or Chuck or any other of the gun toters in Canada, put any significance to the fact that Ontario’s cops took tax money, extracted from citizens on the principle that they were especially beholden to uphold our constitutions?
And gave it back to Conservatives.
By 2007, I had protested, officially in writing. Taxed money was paid into the cops’ salaries who then filtered it off into a “police association”. Why would Ryan or Chuck or any of their buds dare to admit that this was a criminal abuse of position? Under the Criminal law they were to uphold, it was a blatant registration of where their illegal loyalties were implied. This was especially true when the same association took those re-filtered taxes and filtered them back into the pockets of Conservatives and Liberal partisans, only. Ah, my restless, breathless anger increased after this discovery in 2007.
However, the rest of the citizenry should wake up and care. This is because, as you will come to understand, a friend in the town of Nipigon was retiring and put their house up for sale. Who viewed the house? Only persons, who make our taxed dollars their new economy, made serious contact. Such is the state of our new economy of our taxed dollars going to prosper too many who have registered themselves as the friends of politicians. By the way, go to the About the Law button at my http://TakeBackDemocracy.ca page. Read the sections of the Criminal Code that make it illegal for persons in positions of trust to seek special influence using “direct or indirect” means.
While it is a tax-paid teacher and a tax-paid medical professional who will eventually occupy that residence, it was another home boy cop who is a good home boy friend of Ryan who viewed the house. That home boy is returning to the Nipigon area under the new unwritten laws of the cops. Their circle of friendship is much more important than the citizen’s rights to unbiased justice. Chuck plays in offices of law that are occupied by high school basketball buds of his. Now the town fills with more high school buds and relatives. Why is this relative to more violations of our constitution? Patience. We will eventually get to that in this wending, winding tale.
This is pettiness, say the citizens of democracy? We will eventually find our way into why it is not in any town in any democracy. But, you, the reader, should start to think more about what I have already said on page 6 of this essay/blog: “... By 1939, Hitler began his ravaging rampage because neighbours did not care about what happened to neighbours. Cops relished their self promotions and gains even as the rights of their neighbours disappeared. ...”. And, especially by cops who are my neighbours.
So, I am going to purposely offend many by asking this: What gives Mr. Traintinger, the cop, the right to apparently be above any law?
Is it his white side? Or his “native” side? Where is his “colour of water” side?
The Colour of Water. It is a book written by James McBride in 1996. It tells the story of his Jewish mother whose family fled Poland in 1923 to arrive in America. They fled the abuse of Jews in that land. It was not much better in America, but at least they were not being blatantly targeted and murdered, even before WWII.
Raised in Virginia, she fell in love with a black boy who would have been lynched if it had been found out that he had impregnated a white girl. A contemptible Jew in the definitions of that deep south racism, she was still “white”. She eventually arrived in Harlem and married a black in the middle of WWII. That was a time when New Yorkers would run mixed couples down and beat the black man to death. She raised 12 children. She refused to define them or herself as white or black. Godliness was “the colour of water”, was her position when it came to race.
So said the laws of 1948 and Canada’s constitution of 1982.
Despite this, black and First Nation soldiers returned to nations after 1945 where the federal government said that constitutions and international law could be made irrelevant by new laws of segregation and discriminating behaviours inside their nations.
So, perhaps Ryan is celebrating some gains made by the years of oppression from his First Nation side in his coloured muddy waters? Is this why the cop who is partly white and partly First Nation, but looks mostly “white”, is then above environmental laws in 2011? And, yes, I am getting purposely offensive here to lead you to another “colour of water” consideration that cops and lawyers and politicians wish all citizens to forget because they get to watch television with a prince and his pauper princess appeasing the silly citizenry crowds.
In 1996, I left government. I worked “for real money” until my arrest in 2004 changed me into a full time reader and writer about law. I used our laws to fend off the partisans embedded in our institutions of justice. As I did so, I worked with Joe Thompson at BZA (Biinjitiwaabik Zaaging Anishinaabek), formerly known as Rocky Bay First Nation in that period of time. I got to know even more about environmental laws.
I also got to observe this that leads me to doubt that Ryan’s arrogance is spurred by either his “white” or his “First Nation” side. I will eventually suggest that Ryan’s arrogance is created from muddy waters that come out of partisan or religious discolourations in his personal background arrogance.
Short months before I was arrested by cops whom I later learned paid only into the pockets of either Liberals or Conservatives, I was in the offices of the Rocky Bay First Nation. I had just been trained by Joe to say “Biinjitiwaabik Zaaging Anishinaabek”, not very well, in a mimicking of the Ojibwa tongue. I was training some young citizens to run a sawmilling business.
Ray Nobis was a handsome, aging brave working in those same government offices. Ray was in hot water. Ontario Conservation Officers were chasing him. He had shot a moose, that was to be shared with the community. It fell into a small lake. Ray did not fulfill his conserving duties. By the time he returned to drag the carcass out, the meat had gone bad. He was being charged under conservation laws. He was petitioning the politicians of his First Nation community, saying that Ontario’s conservation laws should not apply. I watched the great confab that was going on in that small governing office.
The consensus was that Nobis had violated laws that mimicked First Nation ones. I did not follow up the incident to see if Nobis faced the wrath of Ontario courts or equivalent penalties from First Nation rulers.
The point becomes only that, when it comes to laws of equivalent purpose, even First Nations agreed that the perpetrator should face punishment. So, I doubt that it is either Ryan’s First Nation or white side that led to his display of arrogance on Canada’s national Canada Day holiday weekend.
I knew about the rules requiring the protection of stream beds during the construction of logging roads and bridges, or any work near streams before I left government offices in 1996. I learned more during my work with Joe. Indeed, I can drive the highway between Nipigon and Thunder Bay and see the silt barriers in place in dry ditches even as I write this.
I know that such screening is required so that the gills of tiny fishes are not filled. They will suffocate and die before they grow up so that big fishermen can hook them to whack them to death and eat them. If too much silt, even momentarily, enters their streams, the science shows that the little fishies die. In fact, that law about protecting fishy habitat was in place before I left the coffee klatches of government offices in 1996.
Talk to Joe. As his First Nation struggled to gain enterprise in the logging industry, I was called in to deal with more than one incident. First, my old cohorts at the MNR (Ministry of Natural Resources) were trying to make Joe’s operation responsible for a road that was improperly ditched. My documentation for that incident showed that a railway company had pushed material. A big corporation had created a situation the year before that violated fishy habitat rules. It was not Joe’s company, we established by fighting back. Government officials had sat on their butts the year previous. They then tried to nail the struggling First Nation business with the sins of the big corporations.
Joe did accept responsibility for a contractor who had violated the rules during the reconstruction of a bridge along that road. However, he also had pictures of a big company’s, with the name Buchanan in it, logging bridge that violated these very rules. I sat in a meeting where Joe chastised government staff for chasing his First Nation vigorously. Meanwhile, the same bureaucrats stayed silent to a situation, created by a rich logging company, worse than the one that Joe’s own small company was being indicted for.
I had to show up on another case where it was the irresponsible actions by a company, named Buchanan, that had led to extreme spring-time erosion on a Gorge Creek hill. And, yes, I wrote snotty, foully worded, angry, reports on these blatantly racist actions by my old government cohorts. They were offended and I did not give a damn, just as I do not care if the reader does not like the word “damn” in anything they might read.
I am no longer a child in school. “Hell” and “damn” are words, not legitimate reasons for shutting listening down with the excuse that your sensitive eyes or ears are offended.
The worst kind of censorship is the censorship of words that express the frustrations and emotions of those who are pushed down and oppressed. And, yes, sometimes I take the time to listen to “offensive rap”. I then explore the history of the artist to try to understand what leads them to disrespect the feelings of others or just to have a need for their angry words.
The worst kind of censorship is the censorship of words.
I am glad that First Nations are finally making gains. I learned more lessons about the arrogant stupidity that comes from politicians who think that our vote makes them the law. Yes, you can read my own story of where trees were pushed over and buried by a business competitor. When the civil servant gets to pick and choose where and what laws will apply when they create the situations that result in the law being broken, then we are nations in deep crisis, if we really believe in the promise of democracy. Read the book to understand this.
It seems that a neighbourhood cop named Ryan has forgotten this, despite his First Nation roots: the current Queen of England directly ruled Canada when my uncle went with First Nation soldiers, like Lawrence Martin, to Korea. Yes, that action was supposedly undertaken to protect the principles signed on to by 48 united nations in 1948.
Mr. Martin returned to his First Nation roots to this sad fact. If he stayed on a reservation and was loyal to his First Nation roots, he would not have the right to vote. First Nation men did not gain the right to vote until 1960. First Nation women were considered below First Nation men and denied equivalency for, how much longer, Mr. Traintinger and friends?
Despite the 1948 law, the partisan lawyers would say that traditions should prevail. They would even write new laws to enforce it in their part of the world. In the “democracies” of the United States of America and Canada, this allowed racism to prevail and apartheid to rule. This happened despite international laws and constitutions that said we are all the colour of water.
So, when will Mr. Traintinger and all of his cohorts carrying guns awaken to this legal obligation? We are all equals, so the laws say that even the Queen said she would defer to as “a queen”. When will we learn that the “colour of water” applies to all forms of discrimination that may appear in front of us? That promise was made even when the violation is one perpetrated by offices that some Canadians worship as the epitome of “moral behaviour”.
Apparently, despite my father putting on a Canadian Army training uniform in 1940, because, like Hitler was to Germany, the dictatorship of a monarchy is the will of their gods, Princes are above reproach. They define “moral behaviour” because they are appointed by gods?
The lesson from the saddest period of our history, so we are told, again and again, was that the worst kind of censorship was the censorship of words.
Go back to that June 29th CTV news session. A major amount of time was spent during that late night news broadcast on this report: Canada’s troops were leaving a combat role in Afghanistan. I do not watch this news. I simply listen as I cook and clean in my kitchen.
Canada’s troops are leaving this oppressive nation. The imbedded reporters do the last sweeps of a village. The big news is the subsequent torching of a large cache of marijuana. It is torched because it is supposedly a source of revenues for warlords and Al the Kaa-Kaa-ReKalling Katy-did-it. There is no discussion as to where and how those dollars flow from. There is no identification of the nations whose citizens are so cynical about the simple joys of living that smoking dope and doing drugs is now more lucrative than filling the gas tanks of nation-touring SUVs. Or just sitting on the lawn relishing the sun. Or the rain.
Escapism from reality. Aw, that democracy was about endless sex. Then the whole nation might end up reading this blog? Ahhh, but democracy ain’t a sexy thing!
Oh, we will get to why that burning of dope is relevant to even small town Nipigon’s small town cop named Ryan. But, for now, think about why democracy is not sexy.
Canada’s troops are in a nation where they are supposedly freeing and protecting oppressed women. There, many walk in fear with shawls wrapped around their faces. The stupidity to all of this is illustrated by that adult child from my own children’s generation.
Remember she who gushed because she had touched the hand of a princess named Kate?
We will send troops to Afghanistan where the religious addiction to old tribal traditions demeans and silences women with wrapped cloth? We will stay silent as Kate walks off a plane wrapped in the riches gained from English tribal traditions and is silenced by what? Tape on her mouth? Or English tribal traditions? Ah, good old Al the “Kaa-Kaa-ReKalling Katy-did-it” lives on in “democracies”, too!
Why do Canada’s Prime Minister and its Governor General and the nations’ cops stay silent to the obvious implication that comes from an English white girl who is muzzled by “rules of tradition” that Canada’s Prime Minister and governor general ignore while they bleat in public about the oppression of those poor gals in wrapped rags, “over there!”? We will take guns and bombs to free those over there and make Kate just an icon of sexuality and sexual submissiveness to a male ruler? Ah, good old Al the “Kaa-Kaa-ReKalling Katy-did-it” lives in “democracies”, too! The problem is that Canada’s elite try to hide it by calling the man who tapes the mouth of “Kaa-Kaa-ReKalling Diana through Kate”, “princely”. Do you understand now why I do not care if this stupid “prince’s” name is Andrew or William or Al or even Tom?
Oh, democracy is not a sexy thing while many wish that it were! If it were, Hitler would rule us and his girl friend would simply be a token of the state of power that the man hoods desire.
Or are we already there when we think about how cops behave in small towns across our nations?
Back to July 1, 2011 in small town Nipigon and why I dare to challenge the true colours of not just a cop named Ryan. I am going to challenge what colour of partisan flags he and his cohorts operate under when it comes to our laws. Are he and his cohorts, as Doug Vincent implied, obliged to all of our laws? Or are our cops being protected as they break constitutional laws that are to protect all citizens from cops who align with partisans?
Yes, you might want to go to that “About Don” page at the http://TakeBackDemocracy.ca web site. You might want to start to think about what I had found by February 2007. Ontario’s OPP give to only the Liberals or Conservatives when it comes to redirecting our taxed dollars back to the politicians.
So, do Ryan and his cohorts pledge allegiance to the Liberal side of the red partisan flag that his associates paid to register their preference for, into 2009, the last time I bothered to check? After all, the Liberals have ruled the Province of Ontario for nearly 8 years now. If the cops want bigger guns and more powers, or maybe even protection from the laws of the land, it is astute to register your allegiance with the partisans! Ultimately, they control appointments into Ontario’s courts, while controlling Ontario’s purse strings.
Or maybe Ryan and his cohorts wave the blue flag of the Conservative partisan side? After all, this is the big party in Ottawa that tells all Canadians that it is the government of Canada. It will, therefore, do to 3 out of every four Canadians what 1 out of every 4 Canadians seemingly say the Conservatives should be free to do.
This is only true if we make the Conservatives the equivalent of Hitler’s regime and allow them to appoint their friends as Commissioners of our police so that the police can then do no wrong. This is only true if we make the True Blue Conservatives the equivalent of Hitler’s regime and allow them to appoint their friends, as the Red Liberals did, into any of Canada’s arrogance, called our “courts”.
All of this is only true if we put any credence into our corrupted “vote” anymore. But let us not get into that. Read the book. Or visit the http://TakeBackDemocracy.ca page. That page came out of the illegal elections that I tried to enter again starting in 2006. As an “independent”.
Where is Ryan’s, and his cohorts’, legally-required-mandate to be clear of even the implication of partisan-paid linkages, especially when carrying a gun? Where is the legally required mandate for Ryan and Chuck and their commanding officers, all of the way up to now “elected” former OPP Commissioner Julian Fantino, to have the proof that their blood is the colour of water when it comes to “partisanship”?
Think about those partisan colours as we enter the part of a small town tale that some will say is pettiness when it is really a sad demonstration of how arrogance leads to stupidity when it comes to even our cops’ duties to any and all laws. Oh, yes, the good old environmental town folks may cry “Fowl!” as we enter the photo essay part of this essay. But the chickens should not come home to roost until the whole story behind the cockiness of these roosters is told.
Pettiness? Start to think about more than the media’s grand reporting that a great Prince has dragged his muzzled bride on a leash across Canada. By July 5, they are flying into Canada’s Northwest. There, they will use the propaganda of appearances to muzzle 250 years of what distant queens and kings did to allow apartheid-genocide to prosper across this nation these two sexy people now trundle freely across. Or, at least one sexy guy, who gets to speak freely while his little woman is allowed only to promote the propaganda that, because she is defined as “pretty”, false “democracy” can be defined as sexy too.
We are told that democracy is the best venue for governance. Words are to make people accountable. So, before I get to the pictatorial part of this dictatorial essay, let us review this other fact in my recent life.
May 31, 2011. Ryan’s commanding officer appears in my driveway. I have written a warning letter. I continue to warn why what is happening next door to me is not pettiness when we remember our history. After all, a year has passed since I sent my first direct warning directed at Ryan Traintinger, the cop and his cohorts. That event is made a detailed record of in “my book”. A quick summation is appropriate here.
In May 2010, I have been dragged back into an Ontario court room. I am responding to “court documents” placed before a judge. My opponents, named on those documents, are Provincial Ministers. They are Liberals. I am direct to this “judge”. I warn him that I have a right to impartial justice. I demand that this judge reveal if he has ever been affiliated with a political party. This judge refuses. He has position. He is above the citizen. He, therefore, is arrogant to the rules of partisans that have invaded my nation. I warn the man that he acts with complete indifference and disrespect for what my father’s generation endured.
I find the man’s name, later, on Liberal donation records. I find more OPP “association” donation records to the same political party into 2009.
On my way home on that day, I witness the abuse of a First Nation man by Thunder Bay Policing officials. I already know that their “association” has a record of donating to Conservatives in Ontario. The elected whom these cops donate to is one lawyer who is very distant from Thunder Bay. Ernie Eves, the Conservative, becomes Premier of the Province. The intent has been obvious.
I write a letter to Ryan, Chuck and their commanding officers of the day. I make a record in my book about this. I dare to write how the record for Ontario’s policing agencies, giving to these same politicians, who promote their own to be judges, makes Ontario’s police no better than the pre-1945 Nazis.
So, a year later, Ryan’s newest commander is in my drive way. “There is a civilian’s complaint process,” says the commander about my letter. I snort at this. I make a verbal record of my already-written findings. These “civilian” committees are full of lawyers and partisans. The “civilian” partisans are appointed by the partisans who have created these “commissions”. I warn that this is conduct that is no better than Nazis.
I point to the young officer who stands some distance away from his agitated commanding officer. I warn that the redirection of even only one dime from that officer’s pockets, whether direct or indirect, is a violation of the Criminal Code. I want this stopped, I warn. It is not his job, says this commanding officer, as he tries to shove brochures at me that tell me about the “public committee” process. I sternly warn that, because he is insisting that I use a process full of partisans, he is acting like the Nazis did before 1945.
“Are you calling me a Nazi?” he angrily asks at one point in our conversation. I suggest that he needs to read my book to understand why I dare to say this. He angrily spits back that he has no such obligation and he will not. So, later that afternoon, I write to him and the ultimate commanding officer in Ontario, the OPP Commissioner, who took over from Julian Fantino.
Fantino is now a Conservative elected into Canada’s Parliament on a “get tough on crime!” agenda. Fantino was in command as cops gave taxed money back to Conservatives, and sometimes Liberals. But to no one else.
Think about that for a moment and about a protestor named DePape.
The question Canadians should be asking is why DePape did not hold up a sign saying “Stop Fantino!” She said that she was concerned about Harper getting only one vote for every four Canadians who were eligible to vote. In the 2011 election, Fantino garnered 38,533 votes in a riding said to contain 123,096 eligible voters. That means that a cop, protecting coppers who gave to Conservatives, still got less than 1 vote for every 3 voters in the riding he will say that he now rules. DePape should think about that math because it is a scarey alignment of coppers with politicians who have dirtied our democracy. These are politicians who now applaud princes who use pomposity to justify taping the mouth of a lady from a “democracy” while killing others in other nations for doing the same.
So, do not wonder why I write on May 31 to the Nipigon coppers’ commanding officer and his current Commissioner: “... think about the level of arrogance your local commander showed today.
When I suggested that he read my book to educate himself to why I will not back down from your arrogant policing officers, his response was what? He is “not obliged to read (my) book!” And, this, sirs and madams, makes him no better than the Nazis of 1936.
Follow the commands of the empowered and the appointed. Do not educate yourself to the complaint of the citizen who says that their rights were violated by partisans. Obey the new laws passed by the partisans, especially if they favour your own position. Obey even orders from partisans in politically charged matters, as happened to me in February 2004.
Obey without thinking and educating yourself to the whole situation?
This arrogant attitude, sirs and madams, makes you no better than Nazis. ...”.
Democracy ain’t sexy. It requires us to recognize when we should collectively gather to use our voices to say “Mayday! My democracy is in deep, deep trouble!” It is in deep trouble when our cops, lawyers, politicians and judges think that they are above our laws, any laws.
So, is it piddling to make a record of what transpires with my neighbour Ryan as Canadians prepare to watch fire works to celebrate Canada Day and then go away, assuring themselves that they live in the “greatest nation on earth”?
On to that pictorial tale I have been promising you will lead to why a story of what transpires in Canada before, during and after Canada Day 2011 is really not a piddling affair.
By June 29, a local has delivered me firewood. I am a forester. I try to think ahead 80 years in minimum measure when it comes to futures for generations to come. I need to think months ahead on how I am going to heat my humble hovel in the cold Canadian winter months. The trees are barely finished leafing but I cannot leave this too late. Bill leans on his truck when he returns with another load. He is astounded when he comes back.
Ryan’s saws have sawn into the “green space”. A machine has pushed and piled. It is clear that my warning letters to Ryan and all of his friends carry no merit in their eyes. I roll my eyes at Bill while asking him if he had not seen the public’s invitation to comment on the town council’s desire to reward a local home boy with some public green space.
Bill knows something about the process. He worked for the town’s utilities services when I was a town councillor. He and I have a level of respect for each other. I do not expose my desire to internally roll my eyes when he expresses his measure of how this would be right or wrong. If the young lad is going to spend the rest of his life in Nipigon, then this should be a good thing, says long, white-bearded Bill.
I am only helping Bill unload firewood. He has already told me that he is behind in his work. I do not explain why this is civilian naivete that is dangerous if the whole story to how it relates back to 1945 were exposed, listened to and understood.
Patience, early reader. Yes, another tale of what happened in a period of a week as Canada’s grand celebration of Canada came and went by will hopefully do the simple math for more simple citizens in my nation. And others. Yes, this essay will eventually answer why I dare to implicate Mr. Traintinger and his personal conduct, and the conduct of his superiors. Yes, the citizen will hopefully awaken as to why this small tale is an indication of why Stephen Harper, who calls himself Prime Minister, and other illegally entrenched “leaders”, will eventually resign or face Criminal Code charges.
Oh, that is a harsh statement coming from a small town citizen. But, listen to this small town story. Then you just may begin to understand why I dare to speak so rudely in writing.
Hmmm. Does it take simple math to wake up a complacent citizenry?
Just before Bill arrives, I go to check my bank account. My small pension deposit has been reduced by 10% from what was deposited the month before. If this rate of decline continues, it will only take 10 months and a pension that had been “performing” will disappear. I talk to a friend who notes that the jittery markets are destroying the hopes and dreams from the hard work of common people.
Let me ask the citizens to think about this as they get further into this last blog for this book’s site. Will the big bankers and the big politicians who enabled the current economic global crisis take similar declines in their pocketed salary? Will they take a salary of zero as people watch their investments made worthless?
Because of what did this economic decline come? A failure for governance to keep business honest.
Why do citizens forget that this all started in 2007 while George Bush ruled America? His philosophy? Big Business can do no wrong. Governance through government is all wrong. Let Big Business rule themselves.
This is convenient for big business people who want to be the equivalent of the princely Donald Trump who treat themselves like princes and muzzle their wives. Oh, democracy is a scarey thing if we think that it would be sexy to have a man with Trump’s hair trumping the buttons that rule the arsenal of misguided “democracies”.
How did this man Bush gain power in 2000? Despite gross irregularities in a Florida vote count, a court, dominated by “judges” who were old Republicans, declared Republican George Bush as the new President of the United States of America.
I dare to suggest that governance that cannot be trusted cannot create a business climate that can be trusted. Worse, I dare to suggest that governance, that does not ensure that a completely impartial institution of justice exists, leads to cops who think that, because partisan implicated “legal professionals” say that “this is so!”, they are above, first, the piddling law and then even the Criminal Code. Yes, more breathless observations.
But, back to the pictorial essay.
By July 1, 2010, the once pristine green space seen from my backyard was now a cleared lot. Yes, what is now only to the left of that first picture (July 01 (photo #) 01) was once trees that went completely down to the end of the lane behind my house (July0103). On June 29, I watched Barry and Janet walk by. They did not see me in my backyard gardens. Barry muttered aloud. He did not sound like a happy man.
On July 1, Barry not only muttered about what the muddied lot now looked like. He pointed to the property stake and new ditch that the back hoe working for Ryan had created. (July0104).
Who had worked on the back hoe? Allan Clearwater. In small towns, it helps to have connections. Allan is the son of Nipigon’s main newspaper journalist, Glena.
I suggest that you visit my June 16 blog. That blog registers why I have much contempt for my small town’s council and small town journalists. That blog makes a record of the background to a 2008 fiasco. In that year, town council played with the safety of town water for the sake of taxed money.
So, before we get further into the muddy grounds of Ryan’s, that just might now be close to mimicking what my great uncle and First Nation men beside him struggled through on the murdering fields of the first “Great War” meant to protect principled democracy, I bring you these considerations.
Reeve Richard Harvey was elected as “Reeve” in 2006. I had concerns about the town fathers being silent as they eagerly took taxed money from bigger politicians while the big politicians denied me real justice. So, being a once town councillor, I talked to the Reeve shortly after that election. He seemed like a fine man in that conversation. He insisted that he had been approached by an unnamed political party. They had wanted to sponsor Harvey in his run at the highest position in town. He said that he had refused on these grounds.
He felt that it was extremely important that small town politicians carry no implications of being partisan in their politics. Impartiality was important to serve small towns effectively.
Think about that. If this is a suggested standard for small town politicians, why is the legal prerequisite for our courts and policing forces to so be, impartial that is, denied to us?
Why? Because power goes to the head of these stupid people.
Reeve Harvey proved himself a hypocrite by the second official “town council” meeting. I sat and observed. He did not mount a copy of Canada’s Constitution and its promises to the people. Instead, he insisted that every meeting have the flags flying and the Queen’s picture on the wall. Then he insisted that the town council change his official title from Reeve to Mayor. This was because, in Canada, “Reeves” are generally people in Southern Ontario who rule over farming townships, which Nipigon once was. Lowly Reeves were considered, in the status of the political mind, to be below towns’ Mayors. So, one of the first orders of business revealed this man’s hypocrisies. He wanted to be called “Mayor”, not a lowly “Reeve”.
My heart faded when I sat in a room of “democracy” and witnessed this arrogant stupidity. Power breeds arrogance. But, it is our law that is to protect us from that.
By 2009, this man was cooing about Stephen Harper the Conservative. This was because Stephen was going to give Richard’s hands big wads of taxes. This would happen if Harvey and all stayed silent to what one citizen in Nipigon said was criminal conduct. Yes, by then I was warning that the silence of Nipigon’s elected to what had happened to one small town business man was a repeat of what had happened in small towns across Nazi Europe.
By the fall of 2009, the true colours of this Reeve spilled forth. He had eagerly run into the arms of the Conservatives as the election fever war drums began to mount that fall. Reeve Harvey still had over a year to finish his elected position that, in 2006, he declared should be an “impartial one!” Oh, power is a heady thing!
Declare that it is right to deny the economy, and, hence, right to life, for one unaligned business man. Declare that the courts shall be denied that man who declares that the laws of human decency have been denied him. Declare that the taxes, that would free the courts from monetary excluding factors, must be used to build grand architectures. Reward and promote those who protect this farce. If you do not understand this summary paragraph, read the rest of the story in the book.
Aw, yes, Glena Clearwater, the journalist, received copies of my communications to this town’s council. She stayed silent. She eagerly reported Harvey shaking Harper’s hands in grand congratulation. A stone project could be built while the building of corrupted justice and institutions of governance was silenced. She eagerly promoted that a small town Reeve was going to be a federal Conservative candidate in a pending election. She eagerly slammed his petitioning sign onto her snowbank during the April 2011 federal election.
So, good son Allan dug that ditch that Barry, the retired teacher, stood pointing at, while muttering in loud protest about it. Barry mumbled aloud the day after he had snorted at the appearance of the muddied garage lot of Ryan the cop. Allan, the good home boy, gets paid, at least part time, by town taxed dollars. Sometimes he is on a town back hoe, I have heard. Barry muttered because Allan had dug a ditch that was obviously outside the property marker (go to that picture, July0104).
Now, I have bought and sold property a number of times. Yes, I eventually served on town council after I bought in Nipigon. Yes, I sat in a town council public meeting where we discussed property law. Yes, I had to confess on that day that I had not consulted that law when I had built a shed in 1987. As we discussed the plethora of potential violations that the town’s engineer and Public Works Supervisor anticipated, I confessed that my shed actually trespassed onto town property. I knew that it would have to be moved to conform. I pledged to do that in that meeting before I left town council in 2000.
Read the book. By 2000, you will read, I had entered a world of business where the Liberal and Conservative partisans practised the arrogance of Reeve Harvey. If you read the book, you will understand why, by 2002, I could not afford to do anything on my property. I was battling to protect my honesty in business from the corruption in Canada’s institutions of governance and “justice”.
However, I do know a bit about “property law”. I do know why Barry was gesturing. A ditch had appeared outside the property line of Ryan’s acquired garage lot. In public documents, the town’s green spaces were to be invaded by only 60 foot square lots. So, having allowed one for Ryan, on what legal grounds could the town refuse my, or some other residents’, applications? This being the case, why was a drainage ditch, benefiting only Ryan, now outside Ryan’s property line and onto public land?
Barry muttered. I giggled behind his back as I dug in my gardens that late July 1 evening.
So, a man employed by the town had dug a ditch into “green space”. The implication was that the town had approved it or that the town’s part time employee had decided, on that holiday day, that he could do what he wanted. This arbitrarily added another 5 feet on one side of Ryan’s property to increase the value of a muddy lot now owned by a cop.
Start doing the simple math, simple citizens. Read the book. It relates this fact that Ian and others could easily verify through court submitted documentation.
On February 7, 2003, I begged a court clerk to allow my application for civil justice to be filed for free. Despite obtaining a $36 million dollar six year contract for my stone to be sold into the USA in 2002, the antics of Conservatives and Liberals and New Democrats had bankrupted me. I had no money by that day. It was the bureaucrats and the partisans who had done this to me. I had finally read our laws that they had crassly broken. I was into courts on my own because of “new rules” made by partisans.
The book records that the Conservatives had declared that, because I was ‘self-employed’, I could be denied legal assistance through our taxes. My book records that, despite the fact that elected lawyers were named on my documents, these elected lawyers used the tax coffers I was denied to send more highly paid lawyers into my fray.
They had also made it a rule that, if the citizen did not pay a $157 “filing fee”, the citizen’s pleas for justice could be stopped by a unionized court clerk. Just conveniently, she was also paid from the same taxed coffers.
So, in May 2010, Ryan and his commanders and cohorts were warned by me to consider this. I had found those cop donations into Liberal and Conservative coffers by 2007. I had warned by 2007 that this was criminal conduct. I had warned that the cops were required under the criminal code to be seen as completely impartial. I had warned that they were also legally required to uphold the constitutional principle that we are all “the colour of water”, even when it comes to financial, or social, status. Otherwise, I warned, the politicians and the lawyers would pick and choose which citizens they would and could bankrupt and not care about.
It not only matters if Ryan, the cop, gained only $157, taken from the court pots that would have allowed my court application to be free. What does matter more is that Ryan the cop, and his supervisors, were warned to consider the depth of the criminal conduct when my application of 2003, naming Conservative party members and the party itself, appeared before a “judge”. Helen Pierce was tainted through her paid alignment with Canadian “Conservatives”.
What matters most is that a supervisor of Ryan appeared in my driveway on May 31, 2011. He said that neither he nor Ryan had any obligation to educate themselves to all of this.
Go back to about page 6 in this blog/essay: “... By 1939, Hitler began his ravaging rampage because neighbours did not care about what happened to neighbours. Cops relished their self promotions and gains even as the rights of their neighbours disappeared. ...”.
Then go back to about page 16. As I wrote sternly to the Nipigon detachment’s commander and the Commissioner of the OPP on May 31: “... Follow the commands of the empowered and the appointed. Do not educate yourself to the complaint of the citizen who says that their rights were violated by partisans. ... Obey without thinking and educating yourself to the whole situation? ... This arrogant attitude, sirs and madams, makes you no better than Nazis. ...”.
So, my other more distant and aging neighbour named Barry mutters about what he sees and stays silent to what he cannot see? Our nation expresses horror at the image of “those women” in Afghanistan whose mouths are shut by the cloth over their faces? My nation stays silent to the rules of a Queen, whose picture a Canadian Reeve posts as the venerable dictator over all of us and of how all shall be? Oh, grand hypocrisy in this where a “Queen” declares that the rule shall be that, because Kate is only married to her princely grandson, she shall not speak! There is no tape visible on Kate’s pretty little mouth that the prince’s pursed lips seize so that 20 somethings can swoon, wishing that this prince was theirs to bonk in the rich and royal bed?
Oh, but Democracy ain’t no sexy thing! The lesson should be that, yes, even the dictatorship against a sexy being should be stood against or we all become “those neighbours” who refuse to bow to the Conservative-donating cops who gain property because Conservative-aligned Reeves and councillors (read about Conservative implicated Levina Collins in my June 16 blog) think that they are above our laws because they can take our taxes and reward the good cop who stays silent to all of this. The image in my brain as my breathless anger floods forth once again? Of my father in a 1940 Army uniform.
The ominous lesson is that the gun, controlled by the friend of the partisan, first starves or beats the individual who protests, directly. And then, if Barry dares to protest, he is told that the Conservative Reeve and councillor are “the law”. And if Barry dares to protest more loudly than his silent muttering to his wife and distant trees, he enters dangerous grounds where he might be offending even the cops with guns.
Ironically, on July 1, Barry and wife depart. Barry is still obviously agitated, mumbling onwards as he limps down the side lane. Ironically, I work on in the gardens. On what was a fairly windy day, it is now calm enough that I hear a tree fall in the back woods. This is common in my neck of these woods. It still has some trees that were killed by a budworm infestation in the 1980’s. More were killed in a tent caterpillar infestation in the 1990’s.
So, if a tree falls and an aging “professional forester” hears it fall, does it matter at all?
Does it matter at all if princes are worshipped as they stay silent to the invisible tape they have placed over their wives’ mouths, despite the promises by 1948? Does it matter at all if cops fell trees so that their personal advantage is gained while they stay silent to the felling of the rights, of neighbours beside them?
And, what of our elected’s responsibilities in all of this?
Barry has muttered but missed the natural falling of the trees. Nipigon’s town council has two implicated Conservatives who become criminal in their exercise of influence, from an elected position that helps them to reward a Conservative-paying cop who will stay silent to what has happened in the hypocrisy of perceived “justice”, despite the lessons to 1945. Silence prevails as to why the principle of “majority rules” needs to be protected by politicians and their partisan registered cops and judges. Silence falls to the legal principle that these are people who are forced to recognize that the silencing of the rights of only one citizen is criminal, given the history before 1945.
No, democracy is not about “Majority Rules!” If it were, we would be ruled by a Hitler who declared that the minority Jews could be singled out and murdered by majorities.
Democracy is no sexy thing. It is responsible respect and protection of the founding laws because of what Hitler did before 1945.
Barry is only a citizen. Ryan is not. Ryan is a cop. Like the cops that Doug Vincent charged, the cop cannot pick and choose which law they will silence. They are also to set an example to all citizens.
It is the politicians that the cops paid to and the lawyers who paid to the same politicians who silence what Barry might mutter more about if he knew about more than the image of a muddied ditch outside a property line. This is a ditch dug by a fine, likeable home boy named Allan. But it is still a dirtied little ditch dirtied by more than the clay it sprung from.
Oh, I was on town council when Glena’s son Allan formed a partnership with “Butch” (Richard) Kovacs. Kovacs was even promoted to a supervisory position in the town’s Public Works department when I was on council. The only other business person in the town, Reeve Bruce Atkinson, and I opposed an application from the town’s works department.
Butch, the entrepreneurial Canadian, had bought a back hoe. He wanted the town to rent his machine when additional machinery was needed by the town. A private contractor, named David Thompson, protested, loudly. His protests brought Jimmy Nicols, a local aggregates operator with similar equipment, on side. Bruce and I, the only two business men on the five member town council, agreed with David and Jim.
Being paid from taxes and being in a full time position with the town gave Butch job security which the private contractors did not have. This, Bruce and I noted, allowed Butch to come in with, predictably, “the lowest bid”. The other three councillors at the time, Larry O’Neill, Greg Harper and Doug Huntus were all good union members. They lived on cheques that came in regularly from big businesses. Bruce and I battled with these three who wanted the majority view to prevail. Larry expressed the view that Butch’s bidding was simply an indication that hard work gained many rewards. I expressed the view that greed can sometimes supercede what is right.
Bruce and I warned that what Butch was doing was wrong under law. Indeed, the conflict of interest legislation was only part of this. It was wrong to use position to gain while the private business tax payer suffered. As I recall it, we established that Butch’s machinery would only be engaged so that Allan, who did not work at all for the town at that time, might be employed as a last resort. Both David and Jim had to be approached first, regardless of their “pricing”. If they were unavailable, only then could Butch’s machine be engaged.
After all, the price of democracy is that position is not abused to the gain of those paid from our taxes while the taxed person’s rights decline. This included the right to impartiality when it came to business. And, we warned, the law protected Jim and David from the abuse of position by Butch and his friends on town council. That was before 2000, 18 years after Canada’s constitution came home.
You might want to go to my June 16 blog, Educating DePape ... . There you can read about the state of mind with the small town’s current council when it comes to muddied waters that might even have killed some of the town’s people.
Next, wend your way through the 2011 complicated geometry that appears on Canada Day in 2011. Allan Clearwater appears in the muddied garage lot of the cop named Ryan. He is a town employee on a machine owned by a town employee. Ryan has approached Conservative members of town council to change the rules which gave mumbling Barry forests to walk by, days before. Ryan is a cop who has sent senseless cents via his policing association to go to the good Conservative faction.
He did so under the rule of now Conservative fed named Julian Fantino. Fantino, Ontario’s highest cop at the time, is warned, by me in 2007, that this is criminal code conduct.
Ryan applies for his personal gain. This is allowed by taxes dragged out of anything I might buy that might be taxed, because I refuse to respect income tax laws. Yes, I make an “official record”. every year, why I refuse to file income tax reports, every year, after 2004. Taxes go into Ryan’s pockets. He cares not if his neighbour had no $157 to fight this corruption starting in 2003. “Majority rules!” is the attitude of the arrogant who become arrogant because they are empowered. They care not that their neighbour’s father put on the uniform of the Canadian Army, preparing to die to stop the anarchy that began as partisan boots marched over Jews and dissidents because “majority rules!”
James Foulds is a third council member on the council that Ryan approaches. These are all “nice people”. So were most of the town councils in Europe who became overwhelmed by partisan boots because they stayed silent to the first wrong perpetuated against citizens in their midst. James is a good union man. James chose to run in the last Ontario provincial election as a New Democrat. James was warned by me to be careful about his personal duty, given my discoveries by 2007 for Ontario’s public service unions.
As in Germany of old, the sins of the corporate brothers and sisters implicate the sins of the union brothers and sisters. By 2007, I dared to warn Mr. Foulds, I had found that employees of Ontario’s bureaucracies, even from the bureaucracies of “justice”, had taken a half million dollars of taxation. These taxes came, originally, from citizens for the sole purpose of paying for unionized staff-salaries. Some of this money went where? Into the coffers of the union. From there, they raced into the coffers of that great federal socialist party, led by Jack Layton. Foulds then chose to run for the provincial branch of that same New Democratic party.
So, Mr. Foulds gets warning letters from me, repeatedly. He is warned that, because his socialist party sees this redirection of taxes to their personal benefit as “right”, this does not make it right under the law. I warn that, because Ryan’s police “union” is called an “association”, so that lawyers can say that it is not a “union”, the OPP association is also not above the law. I warn Foulds and all of his friends on council, and Ryan, that the New Democrats are implicated by the redirection of taxed dollars from the pockets of tax-paid court clerks. Dirtied by this, I warn, Foulds has a legal obligation to stand against the gains made by cops, or anyone, who pays to Conservatives or Liberals who promote the advantages of the cop or the court clerk while the citizens’ rights decline.
Foulds aligns with the Conservatives on council because the implicated will not stand up against the implicated lest they be arrested too. Ryan, the implicated cop gets the green space that otherwise good neighbour of mine, Barry, mutters about being muddied. But, Barry, and others in this town, will get a hard copy of this blog. Will Barry and others commit the sins of our history, and stay silent to the silent crimes that are not made so obvious because they are not mud? Or blood? Or tape across the face of a lady some call “princess” in a nation where Canadian blood spilled so that a sexy prince and princeless princess might marry one day?
Or might Barry and others stay silent because Democracy ain’t such a sexy thing? Might they fear that getting their hands muddied might implicate them as potential targets in the sights of those who have illegally gained via our vote, even small town cops?
Barry mutters about the obvious he can see but does not step off the comfortable, gravelled lane. I do. And I do so knowing that a fourth member of town council is named Gordie Mackenzie. Gord is a “professional forester” by real trade. He went through the same forestry school I did, after all. I knew Gord when he worked in government and industry forestry offices.
So, if the tree falls in the town’s forests and is cut before it falls, what is an elected “professional foresters” duty?
Poor aging Barry has bad hips. I do not fault him for standing on a gravelled lane and muttering aloud. I, however, walked off the lane. I was careful to stay off Ryan’s newest acquired property gain so that I would not be violating “trespass” law. If Barry had walked with me on July 1, he would have seen this. Lucky for Barry, I did have a camera. He can, eventually, let his fingers do the walking to where the pictures will be doing the talking. Eventually, the pictures referenced here will be at the “Downloads” page of my book site (they became available on July 11 at the “Pictorial Essay” link at http://JustBusinessTheBook.com). He should trundle on down to picture numbered July0107.
That picture is especially good when we remember that brave Doug Vincent dared to say, decades ago, that even cops and bureaucratic supervisors could not pick and choose which law they would respect. July0107 illustrates three laws Ryan and his town-employed friends (yes, I dare to say that Butch is also implicated by his machinery participating in all of this) chose to blatantly ignore.
First, this is a back ditch to protect Ryan’s garage from runoff. That must be one big honking garage for the boy cop to toy with. 60 feet by 60 feet is apparently not big enough, someone decided. By July 7, it is clear that Ryan’s garage will be big but not as big as the big lot he evidently needed. We will get to that later.
The problem becomes this. The town advertised that these lots were to be cut into the declared green space in only, about, a 60 feet by 60 feet swath. Look at the picture July0107. That back ditch is, like the side ditch Barry mumbled about, outside the property markers. A later picture will actually verify this for the doubting Thomases.
So, property boundary laws were violated by who? The town’s fathers (and one Conservative implicated mother named Levina Collins), who told Ryan he could enter declared green space, beyond the property line stakes? The town engineer, who apparently did not care about his duty to the safety and rights of all residents? Or was it that a sometimes, or maybe all time, now, town employee gained more from taxes Ryan-the-tax-paid-copper? Ryan would redirect more taxes from Ryan’s taxed salary into poor Allan’s poor pockets. As I watched Jimmy Nicols expensive trucks come and go, it was also clear that many others in town would see Ryan’s generosity with taxed dollars. Meanwhile, Ryan, and all of the partisan folds in town councils and in the town’s business stayed silent to the denial of justice because it was only against “one citizen”.
Ryan was above his duty under the law to protect the citizen. Even Allan got paid by good cop Ryan. So, eventually either decided that they could do as they wanted, despite property law?
In any event, the property lines on the left side of Ryan’s “property” pushed 5 feet further into “green space”. The back of “his” property needed to expand another 20 feet into the destroyed green space, that is supposedly “public property” that is the duty of “public employees” to think about. Let’s leave the right side of Ryan’s expanded enterprise for now but recognize that a private lot became an excuse to expand into public property and destroy “green space”.
That is property law that was abused by someone who told a town that these lots would only be 60 by 60. But, what about other laws?
If you look at the bottom of that ditch in picture number July0107, you will see lots of lumps of clay. Start to think about those laws of conservation that Conservation Officer Doug Vincent used to nail two cops who cared not about conservation law. But, for now, let me leave you pondering the relevance of lumps of clay in the bottom of that questionably located, based on property laws, ditch. Just start to think about fisheries laws.
For now, look at the tree stump in that picture July0107. It is, for those who do not know trees, a very healthy, fairly young Poplar tree. So, now it is time to ask not only what gave Ryan the cop the right to step across a property line to cut that tree? The question also becomes: was this “good forestry practices”, that elected “professional forester” Gord MacKenzie pre-approved?
I do not think that Gord knew what went on here. However, if there were even an indication that he was involved in this prescription, I would castigate him for his conduct as a supposed “professional forester”. And here is the reason why.
In the early months of 2007, I wrote to Nipigon’s town council. I warned that a fire prone forest was being created behind my house. In 2000, the town of Beardmore faced evacuation because budworm-killed Balsam Fir trees had died, fallen over and created uncontrollable fire conditions. I wrote, proposing to reduce the fire risk behind my house by taking out the dense Balsam Fir that were fire prone even if not dead. Jonah Dupuis and Hoss Pelletier were the only two members on council who showed up for an on-ground explanation of what I was proposing to do.
In the same letter, I dared to castigate that council because they were proposing a “no-cutting” by-law for private properties. I showed Jonah and Hoss the dangers of allowing a forest to grow that was not really that natural. Read the book. It gives the full forestry lessons on why I say that. The science is that Poplar stands are one of the types of forest that wild fires peter out in, in most cases. This is because of the clean boles, shade and cooled ground conditions.
In contrast, the needles of Balsam Firs will flame up like gasoline in dry weather. Dead, dense clumps of these trees become a fire waiting to happen. Town council stayed silent as I began to fell fire prone Balsam. It became my exercise regime. I cut and felled and replaced the Balsam with young, less fire prone White Pine.
And, yes, I felled one or two Poplar trees. With my forester’s eye, I could see the ones that were declining and less desirable than their close neighbours. Rather than letting them die, I did fall some younger Poplars that were too crowded together.
But, I would like Gord, the elected forester, to tell me what allowed Ryan to expand his property rights into the town’s green space to fell healthy trees. Oh, I do not object to Ryan felling unhealthy trees, if he had any real rights to this property, given all of the laws that I will eventually get to. If you look at the picture numbered July0105, there is a rotten birch that was fallen. So, what. Indeed, Ryan and gang ended up felling two dying Birch trees that bordered the lane and were too close to hydro lines. So, if he had rights to the property, maybe he could have fallen some “danger trees”.
However, if you look at picture July0105, he felled healthy Poplar that were once in a zone declared “green”. And, if you look really hard at picture number July0106, you can see the stump of a healthy Poplar that was nearly sixty feet from Ryan’s “property line”. Meanwhile, the dense Balsam Fir, along all edges of this property, remains.
This happens in an era where this town’s council wanted to once ban cutting for appearances sake in 2007. By 2011, a raging forest fire has burnt homes in a town called Slave Lake, Alberta. In a complete swing of stupidity, the Nipigon Town Council talks in 2011 about cutting all trees down for great distance from the town.
Stupidity spawns stupidity when democracy is made subservience to a queen who puts clear duct tape over Kate’s pretty little mouth. A Reeve, who mounts the head of a queen and then does not encourage rational discussion from all quarters and talks to only those people he wants to listen to, is no leader of democracy. Because Democracy ain’t sexy, it is critical that more than just the “legal professionals” be consulted in all things democratic.
Even less relevance should be put in the head of a queen who tapes the mouths of those who marry into her royal, ass of nine, oops, asinine, family. But, when Reeves mount queens so that they become neighing Meighers, it is not democracy that breeds.
Accountability in our forests. That is why we, supposedly, hire “specialists” like foresters. They are to look at a situation to say what is in the public’s best interests, in the long run. So, my question remains, for the fourth member on town council, what forestry excuses excuse these excursions by the “cops who become arrogant” beyond their property lines to cut healthy, fire resistant trees?
And then I dare to ask government bureaucrats, some who once worked with Doug Vincent on fisheries related issues, what change in the rules for protecting little fishies allows a cop named Ryan to get away with what First Nations like Rocky Bay were jumped on for decades ago?
Go to the picture July0108. It is taken from near the mouth of that back ditch dug by a town’s “employee” in a private machine. It is full of clay and clay clods on July 1, 2011. And, on the right side of this property (picture Jul0109)? The property corner stake is barely visible (I mark it in a later picture). It is to the left of that cut healthy Poplar stump. Ryan or gang evidently decided that it was not good for Ryan that the public land outside his property line was also not flat. So, a town employee named Allan pushed and pulled material so that it fell into or perched near the edge of a ditch that would pour muddied water into a deep, natural ravine.
No big deal, you say? It is the job of professional engineers and foresters to make certain that all laws, environmental ones included, are respected. Lorne Townes, that conservation officer whose tale I referenced earlier, learned the harsh lessons from blind arrogance. It is the town employee’s responsibility to ensure that the person in charge of knowing what is needed to protect these considerations is consulted and the rules dealt with. Even inside a town’s boundaries.
That once local contractor named David Thompson? Ask his still-in-town brother named Bernie what happens when fisheries laws are not respected. Bernie faced great heat for construction he did on the stream that Ryan’s ravine eventually joins up with. Brook trout rehabilitation was the big buzz back then.
It is the cop’s role to prove that they respect all laws, even those related to saving little fishies. So, what has changed since the days of Doug Vincent and Lorne Townes and Bernie Thompson? Have new rules been written to remove the town council and employee from ultimate accountability? Or has a level of arrogance entered the realm of the elected and their selected that leads to stupid arrogance?
If you read my June 16 blog, I would dare to suggest that it is complete arrogance that leads to such stupidity in the small and big things in our nation.
It becomes relevant to think about the fireworks that then showed up on July 1 in Nipigon. There is much relevance to what should have been thought about if cops and councils and town employees did not think that they were now above our laws.
Think on those pictures of the clay soils exposed on Ryan’s precious lot. Think about the lumps of clay sitting on the bottom of Ryan’s ditches (July0109). Think about all of those silt fences and straw bales that are required to meet environmental law on the silly little, most-of-the-time-dry ditches between Nipigon and Thunder Bay.
Then remember that Ryan’s ditches flow down that steep slope into a ravine. That ravine now flows past the old Catholic school that Ryan once went to. That school was the location for an expensive, demonstrative “fish rehab” project, paid for by our tax dollars.
When Ryan was tiny, this stream was significant. The old sign still stands beside that rotting school where the expensive lookouts and interlock-brick-paved trails rot. We will eventually get to those pictures. Now that Ryan is a cop, this stream is evidently no longer significant. It eventually flows into Clearwater Creek, which is not named after the town’s citizens who muddy the waters of what Democracy really is.
And, it ain’t at all sexy, especially when it comes to the muddied waters coloured by partisan politics that citizens don’t want to see, even if the mud is in their face.
So, a big pot of clay now sits where green forests, that the town’s folks had agreed should remain forever, once stood. Clay sits in the bottom of Ryan’s illegally placed ditch, made illegal if the reasons for the green spaces for towns were respected. More clay is exposed because Ryan wants flatter land. He trespasses onto public property to not only expose more clay and silt. He also cuts down the big, healthy Poplars which once slowed the pounding of rain onto these once covered clay soils now below.
It is past 10 o’clock on the fading night of Canada Day 2011, 2200 hours to the cop and the conservation officer. I do not care if the celebratory fireworks continue into the evening. I have my own work to do. I plan on being up early. I look at the weather forecast at Environment Canada to start to arrange my Saturday gardening and other work. I do a “Hmmm!”
You see, there are reasons for environmental law. It is supposed to protect little fishies from all probabilities. On July 1, the probability is nearing one hundred percent. There is a massive front of thunder storms sitting off the end of Lake Superior. The centre of the storm looks wicked. There are deep pockets of red on the radar that indicate severe thunder storms. I go to the Nipigon page for this federal agency. Usually if severe thunderstorms are expected, a warning is posted. There is none. However, it is clear from the radar and the direction that the storm is moving that the eye of this storm will pass over Nipigon.
I do my rough calculations. I anticipate that the storm will arrive at about 1 in the morning. I close all windows and batten down the hatches.
It is 1:10 in the dark. I have been awakened, more by the heavy rain and wind than by any lightning. The intense lightning does not arrive until later. Water is flowing down the streets. The front ditches are filling. Then the free fireworks begin. I am worried that the hydro might go out or a lightning strike might hit and damage the computer. Otherwise, I would have gone “on-line” to see what the weather radar now showed.
The noise is too great. I will not be able to sleep. So, I take watch at the windows. I watch my dry water feature do its job. It fills with water which will slowly leak off to water my parched trees. I see fireflies, sitting on the ground in the heavy rain. They are still diamonds in the dark in my gardens. On the remnant patches of lawn in my front yard, there are hundreds winking, despite the downpour. The rain pours for nearly a half hour. The fireflies wink on at each other. This is sexed bugs having sex. It is not democracy. It rains more lightly for an hour before I retire to bed. I am older. I know that there has been over an inch of rain fall in that one hour.
In the stupidity of federal leaders, the “weather station” for the Nipigon area is actually located about 20 kilometres to the north, at an abandoned town site called Cameron Falls. I have noted the discrepancies in Nipigon’s precipitation reports in the past because of this. The Cameron Falls station reports “0.6 inches” (1.5 cm.) in the period when the storm passed over. I measure my containers that I set out around my gardens every night. There is just under 2 inches (5.1 cm.) of rainfall.
This is why silt mats are normally required on any construction sites. I know what I will find.
Sure enough, Allan’s ditch is full of water (July0201). Seven hours after the rain ended, the flow is almost gone. This does not surprise me. After all, it has been a dry season so far and the trees would have soaked in the rain. Still, the ditch is full because Ryan’s new culvert plugs the ditch where the ditch once flowed freely.
This is public property. This small ditch was cleaned out years ago after a neighbour and I complained after a rainfall event like this. The lane had flooded and water had run down through my yard and then my neighbours. In one rain, it eroded lane ways instead of running down the back laneway ditch. Now the home boy cop, who is above all laws, apparently, creates a cesspool where before there was none (July0202).
It also appears that town employees have no idea of what happens when clay gets wet. Despite the lessons that should have been learned from the incident that I talk about in my June 16 blog (tainted water from a clay slump along the Nipigon River), the town’s employee piles Ryan’s clay right to the edge of the ditch. In the rain, it slumps and slides down to block the culvert (July0203).
I have not had a problem with water through my yard, this time. This is because I learned from the last. I bermed the back of my property to prevent water flowing into my yard from the laneway. Still, 7 hours after the rain ended, a lane way that I have not seen remain flooded for such a long period of time is full of water (July0207)
The new back ditch that was full of clay before this rain? It is swept clean of “silt and fines”. Most of these fines will already have flowed past the rotting lofty decks at a closed Catholic school. Those decks were to be used to teach little humans how bad this was for little fishies. The running water has eroded the mouth of that back ditch that pours down into the stream bed (July0204) towards that stream that goes by the school that Ryan and his friends went to.
(July0206) On the day before, I walked in the ravine's bottom. It was dry. After this storm, the water still runs fast off the hill that is behind Ryan and my houses. The ravine, that leads from a hill where a popular trail to a bald spot overview of the town is located, is as full as it is in spring time run-offs.
But, town engineers and employees are to think of that in the engineering of things. In this small town, they do not. I later walk down town on the street that is infamous for washing out. Called the Wadsworth Hill, by some, it is where my son sped down the hill on his bike, proud to be finally riding solo to wherever. He hit the washed out shoulder so violently in that year that he ended up in the hospital. He was barely 10 then. He is now 33. So, I take a picture of that severely washed, again, roadway (July0306).
I was forced to take some road engineering when I was in university, training to become a forester. For nearly a quarter of a century now, on this hill, the town’s engineers have not been able, so it seems, to get the simplest of engineering into practice. “Crown the shoulders so that the water actually runs down into the ditch. Direct water to run so that it does not run where it will damage the road bed.” On this Wadsworth hill, the path of the water is easily traceable in the washing tracks it makes from the top of that hill. The rush of water starts at the top of the hill down a poorly defined ditch.
Our “professionals” and the town employees below them are, doing what? Making certain Ryan’s newest property is high and dry?
This Wadsworth hill is a hill that flows into man-made ditches where the silt hits various barricades or slow spots before dumping into any real stream. Ryan’s hill does not. All of those spots to the right of Ryan’s official property that perch at the top of this ravine (July0105)? Ryan’s gang does not care that the natural filter that existed on public property at the top of this ravine disappeared the day before this rain. Silt, from his construction site, swept down this slope into that stream that flows by the school that was once Ryan’s.
Yes, these cops should be lauded when they put their lives on the line. But the propaganda must end that they can then make themselves above the law and can pick and choose whatever law they will respect.
Arrogance breeds irresponsibility and stupidity. The clods return. Allan returns with the machine. By the evening, I am watching the weather channel reporting. Unlike the Environment Canada site, the private broadcaster at least records what the probabilities of thunder storms are. This close to the big Lake Superior, pop up thunder storms are not unheard of in this heat and humidity. That weather channel allows a 10% probability of a flash storm.
I visit this weather site because stupid clods have piled the clay up so high that the back lane culvert is now completely buried under clay (July0301). The clods have pushed clods into the mouth of the ditch dug for Ryan who does not care that the clay will run off into the stream that was the focus for the rights of little fishies when Ryan was a little home boy. They have even pushed debris over the embankment so that it is mere feet from the waters that still are running from the rains of yesterday (July0302). And, they have pushed more clay into Ryan’s off-property back ditch. The next big storm will not only wash clay off the slope on public “green space”, created by the arrogance of cops and town employees, and sweep it away down this “ditch”, as it did the day before (front part of July0303). It is now refilled with more clay, pushed off the property of Ryan (back part of July0303). There was, luckily, no rain on July 3.
Before we get much farther into this diatribe, let me make note of this. Oh, I have researched the name, Ryan Traintinger. I read a report from November 30, 2010. Ryan and a driver of a highway sanding truck, Vic Lesperance, saved a passenger. The man was calling out for help from a transport that had slid off the highway into Lake Nipigon. Both Ryan and Vic were nominated for an award handed out by Ryan’s OPP.
I know that these cops put their lives on the line. For all I know, maybe a small town hero needs to be given whatever he wants.
But, my question then becomes, why is Vic Lesperance, whom I also know as a nice man, not being given the lot behind me to build his own garage on?
In deeper irony, my brother named Malcolm, who lives near Chatham, Ontario, received the very same award that Ryan’s commanders are recommending for Ryan and Vic. Years ago, with no one else around, my brother pulled a young lady out of an overturned van that was already on fire. He got her to safety just before the van’s gas tank exploded and the vehicle was destroyed. He received an award that some would consider piddling. We were proud. He did what was right with no cops around.
So, my next question then becomes, why is Malcolm MacAlpine, whom I also know as a generally nice man, not being given a lot behind me to build his own garage on?
Aw, yes, maybe Ryan deserves an award for risking his life. Unfortunately, this is what the cop is paid for. They are given guns so that they stand up for the rights of the citizen. They are not given guns to either take away the life of a crazed citizen who has only a knife. Nor are they given guns to protect their own with silence or to ignore the fact that the politicians, that they have paid money to, have removed rights. Even if it is the rights of only one citizen.
Unfortunately, our cops are paid to put their lives on the line. They are constantly barraged with criticism about split moment decisions they must make. Indeed, in the hours before Ryan’s heady construction began, police in Quebec were still in the CTV’s gun sights. Quebec coppers had killed a health worker as they sprayed a homeless man with bullets. Immediately, protest marches arose. Why had the cops not subdued this man via other means? He was only wielding a knife after all, said the friends of this homeless man.
Therefore, we should pause from this small town story about a small town home boy who is now a cop to think about what became the main criticism in Quebec. The public is angry. Cops from Quebec’s police force are investigating the incident. “Cops friends are investigating cops’ friends, again?” is the cry into the media.
This is in Canada. This is in a nation where, by 2009, the public acknowledgement was that the RCMP, Canada’s highest policing service, should not be investigating their own when it is alleged that their own may have done wrong.
So, why are officers in Quebec, a province inside Canada, still investigating their own?
Worse, why are coppers who donate to politicians now the very people who refuse to deal with Criminal Code complaints with these politicians who abuse their positions of power?
Power breeds arrogance. Arrogance breeds stupidity. When arrogance is allowed, overwhelming stupidity prevails.
Quebec was one of the first provinces to make this rule about democracy: if you are not allowed to register a vote, then you could not sponsor politicians. This rapidly removed the paying from unions and corporations and policing associations into politicians’ pockets. It took years before this simple rule was applied in Canada’s federal agency. In Ontario, entities that have no right to place a vote, still redirect taxes into politicians’ coffers.
Why? Because the constitution, as it was in the United States of America, and the international law of 1948, as it was in the United States of America, have been made irrelevant.
The province or state could declare that “the majority” wanted new or old rules to prevail over the rights of the citizen. Racist states could allow their apartheid to continue. Racist provinces could be given control of all natural resources that treaties said would be shared with First Nations in Canada. In Ontario, the cop could still take taxed dollars in 2009 and give it to the partisan, despite the lessons to 1948 of the ramifications of allowing backroom, registered friendships like this to infiltrate our institutions of justice, and even “our vote”.
Oh, it is difficult to make the right decision to save a life in difficult circumstances. I am not going to judge Quebec cops for what happened in that province. I will dare to speak out against processes that continue despite the promise by 1948 because of the historic lessons to 1945. And, I will dare to ask why if, by 2009, the legal opinion became that cops should not be investigating cops, then why does it continue anywhere in Canada where the feds are ultimately responsible for upholding international and constitutional laws?
Worse, why does the implication of a lack of impartiality in our institutions of justice, including the policing branches of these “esteemed institutions”, continue?
The answer is simple. Democracy is not sexy. It is easy for the simple citizen to see when a cop literally muddies the waters for his personal gain and does so in open contempt of environmental and property laws. It is not so easy to see the dirt behind actions that partisan lawyers and “judges” have made in alignment with their partisan buds.
There is lots of mud thrown in our Parliaments between partisans but none about the muddied waters of partisans taking over our institutions of justice. This is because all of these partisans want power, not the responsibility of real democracy.
So, they stay silent to a small town cop, implicated by back door donations. Like Sexed Up Kate, they tape their mouths shut to the implications of a small town cop who carries a gun, implicated by cops’ donations to Conservatives. Like Princeless Princes, it is all about appearances, not about the fact that Ryan, the Conservative implicated cop, appeared in front of implicated elected Conservatives who are out to prove that they can do no wrong. Because, by god, they have positions of power!
Oh, yes, Ryan is my neighbour. I know from my daughter, who is about Ryan’s age and knew him in high school, that he is basically a decent man. But, the record is that decent men stayed silent to what happened to their own and their neighbours.
Read my book. Yes, in May 2010, I warned Ryan and his copper friends that they needed to clean up their corrupted policing force. I made record, in a letter sent via Ryan’s commanding officer, that I had faced a “judge”. Another promoted lawyer was hearing an action against me started by Liberals in power. I had faced 9 years of this abuse of power and privilege. I knew that the statistics were that these promoted “judges” were 99.9% implicated by former memberships in the partisans’ parties who had then promoted them.
I warned Ryan and his buds that this “judge” I had faced was implicated in donation records to the same Liberal party that I was challenging in a Canadian institution of justice. I warned Ryan and all of his copper friends that their own donations to the same Liberals tainted their legal requirements under our Criminal Code. I did not use these words but I dared to ask how Ryan and his friends could prove that they were the “colour of water” when it came to the citizen facing abuse from any partisan.
In that same letter, I summarized an incident where partisan-donating Thunder Bay cops had done the racist thing to a First Nation man. I dared to challenge how Ryan could accept that the “new rules”, made by partisans, were right for a man who had been promised, first in treaties, then in international law and then in a 1982 constitution, that his blood was the “colour of water”.
Ryan stayed silent. Was it Ryan the “white” or Ryan the “First Nation” who chose this silence? Or Ryan the Conservative? Or Ryan the Liberal? Or Ryan the religious?
We will eventually be to why I dare to raise religion as an issue here.
Back to, what laws do the arrogant have to comply with? Go to picture July0405. I was hoping as I wrote this on July 7 not to drag this out much further with pictures showing where Ryan and friends dumped and pushed more materials into a ravine where the muddied waters flow past a religious school that Ryan once went to. We all know that, after the record of abuse from priests and ministers against children of all races, that “morality” is not defined through religious afflictions. I do eventually end the pictorial part of this essay with that question.
But, for now back to these questions. Unlike the standard set by Doug Vincent and the example made of by supervisory Lorne Townes, which law does Ryan get to ignore?
Does he get to ignore the too visible property law? The black arrow in July0405 shows that Ryan knew that it was illegal to disturb an official survey post. It remains perched, high and dry. It shows how much clay was hauled or rained away from this once green space that is now a “garage lot”.
But which colourful side of Ryan respects property law for survey posts but fails the consideration of deeper laws that Ryan, the white, or Ryan, the First Nation, seems to have conveniently forgotten? Or Ryan the Blue, Conservative, that is. Or Ryan the Red, Liberal that is. Or Ryan the good Catholic. Oh, we will indeed get to the latter, eventually.
Oh, that demonstrator Brigitte DePape could be hired! She appeared in Canada’s Parliament to protest the violation of laws that she does not understand but senses are being violated when a good religious man, who gains only one in four votes, is made a dictator in Canada. However, is she a “professional protestor” or a responsible citizen? This has yet to be shown as it is yet to be proven by the bevy of silent Canadians and Americans who claim to be for responsible democracy.
You see, in a June 5 column in the National Post, Kelly McParland dared to suggest that DePape is nothing more than a zealous, uninformed professional demonstrator. But, McParland is the biggest of hypocrites. She promotes the opposing propaganda that DePape tries to legitimize with one small sign. McParland says on June 5 that Brigitte DePape, the professional protestor, () has been educated by the likes of the University of Ottawa.
Well, Canadians, and Americans, need to wake up to the role of a free press that violates our right to unbiased reporting that deals with the small facts. This leads me to wonder which “journalism school” educated McParland.
McParland writes that DePape forgets that : “... Democracy is a system in which people get together and vote on who they wish to elect as a government. The party with the most votes wins. Recently, Canada had an election, in which almost 15 million votes were cast for 19 parties, some of which even held views similar to Ms. De Pape’s. The Conservative party won by quite a wide margin. The NDP, a party which considers itself “progressive,” also did quite well.
If the NDP had won, its leader would have had the opportunity to shape Canada’s political agenda, and deliver the essence of its plans in the throne speech. That’s how democracy works. Unfortunately, Ms. De Pape appears not to be happy with the system. Something in it does not satisfy her needs. And what is the outcome of an election involving 15 million voters against the personal views of a 21-year-old student?...”.
What is unforgivable is that a national columnist then says this in her concluding paragraphs: “... Stop Harper? Why? Because an election doesn’t produce the result you want? And in favour of what alternative, a ballot of recent university graduates with strong views?
Ms. DePape says Canada needs a local version of the “Arab Spring.” Perhaps she hasn’t noticed, but the Arab Spring is a revolt by oppressed individuals willing to risk their lives for the right to elect their own leaders. They are willing to die so they can make the same kind of democratic decision that Canada just made in electing Mr. Harper.
Why does she want to stop that? ...”.
Ah, yes! MacParland promotes stupidity through arrogant stupidity. “WE have a vote!”, the arrogant “experts” of freedom of speech will write. “WE should be happy!”, when dictatorships appear that exclude the voice of even other elected individuals, because they are not members of Harper’s political party or of the National Post’s self-serving “national interests”.
This is an arrogance born out of stupidity that forgets this.
In 2006, Stephen Harper, gained power by a slim minority. This man had bashed the ethics of Liberals who abused our taxes to lure Conservative-elected Ms. Belinda Stronach into a Liberal ministerial position so that they could change the balance of partisans in Parliament. Harper, remember, then used our taxes to lure David Emerson, the Liberal, into the Conservative’s slim fold of that era. Visit my earlier blogs and the “About the Law” at http://TakeBackDemocracy.ca button to understand why the “ethics commissioner” who approved these things was an illegal farce. Remember how the depth of cynicism grew across this nation where, once upon a time, over 70 percent of its eligible voters went to the polls.
But, remember that, across Canada, our “judges” are old Liberals or Conservatives. Then remember that, by July 2007, an old Conservative friend had been promoted by Harper into the RCMP’s highest commanding office. This happened in a province called Ontario where the cops, I discovered only in 2007, paid into the same limited partisan pockets as our aspiring-to-be-judges lawyers had.
Ryan, an Ontario cop, is not paid by our taxes to protect opinion. Yes, he is paid to protect the right for even high-fluting McParland to express her opinion. His obligation is, however, to protect the law.
By 1948, the law was that our voice was to be equal in elected places and especially in places of justice. The citizens would choose. It would not be the right of the partisan Conservative and New Democrat to then set down rules that would take the voice of the partisan or the non-partisan out of our elected places. Partisans like Jack Layton agreed to the designs of partisans in the hopes that one day even he might rule the Conservative partisan. The rule of the law, making our voice equal, and the vote, merely a selection process for whom we chose to speak for us, at all times, became subject to the dictatorship of partisans. They would tell us how we would be allowed to vote and what we then would have to suffer despite the laws of 1948 and 1982 and 1989.
Worse, they did the same as the Nazis. They filled our courts with “judges” who paid only to their partisan parties, thereby registering their illegal loyalties. Even worse, they did the same as the Nazis and promoted and protected cops who carry big guns, after first registering where their allegiances lay in the partisan world.
Ironically, I did not find McParland’s June 5 commentary until July 4. Ironically, the National Post had updated CTV’s temporary late-June euphoria on that day. Stock markets had rebound in the week previous because Greece had signed on to the “eurozone efforts” to bail out that nation. By July 4, the same newspaper was noting that “... Credit ratings agency Standard & Poor’s cast new uncertainty on ... eurozone efforts to rescue debt-crippled Greece by warning it would treat a French bank plan for a rollover of privately-held debt as a default. ... The threat abruptly ended a relief rally in stock and bond markets after Greece adopted a new, tougher austerity plan last week ...”.
Despite the efforts of “government”, the private still rule us, they will prove. They will prove that dishonesty in business still allows them to protect their riches. Dishonesty in business? It shall be only the poor citizen who shall suffer!
This is an arrogance born out of stupidity that forgets what I have already said.
“... Ryan is not paid by our taxes to protect opinion... His obligation is ... to protect the law. ... By 1948, the law was that our voice was to be equal in elected places and especially in places of justice. ... Worse, they did the same as the Nazis. They filled our courts with “judges” who paid only to their partisan parties, thereby registering their illegal loyalties. Even worse, they did the same as the Nazis and promoted and protected cops who carry big guns, after first registering where their allegiances lay in the partisan world. ...”.
McParland is a not only a hypocrite because she ignores this factor. She is a bigger hypocrite because she promotes that we have a vote while those poor Arabs did not. Google search, lazy McParland! Egypt has had “the vote” since 1924, in their “parliamentary elections”. So did “communists” in the same era. So did the Germans, after WWI.
Egypt has had “presidential elections” since 1956.
So why would those Arabs want to revolt? They had “the vote”, for crying out loud!
Even the small town people of Libya got to vote under the autocracy of Muammar Gaddafi. They got to choose representatives at “Basic People’s Congress” meetings, if they dared to attend once per year.
So why would those Arabs want to revolt? They had “the vote”, for crying out loud!
Even Tunisia held “official elections” every “five to six years”.
So why would those Arabs want to revolt? They had “the vote”, for crying out loud!
Might it be because the citizens in Arabia suddenly awakened to the fact that the corrupt abuse of power had been achieved by the creation of “new rules” that gained powers for those who aligned to agree who could be made dictator, permanent or otherwise? Might it be that, suddenly, the Arabian citizens awakened to the fact that, when the cops carrying guns prospered and the judges ruling that this was allowed were found to be aligned with “the rulers”, then the premise of “democracy” was truly a sham?
Might that be why the protests in Libya started outside court houses because cops and judges had allowed this to rot to the point where the dissidents first were jailed? And then, when they asked for blankets to keep them warm in the cold desert nights, 1200 were machine-gunned?
Oh, no! I assure you that daring to expose what may be piddling to some should be a wake up call to many, even if it only comes from one small man from a small town in Canada called Nipigon.
You see, a cop named Ryan in Nipigon is legally obliged to think about all laws to prove that he carries a gun in respect for all laws.
Arrogance becomes the elitists who say that, because we have a “vote”, we are in a democracy. Ignorance is the citizen who buries their heads in the silt and the sand to hide from the reasons why one citizen protests loudly. Irresponsibility is silence to what happens to even the neighbours of cops.
When we stay silent to the obvious, princeless Kate’s muzzling and the blatant violation of property and environmental laws by the partisan implicated small town cop, the arrogantly empowered abuse what is not so obvious until it is too late to deal with the arrogantly empowered.
Must I engage a “professional protestor” like Brigitte DePape before my voice is heard? Would she appear in Nipigon to protest the visibly obvious before it would be covered up?
Would DePape stand at Ryan’s property post sign and explain why her sign has been changed from “Stop Harper” to “Stop all of this!”, if she is indeed a responsible citizen? What colour of water would DePape stand for with her stop sign if she stood in protest over that corner post marked in black in picture July0405? What colour of water does Ryan think his gaining of more property for his person only protects?
The drums from an Ontario town called Caledonia? There First Nation protestors dared to challenge that whites illegally abused position and power to take away property for centuries. So, does Ryan simply exercise his First Nation blood to defy all other laws beyond the one that gives him a gun? What of his legal obligations to uphold the rights of all while allowing untainted justice to reach an untainted resolution? Does Ryan defy the small laws because, by god, the evidence is rampant that Liberal and Conservative Prime Ministers, after Canada’s confederation of 1867, decided that the treaties could be made insignificant so that the majority rights of those whites would prevail? Does Ryan choose silent protest to the harsh history of the subsequent rot, even recorded in my book for the KI-5?
“Indians” were jailed by Ontario’s Liberals. They eventually faced the same judge named Paddy Smith that I had faced. I had warned Smith in December 2003 that the elected and appointed lawyers were acting like the criminals of Nazi Germany. By December 2003, I warned Smith that the Liberal lawyers were as implicated as the Conservative lawyers in this illegal behaviour. Smith appeared to rule against me in a matter where I began to call elected Liberals and lawyered Liberals “criminal”. Smith’s unique nickname “Paddy” appeared on Liberal party listings in the year that he was promoted to become “a judge”.
Smith appeared to rule against First Nations. They were put into jail by Ontario’s Liberals, as the Conservatives wanted done in Caledonia short years before. By the time Liberal Smith had jailed more “Indians” on behalf of Liberals in governance, I had pointed out the Conservative tainting in the “judgements” rendered in arguments against the “Indians” in Caledonia.
Wake up, Brigitte DePape et al! This abuse of power and privilege has been going on since 1867, when the Princeless Queenie of the day deferred some powers to Canadian Liberals and Conservatives.
In Ontario, as in Germany, Libya and those other “Arab Nations”, the complaining citizen faced “judges” who had paid allegiances to partisans whom the judges then said were a law unto themselves. Despite treaties, property laws, intended to define sharing in my nation, fell. Despite constitutions and Criminal Codes, cops dirtied by partisan paying can then push the dirt into the ravines (orange arrow in picture July0405 and the actual debris next to the still flowing stream on July 4, in picture July0406).
Oh, and by the way. Arrogance breeds more stupidity. As I wound-down writing this blog/essay on the evening of July 7, more thunder storms swept through my town. Another nearly three quarters of an inch of rain fell. So, on that evening, I took more pictures of grander and greater stupidity that comes from arrogance.
At 2 in the afternoon, the heavy rains of July 2 and one light rain of July 4 had somewhat leaked away (July0701). However, by the time the rain had mostly ended at 7 p.m., not only did the blocked culvert create a mosquito cesspool (July0711). The once clear-flowing waters, protected by the natural vegetation in the undisturbed ditch (July0702) were down to a muddied flow that still dumped down into the ravine an hour and a half after the heavy rain had ended (July0706).
Arrogance breeds stupidity. Ryan had been hosing water onto his garage pad all day. After the rain, there was evidently too much water for his wants and needs. So, someone jumped onto his father-in-law’s small toy back hoe and dug a new ditch.
My July0707 picture was taken from the front property stake at 8:30 p.m. It shows Ryan’s borrowed tiny back hoe with its boom extended past the back property stake. There is a pile of dirt that looks pretty unoffending unless you consider that most of it is dumped onto what was once “green space”. However, when one walks back, it becomes clear that a new ditch was dug because Ryan’s back ditch had not done its job. But, this is stupidity that town engineers are supposed to think about.
Where trees and vegetation once existed to absorb the rains, exposed ground creates excessive run off, even on a 60 by 60 lot. So, Ryan had dug a new ditch (July0708) close to the back ditch. Now, not only had the clay in the back ditch, pushed there by Allan’s work by the bigger machine on previous days, been swept away in this latest rain. The back ditch was recharged, again. More clay is readied to be swept away in the next heavy rain (July0709).
There is no silt fencing that Joe’s First Nation was required to use by 2003 in projects with less direct impact than this one. Instead, Ryan’s machinery has pushed even further into public property to perch piles of silt and clay on the lip of a ravine where waters once ran clear (July0710).
This happened in the early months of July. When I worked for Joe’s First Nation, they refused to log until September of each year. This was to protect the nesting birds, that sometimes have two sets of families in one summer season. July is the time of year when, I was told even before I left the Natural Resources offices’ in 1996, where tiny trout hatchlings struggle to survive in the once clear waters of Clearwater creek that Ryan and Allan and their Conservative council members apparently do not care about.
After all, democracy has become all about the politics of appearances. Ryan is one of the few people building in Nipigon. Those who prosper from our taxes are eager to promote that this is a good thing. They are not even honest to the fact that this is a false economy, borne on the back of all taxpayers.
Worse, the cop and politicians prospering from these actions with our taxes stay silent to what happens to Ryan’s neighbour when it comes to principled justice. This is an institution that Ryan is legally obliged to protect. But, if like Princeless Kate, Don does not have tape over his mouth or hands bound so that he is facing a machine gun, then it is only the obvious that becomes challengeable?
So, if I engaged DePape as a professional protestor, will her true, Green colours appear? Will she become shrill at the pictured or physically too obvious record of the dumping of silt (ditch mouth at white arrow in July0405) into the muddied waters of a small town where small town cops and employees and council members do something that DePape might actually be able to see? Not breathless anger, this time. Just disbelief at the base stupidity behind all of this.
A Facebook notice labels her a “True Canadian Patriot”. Is it the law of the foresters that DePape will dare to chastise because she might actually see the stumps of once living and healthy trees? Or is she at all concerned about the law requiring the consideration of all things in impartial institutions of justice and words heard in functional institutions of governance that listen to all people on all days as the law demands?
Oh, McParland does carry some hint of justifiable cynicism in her commentary about DePape and others like our young and naive. But, history shows that it was protesting young and naive who changed our world. Kent State University. The Washington Monument. Tiananmen Square. Moscow’s Red Square. Even deceased Ann Franks.
Has this become the standard of our “democracies”? Greenpeace creates allegiances for those who want environmental sensibilities discussed and applied. They sponsor the party of the moment that they think will meet the majority will of most of their members. They care not one bit about productive, meaningful, rewarding work for citizens. That is someone else’s problem.
Allegiances take over responsible governance. Propaganda makes good hay when it comes to raising money to pay professional protestors. Pictures make good money.
The invisible violations by all of this are silenced for the picture of the moment.
Reformists demand that electoral systems face serious revision. They make majority sense when they demand fiscal responsibilities in governments. They bring what they say is a majority wish into the public eye. In time, their majority view is that governance is a waste of time and energy, if it is not governance controlled by them. They form Conservative alliances to cement their control.
So, which “majority” side is DePape on? The visible cause of today or yesterday?
I would not hire DePape as a professional protestor until she began to stand against the invisible that is hidden from the public because the invisibilities are not here in the moment. So, yes, I will insist that Ryan the cop be forced to respect the laws that protect the obvious when pictures can be taken.
But, my focus against Ryan and his cohorts remains this.
Partisans have created illegal Allegiances to take away our voices. There may be no tape over Kate’s mouth to make the evidence blatant. There may be no bodies scraped into the muddied lot that Ryan wants to build on.
Our mouths are not taped shut even if these people declare that we can vote for only them or their friends while they hide from what their friends do behind closed doors. Our mouths are not taped shut unless we allow it. As for Egyptians and Libyans and Koreans of our time and Nazi Germans and Communist Soviets of old, just because we have a tainted vote “every four years”, or at the drop of the hat that is convenient to the politicians, does not make McParland’s postulations credible. As in Libya and Egypt, there is no credibility in Canada in 2011 to the system of self-empowerment that these people have designed for themselves.
Democracy is not abdicating our rights to any dictator, elected or otherwise, for four more years, or, dangerously, more.
The first role of democracy is the protection of the dissenting opinion.
The first role of democracy is the protection of any person or any action that may remove or deny the right of only one person or threaten the future of our children.
I am winding re-editing of this blog/essay down on July 9th. I am needing a break. It is raining lightly. This is prime time to pull weeds out of the softened soil and to push plant supports into the softened soil. So, I am in my back gardens as Ryan and friends work on his garage lot.
Momentarily, I think that the young man has finally found some environmental conscience. There is black landscape cloth spread over the clay now surrounding the perched garage’s gravel pad. Another Nipigon business gains financially. Ryan has the Hurd brothers dragging gravel into his garage lot.
I work for nearly four hours as the rainfall comes in various spurts. I planted trees in this kind of weather, so I know the advantages for transplanted plants. I have a rain coat. I may be eventually soaked but these are not the cold rains of spring and fall. It is bearable wetness when I know that this will help the roots of the plants that I am transplanting or helping me to remove the weeds from around other plants. By the time I retire to bed, the soft rain has ended, mostly.
On the morning of July 10, I rise, thinking that, with this black cloth appearing, my neighbour has finally started to advance the thoughts his young brain was supposedly subjected to in a school yard project. Ah, but, most times, our taxes are used for propaganda not credible education.
I am astounded. There is less water in the creek cesspool in front of Ryan’s culvert. This should be. After all, my cheap “rain gauges” show that just over a half inch of rain has fallen over a period of six hours. This should have enabled the rain to flow away. But, when I walk down to where the right front corner post of this property once was, the property posts marked in July0405 have disappeared under gravel (July1002).
Ryan’s gravel and mud have now brazenly encroached into public land at the top of this ravine so that few trees and shrubs remain (July1003). Every day of operation has advanced property for Ryan’s sole benefit (July0109, July0405 and July0707). By July 10, one solitary birch perches at the edge of Ryan’s gravel (July1003). Mud is pushed over the ravine edge so that the flowing water that was barely visible in the July 4 pictures (July0406) is now running through clods of clay pushed over the hill by these clods (July1004).
Arrogance breeds stupidity. I already know what I will find but I walk barely 20 feet “downstream”. There (July1007), the small stream, exposed at the bottom of the once popular footpath, is muddied. In contrast, in the high and rapidly dumped rainfall of July 2 (2 inches), this tiny stream was running clear on July 2 (July0206).
This I knew would be. The hard rains of July 2 had flushed the clay off Ryan’s site in the hard rain. The hill with trees on it had filtered the rain down to the plants below, spreading the wet until the soil was unable to absorb any more. The excess water ran clear off the big hill long after the silt had been flushed off Ryan’s small part of that hill. Indeed, I had read extensive forestry studies on this especially after a landslide had occurred on the Nipigon River because of large clear cutting near clays like this. Read my blog of June 16.
On July 10, it is the clods in the stream that now muddy these waters.
I take pictures of the back ditch (July1005) and the ditch leading from the end of the culvert along the laneway (July1006). In more blatant arrogance, a once grassed ditch mouth has been trenched to expose the clay soils (July1006).
I have sent a copy of my previous day’s draft of this blog off to a person who was once the school librarian at the St. Edward’s Separate (Catholic) School. I know that she is “political”. However, I also know that she is honest to protecting the principle that democracy is about open debate on all subjects. She asks me if I know where Ryan’s creek feeds into. She wonders if it goes into the old St. Edward’s school yard project that I have referenced.
She does say that she supervised Ryan’s sister when this stream rehabilitation project was undertaken. She says that the project was designed so that a 13-foot high berm would “fill in half an hour” in heavy downpours coming off “your hill”. This would allow sediments to pool behind the berm instead of being dumped directly into the important brook trout stream called Clearwater Creek. She wonders if the site is even working any more as it was intended.
I know the local geography. However, I waste an hour trying to find a Google map or satellite picture that will map the actual location so that I can prove how it enters the old school’s grounds. I can find none that is clear enough to verify the track of this ravine.
So, I do as I was trained any good forester should do, even if a map supposedly verified the suspected. “Document the actual,” was what I was told was any “professional’s” role. The grass is still soaking wet as I walk to the edge of street culvert’s which carry Ryan’s muddied waters on and on. And, yes, this creek eventually ends up in the old abandoned yard of a once-Catholic school. And, yes, there are patches of raw silt now visible as I look off the edges of roads into this small stream.
On the way to Ryan’s old school, I muse at the irony associated with professional foresters who get elected and stay silent to this.
Ryan dropped three “danger trees” outside his property. Yes, two were Birch trees that, when I got time, I was going to pester the town to drop. Dying birch hanging over a laneway and short feet from hydro and telephone and cable TV lines are something that should be removed. My question becomes why this suddenly became such a priority for town employees like Allan Clearwater and the town’s fathers.
Indeed, this document went to a Nipigon Conservation Officer named Ken Tuuri. As I walked the gravelled section of Greenmantle to get down the backside of the Harkness Street to that Saint Edward’s abandoned school, I took a picture of a grand old Poplar (July1008). Mr. Tuuri should know this tree. He should also know that this tree is large, full of woodpecker holes and hangs over a street where children walk to the new, tax-supported version of religious discrimination in my nation.
Mr. Tuuri, if he were a conscientious citizen, would be asking what prompted town fathers to promote that Ryan Traintinger, the cop whose copper friends give to the Conservatives whose good friends now sit on Nipigon’s town council, should have “danger trees” removed while the lives of children seem so insignificant. Indeed, Mr. Tuuri should get out of his truck and walk to work down a public back lane on his way to work to ask why dead and dying Birch and other “danger trees” remain along the same lane where suddenly Ryan the copper is given such grand priority when it comes to “danger trees”.
Indeed, Mr. Tuuri should understand how arrogance breeds stupidity.
In an incident after my arrest in 2004, Mr. Tuuri suffered the arrogance of cops who think that they are the law. I heard a yelp when working one early morning in my yard. I heard the shouting. I saw the cur dog of the Curried cops fly up into the air, in a comical arc that I cheered. Mr. Tuuri had booted it when it attacked his pure bred Labrador retriever pup that he was training to behave.
Ah, yes, the cops will be all powerful. Had not my spouse been at the kitchen window to witness the whole event, Mr. Tuuri might have been in deep trouble. Had my spouse denied any responsibility to defend Mr. Tuuri from the subsequent harsh application of the law that Chuck’s otherwise reasonable wife wanted applied against him, Mr. Tuuri would have been in deep troubles. However, my spouse of the day agreed to attend an interview with Mr. Tuuri. I sent along a message that I had encountered the Currie’s dog’s currish behaviour in my own yard and that I loudly cheered this dog’s short flight in defence of the ankles of us all.
Ah, but the problem becomes this.
Mr. Tuuri, through his employ with the Ontario government, is implicated by the donations from a civil service union he pays into. You see, Mr. Tuuri is a member of the same union that Ontario’s court clerks pay into. Mr. Tuuri and all of his “CO” friends, through the back door, gave over a half million dollars of our taxes to Jack Layton’s federal New Democrats by 2003.
That was the very year when an Ontario court’s clerk declared that “Ontario’s tax coffers do not have enough money!” If I did not pay her $157, then the poor would not have justice!
So, we are even led into the question of what colour of partisan water is in Mr. Tuuri’s blood when the issue of the legal requirement for all citizens’ rights to be protected is brought to him when a partisan tainted cop is implicated.
Or, maybe both Ryan and Tuuri, and too many other people in a small town named Nipigon, carry the bloodied history of religious intolerances into anything put in front of them? After all, you see, Tuuri’s children go to the new Catholic school that was sponsored by Ontario’s taxed dollars despite a United Nations report that castigated the Province of Ontario for continuing its practice of special treatment for religious Catholics.
So, more background noise that citizens of all nations of democracy need to think about.
I was just winding down my 1997 to 2000 service on Nipigon’s town council when loud Levina Collins appeared in a public town council meeting. You see, that Saint Edward’s school that you can access pictures about at the “Pictorial Essay” link at the http://JustBusinessTheBook.com was being condemned. Canadian school kids should not be subjected to the asbestos risk that East Indians are still being shipped a decade later from Canada. Safe lungs are the colour of the colour of “Canadians”, not of poor people in distant lands.
Levina is shrill because Levina hides her Conservative affiliations from me while pumping her deeply religious, Christian allegiances at me. She has shrilly, but privately, told me how deep her Christian convictions are. Her new spiritual euphoria has convinced her, she has even once told me, that her blessings are her god’s will. I challenge this stupidity in private and say that I refuse to become part of it. I will not deny her her right to her religious afflictions. I will not allow her to force me to join hers.
She is in front of council before 2000. She loudly exclaims that the Christian Catholics want to join forces with the town to build a public library that may even house new town offices. I am sympathetic to the need for new town offices. I am bluntly cold to the “partnering” that Levina and her crowd of Christians clearly want. If we will approve a conjunctive building, then the good Catholics will be getting more taxed dollars for their new vision of what religion should be.
I am blunt. I ask where, in these plans, are the same classrooms for the Muslim, the Hindu or the atheist. I am blunt. I tell Ms. Collins and the town council that I will not support any plan that gives one religion any rights to taxes that other religions are not given. I coldly remind the room, not knowing Levina’s Conservative allegiances at that time, that the United Nations harshly criticized this practice of favouring Catholics. I bluntly said that the fact that the Ontario Conservatives had strengthened this to garner the Catholic vote stunk by 2000. “Majority Rules”, I warned by 2000, was what had led to the irreligious intolerances by 1945.
I would not be sponsoring this application.
I was surprised. Greg Harper’s mother was eventually buried from the Catholic church. He spoke out as loudly as did the Reeve Bruce Atkinson in support of me. Doug Huntus and Larry O’Neill rapidly came on side. The poor Catholics eventually got a renovated school that did not meet their dream application they had put in front of the town council.
Ah, but the town tried to register what religion it would allow inside its boundaries.
Shortly after I left town council, Levina’s religious fevers led her to another situation which led me to criticize the fevers of religious people. Nipigon was trying to sell itself as a “tourist town”. I was working hard with local trails committees to try to advance this aspect as I worked hard to make my stone venture come to economic fruition. Yes, I even worked with Levina on occasion on this. I was driving into this tourism wannabe town one day and was furious.
On the two main entrances into my small town, a conglomeration of the local Christian churches had come together after 9/11. A fading sign that had simply listed the churches available in Nipigon was changed. Under loud words it now proclaimed that the “churches of Nipigon agreed” that “Jesus is our lord and saviour”. I wrote, tongue lashing the town fathers and religious leaders who would allow the posting of something so offensive so near to November 11 in that year. If I viewed the wording to mean that all other people who did not believe in this nonsense should stay out of the small town, I wondered why these signs would remain.
So, what is the colour of water in the blood of Tuuri and Traintinger’s and the Curries and the retired cops like Harper’s in the arresting history of this nation? Indeed, what is the colour of water in the blood of the likes of government bureaucrats with the name of Leale and Swainson and even Ferren? These are all good people whom I know are generally good people. However, I also know that they now face a deep dilemma that comes from this.
In 2011, international courts began trials against tyrants from a nation once called Serbia. Canadians went to that war, short decades ago. I watched news reels showing soldiers who, out of uniform, were hard for me to identify who was Serb or who was Croat. This is because the murder and raping that has gone on in our world in the name of religion leads to physical beings who mark each other on the basis of “religion”.
The sad record in my world is that religion remains a reason for discriminating behaviours that have marked men and women for early graves.
The sad record is that my history contains some part of Irish blood that fled the implications of violence that continues because of religion. So, I have marked a Catholic school for exclusion from illegal gain of taxes. I have been public in this. This is a school whose religion Swainson, Leale, Tuuri, Traintinger, Harper and the wedded Curries remain openly loyal to.
These are all families who belong to the esteemed church that once owned the school yard I am going to now walk you through. Indeed, Mr. Ferren, another Conservation Officer approached with my issues about Ryan, was once a zealot Christian himself. Indeed, Rob Swainson is the fisheries expert whose expertise created the project that Ryan’s muddied waters run by. Rob was a good, well, a sometimes good and oft blasphemous Catholic, when it came to common language.
So, when Rob and Ken and Ryan’s supervisors get the documentation that comes against Ryan’s arrogance when it comes to property and fisheries law, what will win out? The colour of water, as the law requires? Or the colour of hidden religious affiliations or worse, the partisan affiliations, that these people have hidden for much too long?
The stupidity comes down to this by July 10, 2011. I take pictures of a largely undisturbed stream bed where large deposits of silt are now visible in places. I enter the back yard of an abandoned Catholic school. There, the expensive structures, paid for by our taxes rot.
The first place I walk by is a pavilion which was to be used as an outdoor class room (July1009). I do not know the cost of this somewhat large project. Rob Swainson was involved and should know. I do know that the St. Edward’s school yard was chosen at a time when such “partnerships” as were advertised, on the sign mounted to announce its completion (July1010), required someone to commit to long-term stewardship.
Eventually, a cash-strapped town council was approached to take over the maintenance of a project that was initially funded by three levels of governance and a school. What is not understood is that constitutional law does not require these governments to maintain such projects via public taxes.
It does compel the maintenance of accessible and completely impartial institutions of justice by governments.
It does then allow the citizen to ask who was denied justice in the years that this expensive project was undertaken, while being told that “there are not enough taxes!”
This also then allows us to challenge what is the colour of water of those who are compelled by our laws to respect all laws, not the ones they pick and choose.
This expensive project was created so that the muddied waters off local streets, and other places along the ravine where Ryan pushed and pulled dirt at free will, would be filtered out before they reached that important stream named Clearwater Creek, which is not named as a last namesake of either Allan or Glena or Todd or any one of their family. Ah, only the offspring of Glena are Nipigon-born. This creek was named before the Clearwater family arrived. It was named, reportedly, because its waters were once very clear.
Muddied waters flowing from the direction of Ryan’s now residence were the reason behind this expensive project. So, as it was explained to me, a big berm was built. The one picture (July1016) was taken from the bottom of the 13 foot high berm that was built.
The theory was that the water rushing in heavy rains from the hill behind Ryan and my house would fill the 13-foot high temporary pond “in a half hour or so”. Water that needed to spill over the top would flow down a stone raceway on the other side of the berm (July1012). There was also an overflow culvert on the grassy side of the berm (July1015). When I looked down in the bottom of this contraption, muddy water was flowing.
I don’t know if the system functions or not. I certainly would not have stumbled down to this place in the dark of the morning lightning on July 2 after the two inches of rushing rain. If I had thought about it, I might have rushed down after the near one inch gusher on the early evening of July 7. However, there was certainly no rushing waters some 12 hours after the half inch of gentle rains from the day before.
It may very well be that the original purpose of this project has been disabled. There was public concern expressed about 13 feet of water being available here for any length of time. The school’s grounds were close to a street where children regularly played before and after the school was abandoned. All that I know is that the small stream from Ryan’s place still ran with silt in it after a half kilometre of flow (July1017) and then disappeared under the berm. The old hole looked more like a depository for junk, metal, plastic bottles and a plastic wagon, than a collection pond for silt (July1018).
Oh, the water flowed out the other side. And, yes, the “about 50 feet of boulders” held silt around them in this diminished flow (July1013). The question was if those stones held the silt in the rush from 2 inches and 1 inches of rain that came from the stream that Ryan cared not about despite this “educational project” that his sister helped to build so that the still murky waters of Clearwater Creek could claim to be clear (July1014).
No, there was no great flow of silt from the stream at its tiny little mouth that enters the Clearwater Creek beside another expensive pavilion deck (July1014) 12 hours later. But, we should not forget that environmental law is supposed to protect all probabilities that Ryan and gang obviously cared not about.
This puzzles me. When cops and religious people and “leaders of the community” care not about the simplest laws, why do they become shocked and offended when graffiti, expressing distress and anger from the disenfranchised, appears on old abandoned schools (July1019)?
Oh! I forgot! Ryan is aligned with the Conservatives now in Ottawa who say that they will “get tough on crime!” The problem is, what crime? What law? The one only the cops and the Conservatives choose to apply to us?
Worse, how are we assured that our institutions of justice are not then completely tainted?
The colour of water, in all things. I am forced to challenge if these people in Nipigon’s policing forces and government bureaucracies circle their religious wagons to protect their religious own. If they deny that what happened on Ryan’s property had any significance in their considerations of my complaint, it becomes the sad right of all to question if this is their motive.
This is why, unlike the process that the blacks of the American south and the First Nations of Canada’s north faced, any possible allegiances must be allowed to face public scrutiny. The white racist must not be allowed to cover their faces with cloth of any kind, whether the visible KKK uniform or the invisible allegiancesm and then appear in the arrest or trial of the innocent black, or the unaligned citizen.
Because of this history, I have a right to know that none of these Nipigon buggers carry implications because of my position against their religious self promotions before 2000. I know that, under the law, I can dare to challenge if their motives carry any animosity because I refuse to align with their religious beliefs. This happened for the Serbs and Croats and the Irish Catholic versus the Irish Protestant and the German Jew versus the German Christian in our human history. Our laws forbid this. I can openly warn these people that their conduct had better be to our laws or I will have the right to have them removed from investigating my complaints.
The harsh reality is that I know the discriminations that they carry. The real reality is that I also know that, as far as I know, the Catholic priest or the Pope did not have a hand in gaining them position in positions of bureaucracy and “justice”.
Sadly, Ryan cannot say the same about the May 2010 Liberal implicated judge who appeared in yet another partisan implicated court room where I was challenging the activities of the Conservatives and the Liberals. Sadly, even Ryan cannot say the same about his own position.
You see, the Liberals and Conservative factions have made themselves the only religions of partisan affiliations that we need vote for. The citizens are not told how the vote is corrupted by the new rules of partisans to effectively exclude the independent voice. And the temporary popes of these partisan religions appoint their own into our courts and policing institutions while hiding the linkages to the public.
They act like the KKK while hiding the paid allegiances of “judges” and even Ryan.
So, the stupidity grows as the ramifications of Ryan’s own arrogance glows in the silty mud that shines up from a stream that leads to Ryan’s old Catholic school. We need to deal with the growing stupidity that comes from arrogance.
Friday, July 8. I have been hustling for days now to get this once short blog/essay organized. I have not been to my mail box since Monday. I open a letter from “D. W. (Don) Bell, Chief Superintendent, Commander” of the OPP’s “Professional Standards Bureau”. Mr. Bell’s letter arrives in a marked measure of more union arrogance that obstructs justice for the common citizens of democracies.
His letter is dated June 13, 2011. That is the period of time when Canada’s national postal service is on strike. After all, the right of unions must be protected over the rights of citizens. The citizens seeking justice can and will be held hostage, as court clerks now do in Ontario thanks to the new rules made by Bob Rae, once an NDP lawyer who became Ontario’s Premier. In the fashion of our feds, Mr. Rae, when Premier, (and now a potential candidate for the leadership of Canada’s Liberals, a scarey thought!) designed a law that first took away wages from Ontario’s civil servants. Then, facing the heat of big unions by 1995, he passed a new law that gave civil servants, even in Ontario’s courts, the right to go on strike.
They could now not only hold the tax payer hostage to get more taxes for their own pockets. They could even shut down institutions of justice for the sake of their own pockets. This illegal abuse of influence to the favour of those in positions of trust and responsibility was allowed only because partisans made a new law to the favour of big unions who then dumped big wads of taxes into the pockets of politicians whom the unions trusted would then protect their members’ rights over rights of the citizens.
So, postal clerks, deliver mail related to justice. Cops, court clerks and bureaucrats will stay silent to the fact that they and postal clerks are paid taxes because the mail and the courts are considered important institutions to the rights of all citizens. Having gained more control, the partisans in temporary control pass a new law that only partisan lawyers would protect if the whole debate were allowed and if the rights of the citizen were protected over the abuse of position by partisans in too many places. Including in a postal service that is the only delivery service in small town Canada.
Oh, in Canada, big city residents think that, because they can walk into an alternate business and get their important mail delivered by some other mode, all must be fine. They do not see the small towns where Canada Post is the only option. They do not hear about the letters about just process that become stuck as big union partisans and big corporation partisans play their propaganda games even in June 2011.
But, the cops gain the stench of the partisan, even in the correspondence from a new cop appearing on my doorstep in the form of a letter.
Mr. Bell is responding to my May 31 letter sent to the local OPP Commander and Ontario’s Commissioner who replaced Julian Fantino. Oh, the commander will deflect the real responsibility onto the small cop Ryan when the whole policing faction is implicated!
Bell wants me to approach the very “public committee” using the very brochures that Ryan’s commander thrust at me on May 31. This is stupid obstruction of justice, I write back to Bell on July 11. If Bell cannot produce a sworn affidavit from all members of the “civilian committee” that the partisans have not made a new bureaucracy to hinder the citizen seeking justice, then it is indeed obstruction of justice.
Why do I dare to say this? After my arrest in 2004, I was directed to these civilian committees. In that era, I already knew that, as for the colour of water for the Serb and the Protestant and the atheist and the black, I have a right to know that the judge or the judging committee is not tainted in any way by any discriminating behaviours. It need not be racist KKK members hiding their racist affiliations. It need not be cops and police showing their religious colours as they dump the bodies of Muslims or Christians, Catholics or Protestants into streets or trenches.
Oh it need not be even the appearance of more and more persons of Dutch heritage whom I chastise for their silence in Nipigon. Yes, the Leales and Julie Van Ossenbruggen and Kim Groenendyk carry the dirtied implication of subservient bureaucrats who do the same thing on Canadian soils as happened in my father’s era of putting on a Canadian army uniform. Yes, I have dared to criticize Leale and his like kind for their silent subservience that mimics what happened on the dirt of Holland as Ann Franks disappeared into the mud of those soils as more Canadian soldiers were ground into the mud to save the sour continence of too many Dutch who came to Canada to do to Canadians as their fathers and mothers had done to Ann Franks before 1945.
Silent subservience does not morality make. Silence to the intrusion of these discriminating factors is forbidden in any process of “justice” even a cop would send me to.
So, you are damned, and I hope that this word offends the complacent among you, right. My July 11, 2011 letter to Mr. Bell warns about this.
I have taken Mr. Bell’s pamphlets as I did for all of the stupid processes these partisan implicated people designed for themselves while our base rights disappear. I have looked at the internet web site for this organization. It is posted there as the brochures proudly announced to me even in the 2004 era that their information was publicly available.
However, in the 2004 era, I could access the staffing names of the so-called civilians. I could write a letter of warning to men like Mr. Bell and then warn of this.
The so-called “civilian” committee members in that 2004 era had short biographies. The lawyers advising or even being called “civilians” for the commission were easy to research. They appeared on partisan listings. I challenged the cops of the day why I would approach a “civilian committee” about an issue where the evidence was rank and clear that the good lawyer who paid into the right partisans’ pockets got promoted to better pay from taxed dollars, even eventually as “judges”. Or as regular members of or advisors to the “civilian committee”.
The stupidity of a biography of a “once cop” on this “civilian committee” was also challenged by me in that 2004 era. She claimed to be on the “civilian committee” because she was no longer a cop but was concerned about cops. This, I wrote back to the cops, stunk of a lady who either wanted vengeance against cops or was really a “plant” that defied the principle that friends should not investigate friends.
The stupidity of biographies of other “high citizens” in our society was not that hard to research. I had only to plug the name of one teacher from the Sudbury area into the google search. There came the implications from his allegiances with the Liberal party that ruled Ontario even by then. The same applied when I searched the name of an old town councillor from Windsor. He had lost an election. He, just conveniently, got promoted to the steady pay of a “civilian committee”. He was likewise Liberal linked.
By 2011? The web site of this OIPRD “civilian committee”? (Oh, for crying out loud, the Ians of the world! Save my tired fingers from some typing! Go to www.oiprd.on.ca yourself to find out that the acronym means Office of the Independent Police Review Director! ...).
In that 2004 era, I could unmask the background of the people I was told to send my stuff to. In May 2010, I could eventually search down the Liberal affiliations of that “judge” I wrote to Ryan about.
In July 2011, the OIPRD does not list its “civilian committee members” so that they can be unmasked. So, you are damned right that I am writing back to Mr. Bell to suggest that if he cannot gain a sworn affidavit from this newest bureaucracy that its members and staff are not implicated by “direct or indirect” affiliations with partisans of any kind AND are freed from the implication of accepting advice of partisan implicated lawyers at any time, then this stupidity will be considered more breaches of trust, exercise of influence and obstruction of justice in my 9-year battle against these partisan illegalities in our “institutions of justice”.
The Colour of Water.
Label me atheist or agnostic or whatever you must. Read my book. I know the illegalities of religious afflictions entering any of our institutions of justice.
Read my book. I learned the illegalities of racist afflictions entering any of our institutions of justice when I was a child who lived short miles from that cabin near Dresden, Ontario. I knew that, by 1867, the racism of slavery was to be banned by more than just the worship of a small house where a black man fled for his descendants to then face the racism in my nation.
Read my book or visit my http://TakeBackDemocracy.ca pages. I learned the illegalities of partisans who design electoral systems that are to their favour while the voice of the independent Canadian is denied by rules created by partisans and ruled over by partisans.
Read my book or my “About Don” button at http://TakeBackDemocracy.ca web pages. I have been battling the entrenchment of illegal partisan connections in our courts and policing institutions for 9 long years now. I have lost family and friends but I have gained real friends in this journey.
I do not align myself with any association or allegiances. I would not hire Brigitte DePape as a “professional protestor” unless she appeared in my yard and agreed to be unaligned and identifiable as a courageous individual. Why?
A Prince forgets that his mother and father were able to propagate him because my father’s generation saved his grandmother from the hell that many in the rest of Europe did not survive.
The elite in our society would silence this very consideration.
As I just got into the meat of this essay on July 4, a letter arrived from my father. On the same day that I received my father’s letter, Curtis Eaton returned my first edition copy that I had delivered to him.
You see, Mr. Eaton is a big shot professor in the Economics Department at the University of Calgary. In the letters delivered to these people, I simply asked them to consider my book. I know the pressures of “being people” even in that “profession”. However, I challenged over 25 of these university professors across Western Canada (I did not get east to or past Quebec). I purposely selected individuals who had signed a web posted “free speech” petition on behalf of some of their colleagues in the Province of Quebec or who were professors at institutions of “ethics”.
I challenged people like Eaton to prove that they were open-minded educators of our generations to come. I challenged them to prove that they were capable of protecting freedom of speech beyond the boundaries of their own colleagues. I asked that they consider my book and its full story, not just in the interests of freed speech but also in a demonstration that they had the “ethics” that they publicly claimed to have.
If they did not have time to deal with this and did not want to buy my expensive, but exclusive, limited first edition copies of my book (to help my self publishing efforts), I asked that they simply donate the book to a public or university library in their area. This would allow me to then direct the visitors to my web pages to identify local libraries where my first draft book would be available.
Many of these people have not yet responded to my follow-up letters, inquiring what they were doing with my book. Others advised that they needed extended time to deal with my request. Others simply said that they would not have time and noted what library they had given the book to.
Eaton wrote back, snottily, in penned hand. “... Good luck with your campaign to right the world of business and government. I suspect that you have much to say about unethical behaviour and reform. But each of us must choose our own battles, and our own strategies for engagement, and I am afraid your strategy is not mine. ...”.
This is not any thing that is disallowed of Mr. Eaton. However, Mr. Eaton attached his note to the original of my May 19 letter sent to him. Ignored were my words, “... If you do not have the time to deal with this book’s words, ... then please advise me which publicly accessible library the book has been delivered to. I will then post on my website what Library the book will be available in. ...”.
Unfortunately, this is a growing standard among the elitists in our nations. They will sign “free speech” petitions on behalf of their unionized or associated “colleagues”. If we are not aligned with their interests, then it is too difficult for these elitists to deliver the words to a library where the words would then be freed to be accessed by others.
When I had told my father that I had approached “ethical professors” in our universities, his reply was a snort. These were people of no credibility when it came to their collective ethics, was his measure. His own cynical experiences came from his experiences with the entrenched in university church schools when he tried to become a minister as a young adult.
Having read my book, my father writes back with pen held in the hand of a 94-year-old who trained in 1940, prepared to lay down his life as first words began to leak out as to what was transpiring in Europe. He says, in a hand that is as steady as the hand I saw him write with when I was a teen, “... as the soldier told you at the cenotaph maybe one man can change (things) or make a difference. I have always looked forward to you just doing that! ... change has always come through the common poor people. I believe that our only hope is that you will prevail. ...”.
Cop neighbour Ryan might then want to think about this encounter that I had in the Nipigon grocery store before I opened my father’s and Eaton’s letters. I have gifted this book to anyone who has boosted my morale through their private conversations with me. Joe Tookenay, a man of First Nation descent residing in Nipigon, had done so during the difficult task of writing my book. In the grocery store, he admitted that he was only part way through the reading of my gift but that he was impressed. As my father had said, Joe said that the book exposed too many truths behind the problems in our nation.
Ryan serves on a Nipigon recreation committee with Joe. He might want to talk to Joe about why Joe thinks my book is worth reading, while Ryan’s commander thinks not.
As I write this, I open another email from a distant friend, also gifted this book at the same time when it was delivered to elitist University experts. Having warned me when she received it in February that she would not have it read for six months, she admitted that she was only three quarters of the way through it. “... 11 years ago I would have been shocked but after these many years dealing with these so-called 'honourable' people it just angers me. It won't be so easy for them to pull the wool over my eyes now. ...”.
So, University elitists do not want to read the story. What should scare us is that Ryan’s commanding officer stood in my yard on May 31, 2011 and said that he would not read about my story. He, he said, had no obligation to.
Oh, indeed, he does!
“... By 1939, Hitler began his ravaging rampage because neighbours did not care about what happened to neighbours. Cops relished their self promotions and gains even as the rights of their neighbours disappeared.
Obey without thinking and educating yourself to the whole situation?
This arrogant attitude, sirs and madams, makes you no better than Nazis. ...”.
But, because the citizen cannot see the tape on Don MacAlpine’s mouth and Don MacAlpine is not as young and sexy as Kate and what’s-his-name, will the citizens, even one named Brigitte DePape, start to stand in places where democracy is not so sexy at all? Indeed, what do we wait to be buried and why?
Out of sight, out of mind. Our world is still reeling with the trials of modern men who buried people into pits in repeat of our world history before 1945. What the citizens of “democracy” hide from is this harsh reality.
These ominous events happened in nations where the trust in the leadership of the day was lost. Those calling themselves leaders overthrew others and then ruled as they wanted, sometimes in revenge for what the previous leaders had done.
I am not naive enough to believe that democracy is about 100 percent of the people coming together to agree on what is best for them on any one, singular issue. Democracy is not even that sexy. BUT I do know that democracy IS NOT “leaders” seizing power with the vote and then doing as they want despite the law.
Out of sight, out of mind.
This is a small town parable about the rights of helpless fishies, in all probability buried in silt from the property of a cop who thinks that he is not corrupted. Frankly, I do not really care if the cop gets fried for the small fry fish being fried by his silty practices.
What I do care about is this principle of democracy even small town neighbours in Nipigon must start to think about. Barry. Bill. Even Allan and Glena. And then citizens across the nation.
IF I chose to pay professional protestors to appear to blockade Ryan’s self-fulfilling endeavours, do you think that my allegations of property, environmental and fisheries law would carry any merit in the weeks from July 1 that people like DePape would take to arrive in small town Nipigon? The answer is bluntly, no. In weeks’ time, they will only see a building to the glory and self-edification of Ryan Traintinger. IF no photos existed, the story of his, ultimately, personal disrespect for base laws of our nation would interest few people.
Because things are buried from view, the sins disappear? Not so, according to the laws coming from our history.
Barry did not step off the path. You can bet your bottom line that journalist Glena might show up to take pictures of the completed project that hide what went on for over a week while her working son made more money.
The history of our human nature is that, if we do not see it before our noses, we can then pretend that it does not exist.
Oh, under the law, the citizen is indeed allowed this freedom! BUT, that is ONLY to a certain point in time.
The lessons from 1945 compel that the politicians, their partisan friend lawyers, their promoted partisan “judges” AND the implicated cop respect all laws or be made accountable to the law. IF the citizen does not awaken when the story they refuse to educate themselves to removes the rights of their neighbours and their excuse is that they could not “see it” or “understand it” and then stayed silent to it, they become no better than the citizens in Nazi Germany.
So, yes, our citizenry defile the memory of what my father’s generation endured to 1945. What my nation, and others, must awaken to this.
When the cop refuses to educate themselves and then makes themselves above the law in nations where the vote becomes irrelevant because the partisan friends of those cops have made it so, then, yes, immature DePape is right. The excuse that the citizen can close their eyes and simply walk down the back lane away from what they refuse to examine in detail no longer has any merit. And the citizen who does that is as irresponsible, morally, as those whom they refuse to stand against.
Democracy ain’t sexy. It requires a citizenry that will dare to protect the right to voice and words over the power of even dirtied cops.
Oh, yes, even Ryan Traintinger is dirtied. And it is not because mud flows off his newly acquired property because of his arrogance. It is because, as did the Nazi by 1936, the cop bows to a commander who shows up in my yard on May 31, 2011 and says that he has no obligation to know my story, only to commands from his commanders.
Friends protecting friends. Think on this. This commander of Ryan’s spat at me when I warned that the deployment of buddies into their home towns was a violation of our constitution and international law. This commanding officer sneered. He told me that he was originally from Hearst, a town where he had gone to High School. He told me that he arrested people he knew and they told him that “They understood. He was only doing his job.”
Arrogance breeds stupidity.
I sneered at this cop when he said this. After all, who the hell is going to tell a cop with a gun in his holster otherwise? So, I asked Ryan’s commander to give me one good reason why small town boys needed to be posted in their home towns where the history of likes and dislikes permeate from immature teenaged relations. I warned Ryan’s commander, eventually in writing, that all of us have the right to know that the police man coming at us with a warrant or a gun does not carry personal grudges in their history.
Freedom from discrimination is that “colour of water” in all aspects of our human natures. It is not just the visibility of race, the invisibility of religious belief (made into too visible and illegal discriminations with the appearance of religious head dress in some modern policing uniforms) or the invisibility of hidden partisan allegiances. It is discrimination of any kind.
The commanders first “good excuse” for allowing small town boys back into small towns to play basketball and rub the balls of their old high school buds? They “know the geography”.
Really, then call them in from some other small community to help in “the arrest” or “the search” that is occasionally needed.
Do they know and care about the law, all laws? If they did, then the legal prerequisite and loyalty would be to the duty that the right of the citizen supercedes even the fears of the cops.
The cops carry guns, not to machine gun knife-wielding homeless people who just maybe should be in institutions designed to help the homeless, not make them crazies on our streets. The cops are not to carry implications that they paid into elected lawyers; coffers so that the world would have more cops while the mentally unfit were kicked out onto the streets because there was not enough money to help them.
The cops carry guns to protect the rights of the citizens over the abuses by even politicians.
If you think that we are not to a state where citizens need to start to stand behind DePape but change her sign, here is one last small town parable for your consideration.
I chose a life freed of dope. Indeed, in that era when Doug Vincent dared to declare that no one was above the law, I ran the roads so that I would look almost as sexy as Kate’s Princeless prince. On one of my late afternoon runs, I was on a back woods lane coming off a street called McKirdy. On that street, many lot owners have to accept that the hills in that area make their lot size into barely half of the “usable” land that other flat landers have. If you want the spectacular view that these lot owners have, you take the geography that Ryan did not want on his new lot.
On McKirdy, you stayed inside your own property boundaries. Indeed, as for any other part of town, you risked the wrath of neighbours if your works at drainage then ran rain water onto their land.
So, I am young. I am huffing my then lean body up that back lane. I see a truck in an isolated part of that back lane.
I knew the Anthony Boesch, who leaned on one side of the hood. Anthony was a young party animal who lived next door to me with his parents at the time. I also knew the other son of that fine, outstanding family of Nipigon citizenry, the Clearwaters. Son Todd, a brother to Allan, was always an unsmiling young man whom I only recognized from brief encounters to that day.
Todd was even more mirthless at this instant. I knew the stuff from what I had seen in University. However, this was not marijuana for casual use between these two. It was a big bale of the stuff laid out on the hood of the pickup. It was obvious to me that they were dividing it up for redistribution. I glared at them to let them know what I thought and continued my run.
I stayed silent to this incident, even as a “teetotaller”, because even then I knew this principle in law. If you are going to legalize a drug, alcohol, that I saw lead to violent injury or death or painful death or needless abuse of wives and children, “because of the booze”, then there had better be deeper legitimate reasons for banning another drug used by too many. I also heard about the paying from big booze executives into politicians’ pockets at that time and was offended by those implications. It was not until 2003 that I actually found records of this paying.
However, as an eventual elected town official, we received a petition asking for the legalization of marijuana after decades of this issue being tossed around. I supported the subsequent motion. Those who said that it had the problems of alcohol and smoking opposed its legalization. My response, made on the public record that our town clerk never kept transcripts of, was that if this was the case then stop being hypocrites. Outlaw cigarettes and outlaw booze. I said that I am no prohibitionist. I was for common sense laws.
My point now becomes this.
Todd and Anthony have become, as far as I know, productive members of our community. However, Ryan is a cop. He has become friendly with an old town home boy named Allan Clearwater. Allan and Todd, in the “geography” of the town, are sons of a town’s reporter. The principle of law would become that, given Anthony and Todd being old dopers, Ryan would be obliged to chase them both equally. The implication becomes that Ryan has formed allegiances and is unable to do so. Therefore, to avoid the appearance of conflict of interest in any such manner, Anthony would have every right to express concern at a home town boy picking and choosing which old home boy would be picked upon.
Policing is not an excuse for reuniting old high school buds who have gained their personal allegiances and prejudices gained from early perceptions of a person’s being.
There are things in my youth I would not do again that I know cops would jump on me for as “criminal activity”. Read the book. There is stuff I did as an adult, as an elected official by 2000, that cops did not like that I would do again. Read the book. Cops then subsequently jumped on me for letters that I would write again. Read the balance of these blogs/essays.
In short, elected lawyer Prime Minister Liberal Paul Martin stayed silent for three months for a letter that elected lawyer Conservative Peter MacKay lauded the day after he received it by email. Cops suppressed MacKay’s commentary as they arrested me. In February 2004, the cops stayed silent to their Conservative side because MacKay was just an elected lawyer in opposition. In February 2004, Mr. Martin, the Liberal lawyer, was in the highest position in the land.
Indeed, my book makes reference to sitting in RCMP Sergeant Steve Arthur’s office in Thunder Bay on August 13, 2004. I had been sent to the RCMP by Nipigon’s OPP because they agreed that I had valid concerns. They were confused by “issues of jurisdiction”, so the OPP said. In August 2004, I did not know the partisan paying implications of the OPP. I had read the law, even international law.
I was astounded after Arthur admitted that he had not really explored the details of my complaint. After all, he said, it was clear that I was asking for Criminal Code charges against many in the Province of Ontario. He was clear that, therefore, this made the matter the OPP’s problem. However, he ventured “the opinion” that I should not be spending my time pushing for charges against Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin.
Concerned, I clarified that, yes, he had not read all of my documentation sent to the RCMP. I then asked him who in Canada was above the law. Mr. Arthur sat back in his chair and asked what I meant. I meant, I asked him directly, are you, as a cop, even above the law. I was disappointed to hear the man say that it was his view that he could be arrested only if he had done some dastardly deed. Dealing drugs. Violence of any kind.
I eventually registered my concern about this commentary in writing.
In court in September 2004, the Thunder Bay based government bureaucrat, who sent my “offensive” letter to cops, admitted that it was her Liberal controlled head office in Ottawa that pushed for my arrest.
So, instead of using “geography” as an excuse to bring Ryan home, his commanders should have been careful to ensure that the duty of complete impartiality was protected for all citizens.
But, you see, this kind of geography is even more complicated for Ryan.
In 2004, I was arrested for a letter I sent to politicians. Read the blogs. Read the summary “About Don” button at the TakeBackDemocracy.ca site. Read the book.
But start to think about why what is not in front of the citizens’ eyes is sometimes more important than what happens to the silted eyes of small fishies.
The order to arrest me came from offices that were not policing. They were political offices controlled by Liberals. Indeed, the record is that an elected Conservative lawyer lauded my letter that Liberal lawyers eventually arrested me for.
The problem for Ryan, and his commanding officers, becomes this geography.
That incident with Chuck, Ryan’s brother in law, from 1999 already discussed here? In small town Nipigon, the under-age girls who were at the table with my daughter were first cousins of Ryan’s. Their dad was named Tim Harper. Their mother eventually held a good job at the local Ministry of Natural Resources. Tim was a cop who had worked out of town until he had matured enough to return with his teens in tow. Nice guy, but a little irresponsible when it comes to impartiality in our laws.
As an elected town councillor, I sat on a teen committee that I demanded the town’s recreation committee set up. I used it to start to deal with teen-based problems in the community. I worked with Tim’s daughters on that committee. They did not like that I made heat for the eventual husband of their cousin, Ryan’s sister.
Chuck played basketball with Mitch Brennan. I bumped them on men’s league basketball courts when my son and I played some nights at the local high school. Chuck survived the heat from my complaint about staying silent to under-aged drinking. He did not move out of town to mature, as I suggested was needed. Instead, Mitch appeared in town as another young home boy cop. This practice began to accelerate.
Indeed, on New Year’s eve 1999, a citizen of the community dared to insinuate that, when cops’ kids got drunk underage, they got special treatment. Others’ teens immediately got into trouble, was the public’s perception. Another incident happened. I filed an official complaint that carried on into the last months of my elected service into 2000. I was especially concerned about the conduct of policing officials in a nearby small town called Red Rock.
So, because I do not have pictures of my arrest in 2004, does this then make the silence of small town citizens and then a nation right because the citizens did not see what transpired? No. Indeed, I dare to suggest that we are back into the shades of Nazi Germany.
You see, or you don’t, there are only words to record this. Elitist educators refuse to deal with them, because they do not have time. But, worse, cops refuse to deal with them because all of this implicates their self-promotions. Silence, like covering up what happens to little fishies in a small town, is too, too convenient for the cops and the lawyers and the judges.
So, it is indeed time for the citizens to awaken to this final part of the story.
To 2002, I was considered an outstanding citizen of the community. By 2003, I was a pariah in the sides of the politicians. The cops care not about politics, as long as their pet politicians get them bigger guns. So, when a letter appeared from a federal agency headed by Liberals implicated in my court complaints and the politicized feds asked for my arrest, who appeared at my car’s door to push me into a cop car?
That cop from Red Rock whom I complained about in 2000.
Who became the lead investigators for the complaint? Not Tim Harper, or any other long-standing cop from the Nipigon area. Currie stayed silent. Currie and Harper may claim that they were uninformed and kept out of the loop. That is not the point. The point is that, voluntarily, cops in Nipigon who knew that I was political took a politicized letter and allowed it to become a reason for an arrest without full investigation.
None of my warning letters to Canada’s elitists in our institutions of governance and “justice” were brought forward as “evidence” in my arrest. Indeed, even my court-submitted documents, documenting the sins of partisan “judges”, were silenced.
Mitch Brennan sat in my house consoling my wife as my house was searched. The search began under the leadership of a cop dragged in from Terrace Bay. His cohort sat with me in an interrogation room and said that “after 9/11, we cannot write whatever we want!”
Show me where our constitution was revoked. It was not, in Canada or America. Its rights had already been removed before 2004. I did not realize how until 2007 when I found the donations from Ontario’s cops, approved by Fantino’s own practice of doing this as the once-head of the Chiefs of Police Association of Ontario.
So, yes, this creates a dilemma that is illegal and that the citizens must now stand against if our democracies are to regain any credibility.
Ryan Traintinger, the cop, may face recrimination because of pictures that make record of the obvious that Barry and others did not see from a lane way and which others do not care about. The cops of Nipigon, however, are into an illegal bind where the lot of them are implicated through their donations to partisans, a practice made illegal in international law in 1948, constitutional law by 1982 and protected under the Criminal Code by 1989.
So, will a citizenry that claims to be in a democracy have the courage to stand against those who have made our vote as insignificant as “the vote” in Libya and Egypt? Or will the citizens allow stupid arrogance gained by power to overwhelm even their rights before they stand up against the obvious that they pretend not to see?
Democracy is not about sex because it is not sexy. It is about our daily, personal responsibilities to use our tongues and pens to stand up against wrong the moment it appears.
The dilemma for citizens now becomes this.
I am winding down on this tome of an essay when I open an email from a friend. She is a writer in Ottawa, a poet. She understands the vulgarities of writing. The “writing demons” awaken you at strange hours in the morning to write, write, write. She is concerned about burnout and about the consequences of a seemingly never ending cause. She is concerned that this being alone will not end until my cause ends.
I laugh. She is religious. She is a very nice lady. I say that even she needs a lesson in what faith really entails. Our conversation leads me to discover that she is not “religious”. She is spiritual. And talking strengthens our understanding.
It means listening to the human spirits, not making the human spirits our convenient propaganda once a year. We have made November 11, Remembrance Day, into the shallow ceremonies that equate to the Christian Christmas. Great pomp and ceremony. Silence to the injustices on the days in between.
These people have the power! They will talk to us! They do not have to listen! Even into our courts of “Justice” that they have made the protectorates of their voice over ours.
I have read what my father wrote. Oh, rest assured that I will meet my father’s urging. I may have moments of doubt in the weakening hours of these long days of writing. But, I have faith. And it comes from this knowledge.
My great uncle served in the first Great War. He returned, wounded in body and spirit but not in the faith that change would come. He was a battalion of human beings who returned to my nation, awakened. It was in that post war era that Canada suddenly started to find its voice as a nation that knew that democracy and justice was not about some old crone across some vast sea.
My father put on a Canadian Army uniform in 1940, prepared to die for coming generations. Saved by definable “physical deficiencies”, he was wounded by his witness to the consequences of those who take the power of democracy to make it instruments of their own greed and power.
I do not need to go to Stephen Harper’s, or any other pompous politician’s, grand cathedrals. I do not need to sit in the halls of a Parliament that my voice was barred from in February 2011 (read The Final Corollary posted at the book site). I do not need the shallow pretence that religious bowing has any relevance when it comes to faith and spirit.
I have said this before in warning to cops like Ryan and politicians like Stephen Harper. My tongue and my pen are filled with spirit. It is the spirit of warriors who stood against what Ryan and Harper do, even to neighbours, simply because they have “the power”. I have the faith that, in time, even if it takes decades, the children of my nation will arise. They will take the lessons from these spirits that these bastards in power try to silence with pomp and ceremony and circumstance every July 1 and November 11 in the Canadian calendar year.
I have the faith that our planet, my nation as a leader first, will rise to make the colour of water the state of governance and justice in all parts of the world. I have the courage to stand up against those who have no vision in this and no sense to their legal obligations in this.
I have this faith and courage because I know people suffered because one business man in 1929 failed to stand against a man named Hitler who used the vote to then deny the rules of human decency. These rules of human decency were made into law by 1948. Those laws set down the standards so that Never Again would the children of the world face what happened before 1945.
So, when the ominous signs of 1929 happen to me, I have the faith. I am filled with the spirits of those who had the courage to stand against bombs and bullets to bring us the law of 1948. So, if I must stand alone as a leader in all of this, I will.
Because, as my father says, change comes from the poor. Ghandi may have led, but it was the brave citizen who stood against British machine guns who changed India. Martin Luther King, Jr. may have led, but it was the rioters in the slums of American cities who awakened America to the need for change. Mandela may have rotted in a prison in South Africa, but it was the brave citizens in the townships who said “No more!” who led to change that made even human race the colour of water.
It is time in my nation.
I may be poor in the measure of the likes of Harper and Peter Munk (read the book about the depth of hypocrisy measured in a Canadian business man who became rich while forgetting that it was the bravery of Canadians who saved his European Jewish ass by 1944). I am rich in the knowledge that the spirits that fill me reassure me that this is indeed a battle that is right and must be carried on with pen and tongue and internal strength to the end.
It is up to the rest of citizenry to awaken to the fact that democracy just ain’t a sexy thing.
Watch the TakeBackDemocracy.ca pages. In time, yes, there will be a “process of peace” posted there which will take us to the legal promises of 1948 that our politicians and their partisan friends have so vilely corrupted.

FIRST STEPS TO RETURNING OUR NATIONS TO CREDIBLE DEMOCRACIES (points to be expanded upon at TakeBackDemocracy.ca in the coming weeks):
• Stand up to the propaganda and challenge it where ever and whenever it appears;
• Refuse to participate in the illegal, for example, the census (read earlier blogs), and, yes, our currently illegal elections (read the blogs and TakeBackDemocracy.ca;
• Follow the example of Libya, etc.... Yes! The vote is illegitimate... Yank the buggers out!
• Stand up against the illegal, small or big. Challenge, challenge, challenge but have the courage to change all of this;
• Force the resignations of those who corrupted and abuse our vote since 1982, to a decline of our rights... yes, I am saying that Harper and Layton, Duceppe and Ignatieff must go so that future “leaders” understand that they are our representatives, only, not our dictators;
• Clean up of our courts all of the way to the Supreme Court of Canada.... I suggested how that should happen in 2004... that will appear at the TakeBackDemocracy.ca page

I assure you that all of this can be achieved by using the precedent set already in our Parliamentary halls. BUT, if those with guns will not recognize their duty in this, then we need the courage to stand outside our courtrooms first, as the Libyans did.

Behind the Vermin in Ermine On the Road to Real Democracy in 2011

2011-06-25T13:22:00.000-04:00

This blog is about 10 printed pages. It will take about a half hour to read....

(Started on Father’s Day, this blog is dedicated to my father and the mother’s, father’s, brothers and sisters and friends of his generation)

The day before Father’s Day in 2011, I opened my back door after doing some gardening. In it was one of those large, yellow, officious “notices”. “Notice of Visit- Census 2011,” it loudly reads before you come to this threatening line: “... It is a legal requirement that every household complete a census questionnaire ...”.

This I would have complied with before 2003. However, I trust that the citizens of Canada will start to ponder why I continue my singular “Censless Revolution”. If you do struggle back through the emails/(blogs posted below), you will find one that makes a record of my response to that University student. She was the first deliverer of this illegal farce to my door. Her warning was that my refusal to accept “The Census” could get me arrested or fined “$1,000”.

I refused to cooperate. Yes, I will continue to refuse to because the day after this officious notice’s delivery was made was “Father’s Day” in Canada.

I have a picture of my Father. In 1942, he was handsome, dressed in the Canadian Army’s training uniform. He was disappointed to be rejected as a foot soldier because of his small stature and flat feet. Now 94, he talks eloquently.

He has finally finished reading my tome. He is a man whom I was momentarily disowned from. This was because I refused to buy into my parental family’s religious vigours. We finally talk with respect again. He has read the book. “It is the truth,” he says in his soft voice over the phone. He has his own story about corrupted justice but he would not have voted for the Conservatives on May 2, 2011, if he had read my book first.

He talks as rationally as I heard Ben Ferencz, now a reportedly 92-year old man, talking. Ferencz survived that war. He became an American soldier who collected evidence for the criminal war trials at Nuremberg. A post-Canadian-election blog of mine makes a record of Ferencz’s commentary on America’s assassination of Osama Bin Laden. My father’s affirmation that he now knows that I am right in my own journey is really more significant to me than any other book reviewer’s appraisal. After all, my own father has accepted that the reasons why he put on the 1942 uniform were not really confirmed as a moral prerequisite in that era. It was not until the atrocities in Europe were revealed in the Nuremberg trials that the world awoke to the real significance of men and women who died before 1945.

Others seem to have forgotten many things by 2011, despite what my father and mother’s generation witnessed. Some will be offended by my words. I eventually label the highest of Canadian “judges” as “vermin” in this essay. Therefore, I am going to keep pounding these thoughts back into the heads of many who should know better because of what their parents survived. I am also going to start to challenge the upcoming generations as to what really responsible behaviour entails in 2011.

First, the trials at Nuremberg jailed German “judges”. These were grand and elevated lawyers in Germany. By 1945, these elevated men had made the new laws of the partisan something that could overrule all rules of human decency. By 1948, Canada, and 47 other nations, had signed onto international law. That law promised us that such abominations would never be allowed to happen again (visit my “About Law” page at http://TakeBackDemocracy.ca to find relevant references to that law).

This concept of what justice entailed was to be compelled by what?

It was to be compelled by the official recognition that true democracy is not about “the majority rules!”. If “majority rule” was the prevailing rule of democracy, then the majority’s fervour, for seeing Jews annihilated and the majority’s indifference to the disappearance of dissidents who then dared to oppose these inhumanities, would have been lawful before 1948.

However, after, 1948, the rule of law in democracies, or at least in 48 nations claiming to be conscientious “democracies”, was that never again would the rights of individual citizens be trampled because the “majority” did not really care. Indifference was to be no excuse.

So, when some say that I should temper my pen my response is made with stern temper. My father trained under the hail of machine gun fire, prepared to die. He prepared to die as he was told that never again should the freedom of any citizen be jeopardized by those who gained control, as had happened in Germany.

I repeat what I have said in court documents, my book and in previous blogs. First, Hitler gained power by coalitions formed by different political associations. Partisans of different stripes came together. They declared that they were what was best for “all citizens”. Then, through astute placement of their partisan associates into positions of governance, a systematic exclusion of freed voice began. We seem wont to forget that this was all enforced by making certain that friends of the partisan were in positions of justice and policing.

I invite you to visit the “About Don” button at the http://TakeBackDemocracy.ca web page. There you will learn of circumstances of personal discovery that lead me to know this.

If my father’s generation had the courage to stand against the hail of bullets and bombs unleashed by empowered partisans, then, yes, I will dare to machine gun my words to end the harshly illegal abuse of powers gained via our votes. Even in nations called Canada and America.

The lesson from that era was that, never again, would “majority rule” become an excuse to diminish the rights of any part of our citizenry while partisans gained. More importantly, indifference by any citizen or collective of “majority citizenry” would never be an excuse for the partisan to take control of institutions of governance. Most importantly, as that law of 1948 required, the citizens would have their rights protected by completely impartial courts, freed of discriminating behaviours of any kind

It becomes sickening, to me, how many times I must write, and write again, these reminders. Racism prevailed after 1948, even into that nation that tries to sell itself as “the epitome of democracy”, the United States of America. It was not until the race riots of the 1960’s that the “majority” view of the racist Southern States, allowed by their complicit cousins to the north, fell. Sexual discrimination, against women and gays, continues today. And, in good old America especially, the right to courts that are freed of religious intolerance is blatantly violated. America’s court rooms violate the rights of those who might dare to say that they do not believe that there is a god. We see daily images of America’s court rooms where the words, “In God We Trust”, are emblazoned onto their walls.

Yes, Nazism did prevail after 1948. How and why? Because lawyers, even some who returned from the bloodied soils of Europe, told the rest of us that only they know what the word “justice” means. They, and their partisan friends, quickly overwhelmed the lessons to 1945 with a rush to create new laws that would protect their old traditions.

We have fallen silent to this stark reality.

We would not operate on our own daughters and sons in the pretence that we know how to heal them. We need trained physicians to deal with issues of health.

We would not build our own bridges without knowing what the math would be to make the bridge safe. We assign that duty to highly trained engineers.

However, if you or I witness a death by beating by even drunken mobs, we know what justice is. It is not another crowd taking the law into their own hands and arbitrarily lynching those implicated, even in videos. We know that to do so based on what is seen “in the moment” might sweep the individual, who put up a hand to stop the blows and then was pushed to fall on the already bloodied victim, into what might seem to be, on initial impression, participatory violence.

We also know that it is not a jury of 12 lawyers that should then sort out the whole bevy of facts to gain judgement from the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. We know, therefore, that we do not need “lawyers” to engineer what the facts are and what the truth, therefore, becomes. They are contracted only to do the work we could do to bring forth the facts and the truth so that principled justice prevails.

Worse, we have the lessons from Nuremberg as to the ramifications when we abdicate the principles of justice to those who illustrate, again and again, that they have no higher principle that frees them from their promotion and protection of their personal politics. Why do we allow this? Why do we subvert our rights, despite the lessons of Nuremberg, to people who cannot even prove to us that they have no friends in high places, who have gained power via our vote and who then pass laws to the gain of the partisan while the citizens’ rights decline?

I invite you to visit http://TakeBackDemocracy.ca and the “About Don” button to a summary of my personal testament that this is already the case in Canada. I dare to say that it is as bad in good old America. There, do not forget, a man named Bush became “president” because the State of Florida had good Republican judges ruling on the state of the vote in that sad state in 2000. However, the deeper consequences of our collective silence to all of this can be illustrated in 2011 by an iconic image which some Canadians have idolized.

On June 3, 2011, there was much ado made about Brigitte DePape. The now famous picture of that Canadian Parliamentary Page gained fame. She stood in the presence of the “democratically” esteemed. She held up her handmade “Stop Harper” sign. She later said that she did so because she was concerned that Mr. Harper now has control in a nation where less than 1 in 4 of its voters registered a vote for him.
DePape should think more about the real role of democracy. She and others should start to remember that, as of 1948, democracy was never again to be about “majority rules!”, not even if a real “majority vote” was achieved. After all, such idiocy could lead to Christians removing the rights of Jews or Islamists or vice versa. After all, such idiocy could lead to the racism and oppression that continue in Canada against First Nation people.

This is enabled, why?

One media report noted that she held her sign while standing behind “Judges” from Canada’s Supreme Court during that “parliamentary-opening throne speech”. More citizens might want to start to focus in on this part of that picture. There has been too much focus on DePape’s stop sign. There is not enough said about the vermin in highest positions of Canadian courts.

DePape stood behind a bunch of promoted partisan privileged who dress in regal robes lined with ermine. So, yes, I dare to say that it is this part of that iconic image of June 3 that should be amplified. The Vermin in Ermine must be dealt with if Canada’s, or any other, “democracy” is expected to regain any credibility.

Why?

The irony is again in DePape’s singular brave but collectively immature, when it comes to democracy, suggestion as to why she did this. She said, to the media, that she hoped Canadians would rise to mimic what those Arabs are doing in places like Libya and Tunisia and Syria and Egypt in 2011.

DePape et al should remember this iconic image from Libya.

Murderous warfare began again in Libya in 2011 because, why? Because the citizens awakened to the fact that 1200 of them had been taken out into a prison yard and machine gunned to death because they dared to ask for blankets. Where did the protests begin? Outside a court house where first only 5 more unarmed were then massacred. Was it one collective association that began these protests? No, it was a freely associating collection of people of all tribal stripes who came together to say that what their “leaders” were doing was wrong. Why did this escalate? Because “policing officials”, sworn loyal to the rulers, not to the rules of human decency, turned their guns on the mourners on the next day to murder over 30 more unarmed citizens.

What are the rules of human decency that we agreed to by 1948? I invite you to visit the “About the Law” button at http://TakeBackDemocracy.ca, again.

Again, I dare to challenge that our media are a main problem. Their portrayal of Canada’s Supreme Court as an “esteemed” institution, an “institution of justice”, gives our “institution of justice” the credibility that many of us know that it does not deserve.

Oh, I know. In the May 30 edition of Maclean’s magazine, esteemed columnist Paul Wells will write an article. He will report that Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper knows that two Liberally appointed “judges” of the Supremest Court of Fools are resigning. Wells will insist that what he observes in one Supremest of Courts hearing will, therefore, mean that “... the power to appoint Judges doesn’t mean Harper will get what he wants...”.

Fools who sit in one court room to draw conclusions make the rest of trusting Canadians into fools with this kind of idiotic propaganda. I suggest that perhaps Mr. Wells might want to travel through more Canadian courts as I have. And, yes, Mr. Wells might want to actually read some of the laws as I note I have at my “About the Law” button at my http://TakeBackDemocracy.ca web page.

Wells sat in a court room where the “judges” from the supremest of fools, when it comes to 1948, sit. Wells marvelled. The case he chose to listen to was about “Insite”. “Insite”? It is that place in “drug-crazed” British Columbia where druggies can come in to shoot up. They are supposed to be able to do so free from fear of arrest. There is much evidence and argument made in two “lower courts” already that there is some success in this program. Support is given as the druggies try to deal with their addiction problems.

This is not a good concept in the world of Tony Clement, Jim Flaherty (elected Conservative lawyers, who just might be appointed as “judges” one day, by the by!) and Stephen Harper. Helping the addict out of their world of addiction is a completely foreign concept to the Conservative agenda of “getting tough on crime”.
However, the deeper problem comes down to this. It is one of illegal behaviour entrenched into our courts AND of stupid journalists carrying stupidity even further.

Wells makes grand oratory on the back and forth exchanges that he heard between esteemed lawyers and steamy judges in robes. He does hint at the Liberal or Conservative appointments of these supremest of fools. After all, despite the lessons from Germany, the political lawyer and judges will tell us that only they know what “justice” is. Oh, you will have to wait for why I sneer so, and why I sneer at Statistics Canada’s abuse by “these politicals” even more deeply.
Read my book, or the previous emails or blogs that follow below. Yes, Mr. Wells. I have been a citizen in courts who can testify how stupid your respectful opinion is when we examine reality.

1982. “Courtish” hearings over my firing from a government position. I am eventually told that a Progressive Conservative aligned lawyer named Campbell has sat on a tribunal discussion about my firing by the good Conservatives. I have not been forced to “become a lawyer” in 1982. Still, I know that this is completely wrong. After all, 1982 is the year when we are promised justice that is truly “just”.

In 1982, I know that there is something wrong about a “Conservative” implicated “judge” being the only man on the “tribunal” who files a dissenting opinion. This is political interference in a “court”. This is a room that is not to carry the implication that the Conservatives in government at the time, who had fired me, would have influence in any related process of justice for me.

Unlike engineers, who simply do the math or doctors, who are made accountable to how they slice any among us, partisan lawyers have engineered the math of what “justice” will equal. The idiocy of this is perpetrated by, yes, I abuse “journalists” in all of this, “stupidity in journalism”.

Nearly three decades after my lessons gained from a 1982 government-firing (I won my job back, by the by), Paul Wells writes grand oratory making this record. He watches a Conservative-Harper appointed “judge”, ironically named Thomas Cromwell. Wells gushes that Cromwell tells Harper’s appointed lawyers that there is no need for the power to arrest people using Insite. This is because Cromwell says that “If the police wanted to arrest people for possession, they could simply do it outside (Insite) on their way to the door.”

Wells cheers this wrongly, and stupidly, on two counts.

The first is a minor glitch from a pubescent journalist, when it comes to how our courts function. In 1982, I watched and listened to Conservative-implicated Campbell make small challenges to opposing lawyers to my case. Indeed, my book then records a Conservative-implicated judge named Helen Pierce. She made grand , laudatory oratory of her own after I had made a presentation to her in June 2003. She thanked me for a most excellent presentation that I made before her on a June 20, 2003 civil court day where I was my own lawyer.

I did not know that she was a paid loyalist. She appeared in a court room where the application for justice was via my documents naming Conservatives, the likes of Mike Harris and Jim Flaherty and Tony Clement and their partisan party. Thanking me for my presentation to her tainted court room on June 20, 2003, she then returned barely a week later with a written, abusive and demeaning judgement. She essentially said that she did not care about the facts of my case or the soundness of my presentation. I was a stupid citizen. She lectured me because, she declared, even the Supreme Court recognized that, once politicians were in power, “policy is the prerogative of the government”. On that day, to her, “the government” was not the citizenry of Ontario. It was “the Conservative” faction.

And Ms. Pierce’s piercing eyes and poisoned pen hid the fact that she had paid money into a partisan faction that was trying to recruit Conservative Mike Harris as Canada’s next Prime Minister under the Conservative Alliance. Harris’ name was on my documents that she claimed were made irrelevant by the supremest stupidity from our highest courts. She had been appointed barely a year before by Ernie Eves, Harris’ replacement Conservative Premier. Eves name and the name of the Conservative Party, that had a hand in promoting her, was on those documents that she then dismissed.

As judges in Germany said to the citizenry, the Canadian citizen had better bow to the abuses that “the government” would apply to their rights or face the consequences? If you think that these partisan bastards do not abuse our institutions of “justice” as the Nazis did, I invite you to visit my personal testaments and summarized details outlining how they do. Go to the “About Don” button at http://TakeBackDemocracy.ca.

Yes, Mr. Wells. You may have made a minor error in thinking that what a judge says during deliberations means something. It means nothing as to what the verdict will be. Indeed, a May 17 British Columbia’s The Province report of the same case that Wells watched noted that no verdict would be coming from this Supremest Court of Fools of Nine until “later this year” or even not until 2012. Therefore, if this “Court” is so venerable and aligned on all things as Mr. Wells suggests in his column that they are, why does it take nine snoring “judges” so long to render a simple decision on whether or not this “Insite” site should be allowed to keep its doors open?

This bureaucracy of injustice exists because these buggers have made our courts into institutions of political deliberations. However, Mr. Wells makes a graver error with his commentary and, hence, perpetuates the illegal into our courts with his idiocy. The grave error with Mr. Wells et al “experts” is this. And, yes, I dare to say, again, “Visit my http://TakeBackDemocracy.ca web site and the “About the Law” button,” to understand why I now say this.

Mr. Wells completely misses the significance behind the sacrifices made by my father’s generation. It, therefore, becomes irrelevant what Mr. Wells thinks about judges appointed by big-time politicians. What Mr. Wells glosses over is that, by 1948, this practice of partisans appointing their own into our court rooms was to be completely disallowed. Visit my “About the Law” page at my TakeBackDemocracy.ca site to read the relevant sections of that international law. Discrimination of any kind was to be disallowed after 1948. In “democracies” of the UN.

No discrimination to be allowed.

Like the all white juries who hung or condemned black men, one made famous by Bob Dylan ( ever listened to his song, Hurricane?).

Like the Irish Catholic facing judgement from Protestants arbitrarily assassinating the Catholic because the Catholic had supposedly threatened the Protestant.

Like the homosexual, tied to fence posts in “judgement”.

Like the dissident of Germany or Russia or Libya or China or North Korea, who would not align with the partisan in power.

Like the atheist in the United States of America who is told to stand in court rooms where signs are posted “In God We Trust”.

There was NOT to even be a hint that politicians, even of the religious rites rightists, had gained influence into our courts so that the mere suggestion of partisan politics would arise.

Wells? His article makes a loud record about Harper’s blatant intentions and ability to stack the deck in Canada. After all, Harper has a “majority”, of one voter for him for every other four voting Canadians.

The vote and our courts? Here is why I will stand up to more abuse of powers gained when it comes to “statistics” by 2011. We need statistics to rule our nations? What about the statistics already analysed to death and then ignored in Canada?
In December 2004, I submitted my court-based complaints to Canada’s esteemed “Supreme Court”. Base principles of justice say that justice cannot be denied any citizen. By December 2004, I had added the name of prominent Liberals and the Liberal party to my application. As the book records, my application was returned by a “court clerk”. Why? It was not that my arguments were not considered valid. I had refused to submit to the New Laws of lawyers saying that I must submit, in specified binder types with typing only on the left side (so that right handed judges can scribble more easily on the right, I suppose).

I dared to warn that the persons assigning these new conditions violated the right of the simple citizen who was illiterate. I refused to comply “to the new rules” knowing full well that they had been made to the favour of partisan-implicated lawyers.

Sure enough, by January 2005, the copies I had sent, making a record of how all of this abuse of our courts could end, was returned by a “court clerk”. I looked up the lawyer’s name on Elections Canada data. He was a donor to the Liberal Party. This was a political party prominently displayed on my typed documents.

So, by 2004, I had noted this to these arrogant fools.

Stats Canada collected your and my data in the 1990’s. In a “woe is our electoral process!” study based on this data, this esteemed organization of statisticians noted that 94% of Canadians refuse to belong to or to donate to any partisan group. Meanwhile, I had uncovered documentation. The lawyers entrenched into our courts, who repetitively blocked my applications for justice, were 99% implicated by memberships or donations into the Conservative or Liberal and, of a lesser frequency, to the New Democrats.

So, Mr. Wells et al, where are the 96% of non-partisan judges into our courts? The lessons from 1945 told us that the appointment of partisans into our courts by partisans was something the citizen should not even have to contemplate. What made those conditions of the 1948 law very irrelevant?

It was partisan appointed judges into our courts in more “democracies” than just Canada.

Worse, where are the 96% of our elected representatives who show that they are independent thinkers, elected to truly represent the will of the majority of Canadians?

Aw, no, Ms. DePape and all. It is not about “only 1 in 4!” voted for Harper. It is that our places of elected representation are dominated by a population of only 6%, according to Statistics Canada. So, you are damned right that I refuse to bow to the threatening orders in my door that order me to submit to the “latest law” passed by partisans while the real representation of 94% of the population is ignored.

I do not care if others align with me in this. I refuse to align with others through officious “associations” that these partisans make “new laws” for. We have allowed corrupted courts to force us into the loss of the legal principle that no individual’s rights would be diminished if they chose not to align themselves with anyone. If we are to gain our rights back to voice and vote, we will start to think about those Arabs whom DePape urged us to mimic.

Our lawyers, and, hence, “judges”, have aligned. They now control our courts? They now create rules of “Majority Rules!” where they can define their “majority” to be based on one vote out of every four while all others were not for them? And, when fewer than 40% of Americans turn out for their federal elections, we can be certain that America’s situation is no better.

All of this is protected by bureaucratic courts ruled by partisans. All of this, sadly, increases the wealth of those lawyers.

Some will say that I show total disrespect by daring to call the Supremest of “Judges” “vermin”. I dare to challenge that we need to deal with the signals in the daily living that surrounds us.

And, yes, what I saw on Canada’s CTV as I waited in a bus station on the day after father’s day cemented my resolve to refuse to comply with those who ignore the Statistics that our taxes have already paid for. The ramifications, of what also happens when our institutions of “democracy” lose all credibility, ironically comes from that city of Vancouver where “Insite” is located.

The talk of the nation is still about the violence and destruction that went on in that fair city on the last night of the National Hockey League season. Vancouver’s Canucks lose. Downtown businesses lose windows and merchandise in the rioting that ensues. The CTV “analysts” are astounded that it is not “anarchists” as the Vancouver cops first implied. Drunken teens, mostly males, burned cars, looted and beat up anyone who tried to stop them.

Seventeen year old kids are suddenly stepping forward to apologize.

I am not one of those prohibition nut bars. Yes, I chose not to do drugs, any, as my lifestyle. However, I am a person who demands accountability in all places where responsibility lays.

Read my “hockey violence” blog. Tell me why the NHL executives are not apologizing for failing to set a standard that meets the “majority rules” standard that we are all equals and that sport is for the sake of sport that sets an example to young fans. Tell me why a league that fails to control the violence on ice is not made accountable for people fighting? With skates and hockey equipment off and then doing the same thing on our streets, the same people would be arrested for assault if not an intent to kill in some of the more violent episodes.

Tell me why the booze companies, making millions off of these “sporting events”, are not paying for the ramifications of spin-off realities like this. They sell their product, not calling it the drug that it is. They sell it in advertising to our modern teens, The advertisements portray their products as harmless social agents that will have the young males much fun. Best of all, the ads assure young males, the main target audience, that “their beer” or liquor product will get them laid by the most gorgeous women on the planet.

Read my book and my discoveries of booze companies and their executive officials paying big bucks into the same partisan pockets as the lawyers and cops do.

Yes, the public should express anger at so called “anarchists” who show up in the violence with masks over their faces. However, they should express greater dismay at the fact that families of kids in Vancouver, who were implicated in the violence and rioting, faced anonymous phone calls. These were so threatening against one family, said CTV reporters, that the family was forced to vacate their premises.
This is an ominous suggestion as to the depth of the lack of faith in our institutions of justice. We wonder why?

After CTV reporters discuss the partisan shenanigans that go on with a postal strike in Canada in the same week, another report is had. Another expert from Europe, with a deep English accent, appears. He warns that the European Union must tread carefully. Greece (discussed in a blog below/previous email) needs another big bailout or it will need to declare bankruptcy. The “expert” man decries that the world is having to deal with this because of the dishonesty in the banking and credit industry. All of these shenanigans started to roll the world into an economic crisis in 2008.

Ah yes. My primary target in my civil court applications of 2003? Big banks that were not willing to protect and promote honesty in business. They were willing to eagerly pay money into the pockets of big partisans. They paid only to those partisans, like Clement and Flaherty, who said that business in our nations can do no wrong, no matter how dishonest the big bank or big politician may become.

Unions and corporations have their place in our social structures. It is not, however, in the back pockets of politicians who take away the rights of citizens. This fails the principles of a law that protects the honest citizen over the illegal shenanigans of union-sponsored or corporate-sponsored partisans.

We do not need the shadow of Communist Russia controlling our courts and our arresting institutions, because big unionists declared that only they knew what was good for the people. Nor do we need the shadow of big politicians who align with big business people, as did the Nazi from whence another oppressive version of “socialism” arises.

We do need a media that thinks on the same terms as did 12,000 citizens in Vancouver, but more responsibly.

It is all very well and good to applaud the great potential of our social media in “doing good”. After all, it is evidently very easy to motivate 12 thousand people to clean up the broken glass on downtown Vancouver streets.

The question arises when the citizenry will awaken to use this modern instrument of communication to deal with the deeper problems that exist in our society. The depth of decay that is a threat to legitimate democracy is clear. The record in this nation is of repetitive conduct, by politicians and our “legal profession”, that is illegal and insensitive to the debased history of 1945. This is senseless conduct that is insensitive to the memory of my father’s generation.

Effective change will come only when, as DePape hoped for, peaceful civil disobedience begins. Such disobedience that does not do as the Libyans started to first deal with, corrupted institutions of justice, simply allows those who are loyal to the politician to deny the legal principles and, hence, their legal obligations that came out of 1945.

We can allow what seems like the impossible to change to overwhelm us until desperation forces change via destructive means. Or we can use all of our tools of democracy as they were intended.

Democracy was and is the tool for making real change peacefully and in recognition of the principle that “majority rule” is not always a good thing. But that responsible activism is.

Both Wells and DePape, along with the rest of “responsible citizenry”, need to wake up to the depth of our problems because of corrupted courts. I do dare to declare that the first step is refusing to succumb to things like a senseless census.

So, yes, expect one last blog/email from my JustBusinessTheBook.com site that explains why starting a Censless Revolution and refusing to send taxes to support entrenched criminals are merely the simplest signals of singular protest that we can send.

My nation, however, must awaken to the challenge of standing outside courts of Canada, if it becomes necessary. If those who have corrupted our institutions of democracy, like Ghadafi and Mubarek, refuse to leave their privileged palaces of positions gained then, yes, we will need that courage.

Watch for how I say we can indeed change things in the next week or so because, yes, we do have the power to change all of this, if we stand tall, as individuals who awaken to our collective responsibilities.

My father’s generation was forced to stand to watch many fall before 1945, before the promise of democracy was legally recognized. We need not the courage to stand against bullets but only if we start to act responsibly to remove the illegally acting. Those who turned our institutions of democracy into theirs, in protection of their traditions, not the legal promise of democracy to each and everyone, must be stood against.

My question remains, who among you has courage that demands more than holding up a simple stop sign that is symbolic only until the depth of this problem is really removed from all facets of our democratic institutions? Or do we wait for more broken glass to mobilize “12 thousand” who sweep the rest of the problem under the rug?

See you next week. At TakeBackDemocracy.ca, especially, where the recommendations for an avenue to peace filled, but stern, change will appear.

Hockey Riots, Hypocritical Citizens And the Criminal Leadership Equation

2011-06-17T05:47:00.001-04:00

(This blog prints off to about a page and a half)

Wow! After a night of rioting, 12,000 citizens of Vancouver are recruited by Facebook to clean up the streets of Vancouver. Citizens weep as they clean up after goons. And, yes, those who break the law and destroy property or who assault citizens who try to stop them should be punished under the law. But when do the hypocritical citizens who weep about all of this start to put as much effort into cleaning up this image exposed via “hockey”?

Game in Boston. Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper is vilified by some for spending thousands flying by a jet powered by taxpayers’ money to “the game”.

What is forgotten is this irony. The continuing criminalization of our Parliament comes from a 2006 event founded in the hockey city of Vancouver. That city’s elected Liberal, named David Emerson, is lured into the Conservative fold by Harper through the perks of a Ministerial position.

That is activity forbidden under the Criminal Code. In fact, I will dare to suggest that readers start to think about how this is all related, or they do indeed become weeping hypocrites.

I no longer watch hockey. I played sports, vigorously, when I was a teen and into my adult days. I know the effect of adrenaline during the state of competitive sport. But, in my day, my coaches sternly warned that sport was to be a physical outlet which did not allow violence. The sports I ended up playing, basketball and soccer, banned violence. In contrast to what we see today in even those “professional” sports, any hint of an intent to deliberately injure an opponent got the player immediately evicted and potentially excluded from the sport.

I played scrub hockey only, and badly, on the iconic farm pond. We played the game for the joy of skating and putting the puck between artificial goals. I do not remember a fight ever breaking out. However, I pulled my son out of hockey at the age of 15. This was because I saw hockey coaches who did not curtail the hormones of teen-aged boys. They did nothing to stop the fighting the moment it began. Instead, the popular notion of Don Cherry, that fighting was a necessary component of “policing the potential for greater violence” grew. Indeed, the practice continues of “professional” hockey teams hiring goons to “protect” their valuable players.

This is deliberate manipulation of our laws for the sake of hooligans. And, yes, I dare to call Don Cherry a hypocrite who promotes the violence on our streets through this stupidity. After all, the men in stripes on the ice are to police the game. If hockey were indeed a “sport”, the referees and the league itself would be tossing the recurring fighters and furtive cowards off the ice. They would be warning them, like the common citizens that they really are, that the deliberate or underhanded assault of another person, no matter the reason, will not be tolerated.

And that, as the law compels, when the life and safety of any citizen moves beyond the parameters of playing hard into deliberate violence, then even the player, and the coaches and managers, who entice it to appease the blood sport crowds, will end up in jail, charged under the Criminal Code.

The hypocrisy is in a citizenry that allows our media to sell us the precept that hockey defines Canada. The greater hypocrisy is in the fact that 12,000 people will turn out because Facebook tells them to clean up their streets from the violence that erupted. There will be great hue and cry about the anarchy that comes from hoodlums on the streets who glorify this criminal behaviour by “professionals” and mimic it on our streets.

There is too much silence as to why the image of a criminal Prime Minister, who sells himself via the image of being “one of us” because he likes hockey so much, remains on our big screens.

I do not watch hockey anymore. So, it is ironic that I wrote what now follows in quotes for my blog/previous email. I wrote these words even as the rioting was winding down on the streets of Vancouver where David Emerson once walked as an “elected official”. You, the reader, may want to think about the ramifications of this thought in light of all of the events that are rolling rapidly together as faith in our “leadership” disappears. I have modified the part in brackets from the original blog posting so that it fits into the theme of the cost to Vancouver because of “professional sport”:

“... It is ironic that 2008 is the year when the economy of America fell apart, and so did the world’s. This happened primarily because the citizenry no longer trusted the dishonesty in business and political leadership. This distrust continues with justifiable reason.

We need to rectify the problems in all parts of our democracies or we will be into dangerous and tenuous grounds. Untrustworthy governance leads to disillusionment. Disillusionment leads to dissent. Dissent not delivered credible change through credible structures leads to anarchy. We need to get the justifiable cynicism with our modern democratic structures dealt with. Now.

Will we do that or will we simply allow the simple math, that “(hockey violence costing a city millions, when spread among its residents costs the city’s citizens only cents each!)”, while forgetting the costly ramifications of allowing self-serving criminals to rule over us?...”.

When will 12,000 brave citizens appear to warn politicians and NHL hockey executives, and other “professional sports”, that criminal conduct will not be tolerated in “their game”? When will brave citizens band together to say that hockey is NOT Canada and that Don Cherry is no leader when it comes to “professional” players setting an example to the youth of our nation?
More ominously, when will one million citizens show up so that a Prime Minister, who tries to elevate his personae through a tax paid appearance at one of these “games”, is tossed out of our highest position of “leadership” in this nation?

We need to re-establish credibility in our own democratic game or we should not be surprised at the growing show of disrespect for “the law”. The first step to achieving this is through the removal of those who criminally abuse their elected positions.

Read at least three of the blogs below. And then visit http://TakeBackBackDemocray.ca next week to understand why we must do something about these criminals in our Parliaments if we expect respect to prevail on our streets.

Educating DePape et al to the Simple Math: A Vile $10,000 Equation

2011-06-16T12:36:00.006-04:00

(Prints off to about 12 pages)(modified at 17:00 hours) (This June 16 posting takes about 30 minutes to read)

I asked a rhetorical question in recent blogs that I have been asking publicly since 2006: “When will the abuse of privilege and power end? My rhetorical answer was and remains: “When we stop it.”

The image of Canadian Parliamentary Page Brigitte DePape holding up her “Stop Harper” sign could become an iconic symbol. But, as I say in previous emails/ blogs, the real problem is the incipient rot that spreads across all political spheres. Unfortunately, the iconic reason why DePape and others should remember the math from 1948 comes from my small Canadian town.

What we seem to have forgotten is that the legal promise made by 1948 was that the elected position should never become one that lacked accountability. After all, the lesson of Hitler, a man who first gained power via “a vote”, had set a clear example of what happens when our rulers become rulers to their own. Our original laws were never intended to allow politicians to design new laws for themselves, to the detriment of the citizens. That came from a lesson in our history that we seem to have forgotten.

On the weekend past, helicopters flew in and out of Nipigon. Once a forestry bureaucrat, I knew that the fluorescent numbers emblazoned on their sides mean that they were contracted to transport crews to fight forest fires. So, I went to the internet. I plugged in my home town’s name and began to look for reports on forest fires that might be near Nipigon. That search led me to a disturbing discovery.

Local media used the new standard of a standardized-in-same-words report to announce, on May 12, 2011, that small town Nipigon had been fined $10,000. The town had failed to maintain a safe drinking water system in 2008. The report said that the town is now only “about 1,500” people in size. When its wood-related mills were running full-bore before 2000, the town was supposedly nearer 2,500.

Ironically, I was just finishing the last year of my term in municipal office when the reason for this “safe water” legislation was introduced. On May 21, 2000, all hell had broken out in Walkerton, Ontario. Seven people died of E. coli contamination. Surface water had entered that town’s supply. Another “1268”, according to a CBC report on the subsequent 2002 inquiry, suffered illness. This left some people physically afflicted in some way for the rest of their lives. The resulting 2002 “public inquiry” found drunken town supervisors to be the main culprits.

However, the inquiry’s lead man, with his own political implications, also put a large quantity of blame onto the provincial government. After all, as a town councillor from 1997 to 2000, I was a witness to the strains put on small town Ontario as provincial Conservative Mike Harris downloaded things that were once a provincial responsibility onto our towns.

Indeed, in one of my first official functions as a town councillor, I had sternly told Nipigon “volunteer” fire fighters in 1997 to get the booze out of the town’s fire hall. If they did not, I warned that I would come after them with charges of having liquor in an unlicensed, publicly owned property. Booze, after all, is a good Canadian icon. Not knowing Walkerton, I dared to say in 1997 that the image of good, hard-drinking, fire-fighters watching hockey was neither responsible nor legal when they were “on duty”, even “at meetings”.

We seem to have forgotten that the hard-drinking supervisors of Walkerton faced criminal investigations. Two brothers ended up with Criminal convictions of one year in jail for one and nine months of house arrest for the other. Harris and his gang, including Jim Flaherty and Tony Clement, got off scott free, despite the deep recriminations from the inquiry’s commissioner. After all, had there been sufficient Ontario government environmental branch staffing and had their work been supported, a drunken town supervisor would not have become the main cog in this wheel of tragedy, was the report’s parallel theme.

It would serve all citizens well to remember that our courts and policing agencies of the day were full of people implicated with a history of their back door donations to the Conservatives and Liberals of that day. And too many days hence.

Therefore, I have a harsh question for the rest of “democracy”, as well as the citizens of Nipigon, as I use this 2011 case in Nipigon as an example. Why should it be that taxpayers always foot the bill when either staff or politicians jeopardize our safety or personal rights out of sheer incompetence or deliberate manipulation of a critical situation like this? Worse, why is it that our media fails their function in any democracy, again and again, in exposing these things?

The situation that played out in Nipigon in 2008 was abominable manipulation. The town’s citizens may now do the simple math. They might grumble about why they should foot an additional piddling $6.67 on their tax bills or the reorganization of their town taxes to take $10,000 out of a town program to pay this fine. Indeed, on June 16, as I started this blog/email, the cashier and the elderly male bagging my groceries, exchanged grandiose enthusiasm. The old man said that he had heard news that the town had received “$12.1 million” for town revitalization. Both citizens said that they hoped that the town would spend it wisely. They were fed up with the deteriorating streets of the town.

But, my question becomes why are there no pickets on Nipigon’s streets demanding the removal of esteemed councillors, like Richard Harvey, the “Reeve” and a 2011 local candidate for the federal Conservatives; James Foulds, a good old union, New Democratic Party boy; and Levina Collins, a councillor with public implications of Conservative affiliations? Why should my town be forced to suffer the illegalities of a “majority of 3” (town council is composed of 5 elected officials) who have bought into the illegal precept that partisans should rule us all and we should all just suffer the consequences. Even when illegal incompetence has risked the lives or rights of citizens or just one citizen.

The part of the equation that should be concerning all citizens is this.

In 2008, the small town of Nipigon was eagerly awaiting federal and provincial tax dollars. The town fathers wanted to use taxed millions to beautify their town. The town was required to commit to put hundreds of thousands into the project before they would receive the federal and provincial redirected taxes. “Reeve” Harvey had renamed himself “Mayor” by 2008 in the hopes of achieving greater esteem with higher political offices in Toronto and Ottawa. Foulds, the good NDPer had already publicly aligned himself for a 2007 provincial election, with the support of good unionized people.

Not knowing all of this carry-on about an illegally functioning water system, I did sit in town council meetings in December 2008. This was because I had received a document prepared by landscape architect Werner Schwar. He wanted to use landscape stone that he had seen at my marble quarry in 2001. Since that year, he had lusted to put this stone in this town’s beautification project. The numbers that I saw in 2008 said that near $150,000 of my stone was being specifically targeted for this project because of its unique qualities.

In December 2008, I wrote a letter to the Nipigon town council. I warned that they were taking this amount of money from federal and provincial tax coffers at the same time that I was being denied accessible and impartial justice. They were hiding from the abuse of privilege and power at provincial and federal levels of governance. I warned that, if they accepted one dime of provincial or federal tax while a citizen in their midst was denied free access to Canada’s courts to deal with my issues related to this stone (read the next three blogs, if you do not have the time to read the book), then they would be joining federal and provincial officials in abusing their positions.

I warned that they would be abusing taxes for the sake of appearances while the rights of citizens declined. I dared to call the Nipigon multi-million dollar pet project a false stone front that was hiding the real decline of the rights of citizens. I did not know that, by that very date, these same councillors had already started playing with citizens lives. I sat in that December 2008 meeting, not knowing a thing about what had happened to the town’s water supply.

In that room, I sat in front of a town “reporter”, a retired school teacher named Glena Clearwater. Glena had received copies of my 2008 warning letters to that town’s council via email. Despite inviting me into her home with my wife to play cards, she never once asked to sit down to get the details behind my concerns. She did report enthusiastically on the town’s fathers enthusiasm for gaining these taxes so that the sad front street in that town could be “beautified”. Oh she was so happy that the Reeve might sit in a new office!

Indeed, because Reeve Harvey had been so adept at bringing the town millions in taxed dollars, she was one of the first to pound his sign into her snow banks. Harvey was a Conservative candidate in the May 2, 2011 federal election. She, by that 2011 date, had snottily told a friend of mine, who had bought my book, that she would “never read anything written by Don MacAlpine”.

Such is the state of “journalism” in this sad state of democracy.

The premise of “democracy” is that the “journalist” has a role to expose even the mere potential for abuse of privilege and position. The duty of the journalist is not solely to the positives. They are to expose the possibility of dying through incompetence or jailing through the exclusion of justice. Instead, it seems that it is not until the disease is rampant or the jails are first filled and then the dissidents begin to be starved or to be executed that modern journalists wake up to any sense to their duty.

Clearwater stayed silent to my petitions that the abuse of our taxes end. This was because, as reported on August 6, 2009, about $9 million in taxes was poured into the town’s downtown “revitalization” project. That seems like it was a pretty good deal, was it not? After all, Nipigonites should laugh, should they not? The “good leadership” of Harvey and Foulds allowed the town’s fathers to avoid fixing a water treatment problem that, in the end, only cost the town’s citizens each $6.67 in a 2011 fine. By gar, the same citizens get $6,000 into their own pockets by 2009. (I could not find reports for what part of this number would be municipal taxes burning holes in their pockets twice.)

But, it is time to start to do some simple math.

By the late summer of 2009, the local media were applauding the appearance of Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper at Nipigon’s waterfront. Indeed, Reeve Harvey was recorded in one report as virtually gushing about what a grand man Harper was. It should have been little surprise, therefore, by 2011 that there was much fanfare in Nipigon in 2009. By 2011, Harvey was running for the federal Conservatives.

What is deliberately manipulative and abusive use of position and power was this. None of these people, the media included, revealed that a water plant situation in Nipigon had jeopardized the health of town citizenry, for what reason?

The precedent for all of this simple math was set at Walkerton on the backs of 7 deceased citizens and 1268 who will especially remember that event for the rest of their lives. What price is put on the back of the citizen for their lives? Is a fine of $6.67 per citizen any consequence in making the citizen wake up to why they should be castigating the “journalism” of 2008 and chasing their “leaders” out of Nipigon’s council chambers?

Take the simple math back to the intent of our law: to place accountability on the accountable.

In 2008, the unwitting citizens of Nipigon did not hear of a situation which Walkerton had showed jeopardized their personal health and safety. The report of May 2011 said that the lack of proper water works was irresponsible. Who was irresponsible? The unwitting citizen? Or those persons paid taxes or assigned elected positions to perform their duties on behalf of all citizens in protection of all of the rights of all citizens? Even the right to life.

Are the residents of Nipigon a complacent bunch when it comes to what flows into the mouths of their children when they know what is happening? Not so. In April 1990, a major landslide on the Nipigon River, the source of the town’s drinking water, dumped trees, organic soils, clay and silt into the river. As a result, the town had to hastily erect an alternate pumping source for an already strained water treatment system. While the then Ministry of the Environment (MOE) and the town insisted that the new source was “safe”, the fury that built in the press forced quicker resolution to the drinking water problems in that spring.

At the time, government officials were only testing for bacteria and other immediate disease causing agents from this “alternate source”. As a government bureaucrat, I dared to publicly write letters to the editor, with a multitude of others. We challenged the town’s fathers of that day.

“The Lagoon”, a man-made bay on the river, is at the bottom of a steep clay hill on which much of the main town sits. It has a notorious history. An old version of Canadian Tire had sat on its slopes. Older residents told of batteries, tires and other known pollutants, by 1990, being dumped into that lagoon “in the good old days”. The town council was rapidly warned to stop saying that the water from this source was “safe” when old toxins were not being tested for. The public furor hastened the resolution to the concerns about water sources. Journalists played a role in making the town’s council accountable.

Glena, thank god, was only a piddling teacher puddling with school kids in 1990. She was notorious for taking the kids to ponds to educate them on “nature”. By 2008, her only journalistic concerns were dogs crapping on streets, cars parking in no-stopping areas and the positively big wad of taxes that the town would receive if the town council patted the relevant delicate parts of bigger politicians.

A retired teacher acts as a “journalist”. She is a walking bud of my “ex”. I sit in her house in 2010. I am subjected to watching her “news images” of her pretty boy Reeve. After all, by 2009, Reeve Harvey has palmed the hand of Canada’s Conservative Prime Minister, gleaned $9 million in taxes and announced Nipigon as the supposed headquarters of a National Marine Conservation Area. By 2011, despite being offered a book to read to educate herself to why this man is not such a golden boy, she has slammed this politician’s sign into her “free speech”-indicted journalistic pile of snow.

Fitting metaphor, that picture. Clearwater slams a sign into an early April pile of snow. The sign slowly slides downward as the lily white snow disappears to reveal the filth hidden below. Dog crap and other stuff that flows into Nipigon’s rivers. Glena has sat meekly in town council meetings where we now know that, two decades after the vocalism of the 1990’s, an event is hidden from town’s folks.

There is no debate made as to what would have been the worth of the life of one Nipigon citizen had the breach of duty, to maintain a clean water supply, led to the consequences of Walkerton. There is, worse, in 2011, no debate (yet) as to direct culpability and accountability for actions that Walkerton showed could threaten the very lives of town residents.

Why? Glena may be part of the problem but she is not “the” problem. The rot of the role of journalism has rotted all of the way up the esteemed pile of journalistic snobbery. But, the simple math becomes this when a small town becomes an example of what happens when politicians, in concert with partisan lawyers, pass new laws that remove their accountability.

Did a town employee deliberately hide the town’s problem of 2008? This is unlikely. This is because, starting in 2000, because of Walkerton, I observed the process begin for employees of the town who worked on water works. Extensive training had to be undertaken. Only certified employees could oversee the treatment plant issues. The supposedly severe consequences of dereliction of duty were beaten into their heads. The risk of Walkerton ever happening again was to disappear under these circumstances.

I know many of these fine employees of this fair town. Most are conscientious, hard workers. I doubt that one of them would deliberately hide such deliberate neglect.

I do know that they are part of a “union culture” where they are told to keep their mouths shut. This is told them by big unions from whence came good socialist Foulds. These union officials, as my book makes a record of from my own experiences, say that the government employee’s only duty is to tell their supervisors of problems that they have. These good union people say this even when malicious neglect, like the one the town was fined for, jeopardizes the health and rights of citizens. This “union” culture is borne from the politics of unions where the individual subverts their rights to stand up against wrong for the sake of the “new democracy”.

In a town named Nipigon, did a town employee tell the town that what they were doing was illegal and threatening the health of the town’s citizens? This is highly likely. The news reports of May 2011, unlike the 2000 reports for Walkerton, did not identify a malevolent or incompetent employee. No one was said to have hid the maintenance problem from anyone.

Unfortunately, neither do the news reports of 2008 report Glena Clearwater, or some other ardent journalist, being approached anonymously or openly to see an immediate end to this dereliction of duty in the maintenance of the town’s water supply. Instead, the record is that Glena focussed her reporting efforts in the positives being advanced by the town’s fathers as they played with taxes so that they could gain grand frontage over the false front that the town looked pretty while its water plant failed the safety of citizens.

How much would it have cost to have this problem rapidly resolved instead of focussing so much effort in the propaganda of slapping a Prime Minister’s hands while the citizens washed in and drank water that did not meet the law, because of Walkerton? No matter how you cut it, when the journalist and the town employee suppress issues of citizens’ rights for the sake of appearances, any news becomes blatant propaganda.

So, move on up the chain of command. The town employees in such cases are overseen by a professional engineer. If the town employee or employees notified such a man of the problem, and it seems that they must have, then this “professional” would have more than just the onerous duty of his “professional” position. He, in Nipigon, would have been obliged in 2008 to identify the problem to his overseers. In the town structure of Nipigon, this would have ultimately been the town’s council.

This seems to have been the case. The May 2011 media reports make no mention of this town engineer being cited for the incompetent supervision revealed in Walkerton by 2002. There are also reports made of every “Public Works” meeting. Glena Clearwater and her esteemed town paper would have access to such meetings and reports.

How much would it have cost to have this problem rapidly resolved instead of focussing so much effort in the propaganda of slapping a Prime Minister’s hands by 2009 while the citizens in 2008 washed in and drank water that did not meet the law, because of Walkerton? Who decided that this risk was worth taking?

It is unlikely that a bumbling, bureaucratic town engineer would take the risk. But, neither would this “professional” take the high road of going public to expose that someone else cared little about human health in 2008. This is because, if you read my book, partisan lawyers were telling other “professionals” in the year that our constitution arrived, 1982, to shut up. If they saw a problem, they were to simply make a record of their official concerns so that their hands were clean, even if the citizen should die.

The record is that “reporter” Glena focussed her reporting efforts in the positives being advanced by the town’s fathers as they played with taxes so that they could gain grand frontage over the false front that the town looked pretty while its water plant failed the safety of citizens.

By May 2011, “the Township” entered a “guilty plea” to their neglect in 2008. Our grand media runs away saying that the law has worked. But it has not.

There is no grand investigation or exposure to what elected officials decided they would trade off so that they would not need to spend tax dollars on immediately making water safe for Nipigon residents in 2008. After all, in 2008, they were vying for bigger taxed dollars to make them famous in the eyes of the citizenry. Evidently this was even worth the risk of another Walkerton raising its ugly head in a small town called Nipigon. The record is that the reporters of 2008, including Glena, focussed their reporting efforts in the positives being advanced by the town’s fathers as they played with taxes so that they could gain grand frontage over the false front that the town looked pretty while its water plant failed the safety of citizens.

The illegal equation becomes that elected town fathers can make the value of one life of their citizens worth the risk of their elevated, pompous, collective stature. It is then the citizen who must pay for this deliberate breach of responsibility, instead of the maleficent, self-centred individuals on a town council? No. The simple equation becomes this.

In December 2008, I sat in a town council meeting where current, 2010 elevated town councillor named Levina Collins attended. Eventually implicated in my documentation as a Conservative tainted “politician” (via Elections Ontario data), Ms. Collins was merely an Economic development pusher in that meeting. She was clamouring for the taxed dollars from a once-elected Liberal lawyer named Joe Comuzzi.

So, citizens of my nation, start to follow the simple math very carefully.

Liberal Comuzzi, by June 26, 2007, had been welcomed into the federal Conservative fold. After all, Comuzzi, the good Conservative-rogue-Liberal, had voted for a Conservative budget early in 2007. This was because the good Conservatives had promised his home town, Thunder Bay, a big wad of taxed money. So, when the Liberal faction booted Comuzzi out for violating the orders of “their leader”, Stephane Dion, he only sat temporarily as an “independent” (you will have to struggle through the book to understand why this was also an illegal abomination). Stephen Harper, whom Reeve Harvey then personally glad-handed in 2009 and then ran as an idolizing Canadian “for” in 2011, gladly took Comuzzi under his Conservative banner. So, by December 2008, Levina, the Conservative-implicated, along with Conservative-implicated Harvey, was loudly declaring that the town must be positive in all things that might gain the town taxed dollars for her pet project, her downtown revitalization plan. These, just conveniently, were taxed dollars now ultimately overseen by big federal lawyer Joe in 2008.

Do the simple math. This was all connected by the geometry of dots that led to how good partisans can align themselves to empower themselves while our rights rapidly decline. This happens with the help of grand propaganda. After all, and yes, I take you back to my “... The record is that “reporter” Glena focussed her reporting efforts in the positives being advanced by the town’s fathers as they played with taxes so that they could gain grand frontage over the false front that the town looked pretty while its water plant failed the safety of citizens. ...”.

So, do this simple math of connecting the dots that makes our “democracy” no better than what transpired in Nazi Germany before 1939.

Stephen Harper was able to gladly and warmly welcome Liberal lawyer Joe Comuzzi’s Parliamentary vote to empower his partisans more in 2008, why? Go back to elected Liberal lawyer named Jean Chretien. Already castigated for the partisan appointments into Canada’s courts, Chretien took great pride in what powers he had gained many years ago.

An elected Parliamentarian, defined as being in the Conservative fold of the day, was unhappy with unholy acts in the Conservative corral of sheep in Ottawa. Scott Brison walked across our Parliamentary folds. He did so without a vote by the citizens. He did so to enhance the Liberal trough of pigs already gobbling taxes because they loved Chretien so.

There was much outcry in the press and the public about how wrong this was. Having been made sweaty by the shouts from many, Chretien and his gang acted like Hitler did. Seeing his power threatened, a new law was simply passed. An “Ethics Commissioner” became a new court in Canada to protect Chretien and his Cretan Brison from Criminal code charges of exercising influence and of blatant breaches of trust.

This new law being passed, elected Liberal lawyer named Paul Martin swore loyalty to the new law as he blatantly used our taxes to entice Belinda out of bed. Remember Belinda Stronach? She was the feisty virginal foal in the Conservative fold of that day. She was reportedly bedding horse-mouthed Peter MacKay, another good elected lawyer, but this time in the Conservative stable. Stronach was lured out of the Conservative stall with her elevation to a ministerial position. Good thing for Martin that the oats for this luring of this partisan ass did not come out of his rich pockets. No, the taxed dollars paid for Martin to continue this parody. This was really not a comedy when we remember what happened in Nazi Germany before 1936.

The Conservatives and others went screaming to an “Ethics Commissioner”. This man “of ethics” pasted the big “Okay!” into our Parliamentary stop signs by circling the horses behind the barn away from the public jury of twelve that would have hung Martin and Stronach and all of the clowns involved in this. After all, the Criminal code forbidden abuse of privilege and position was becoming endless. It had just accelerated. Influencing. Breach of trust. Elected lawyers, of the partisan kind, brayed that this new law now made them the law.

The Conservatives dared bray, only for a short time, that this judgement had come from a once-lawyer. The man had implications of favouring the Liberal partisans before being promoted to be our nations “commissioner of ethics”. The ethics of Nazi Germany were already established in our democratic institutions at the highest of places.

So, before we do the final equation that leads us back to Nipigon in 2011, think carefully on this. Stephen Harper had gained power in 2006. Before the elected even got into the Parliamentary halls in the first month of that year, he had called David Emerson. Emerson was a rich business man elected as a Liberal. He was from Vancouver. Like Stronach, Emerson was elevated to a ministerial position by our taxes. He willingly ran into the funny farm fold of Conservatives. No vote was held “for the people by the people” so that the people had any say in this change of partisan loyalties.

After all, asses will be asses if horses they cannot be.

Predictably, the Liberals yelled loudly to the Ethics Commissioner. Harper snottily said that he would not sit in that commissioner’s office. After all, the man was Liberal implicated and Liberally appointed. But, Harper celebrated when this supposed new court in our nation ruled in Harper’s favour. Not even the journalists loudly asked why a “man of ethics” would have any credibility in any of this. After all, if a good Liberal fails to criminalize what a bad Liberal named Martin had done, how could he convict a bad Conservative named Harper, who had simply done the same thing?

Worse, the likes of Jack Layton and Elizabeth May (yes, Ms. May, I even broached this issue and directed your “party” to its implications on occasion until I gave up after getting no response) would stay silent to this criminal conduct. This breach of trust. This use of influence from positions of trust. They would stay silent because it becomes obvious, after Quebec votes in 2011 for “the man” Layton, not for the non-resident Brosseau who was supposed to speak for them via their vote.

Power is achieved by the propaganda that one person speaking for all of us is what is best for this “democratic” nation.

Shades of Nazi Germany remain in Canada into 2011. The partisans align themselves in eager cooperation so that they can promote their propaganda that what they would do to us is best for us.

So, the simple math for a town named Nipigon becomes relevant. It explains why a New Democrat Party-aligned James Foulds was as eager. This pet project of Levina’s had been a major position in his campaigning platforms. This town revitalization project gained his loud support in his campaign for municipal council in 2006. It also gained his support when he entered Ontario’s 2007 provincial campaign as a New Democratic Party candidate.

Thus, in December 2008, the record is that “journalist” Glena focussed her reporting efforts in the positives being advanced by the town’s fathers as they played with taxes so that they could gain themselves grand frontage over the false front that the town looked pretty while its water plant failed the safety of citizens. In December 2008, my warnings about how all of this impacted on my own rights as a citizen, working to survive in a world of dishonest and corrupted business, governance and justice institutions, went behind closed doors.

The doors were closed. The debate, even about a situation risking the immediate health of citizens, could be turned off. Why would the politician then not turn off a debate about the illegalities at higher levels of government? Especially if talking might jeopardize their pet project.

The simpler math comes down to this.

By 1948, Hitler had set an example that we knew must never be allowed again. No politician would ever gain power and not be accountable, daily.

International law was passed. It made the citizen’s rights paramount over the elected. Despite what the nation’s elected then did when it came to racism, religious and sexual intolerances and other discriminating natures of man unkind, by 1982, Canada had reaffirmed their supposed commitment to this concept. Their new constitution reiterated the principles of 1948. The Criminal Code created sections that forbade the elected from abuse of their position. This included the concept that they could be thrown into jail for any breach of trust.

Because of the example from Hitler, simply writing a new law was disallowed. Any law that reduced the citizen’s rights while the partisan or their friends gained became a breach of trust. Fining the citizens, while it was ultimately the elected who had jeopardized the lives of or removed the rights of even only one citizen? Under our original laws, a $10,000 fine should be paid by the town councillors and by anyone else who breached their duty and hid the 2008 situation in Nipigon. Or they should be thrown into jail.

But, DePape and the rest of Canadian citizenry might want to do more math.

By December 2008, the world was into economic turmoil. Dishonesty in business was the main culprit. I sat in a town council venue in 2008 where I once sat as an elected official. Indeed, in 1990, a relative of one of the councillors whom I eventually served with, Greg Harper, asked me why we would expect anyone to want to be in elected office. The man implied that my 1990 public challenge to elected officials had hurt his poor relative’s political sensitivities. I suggested, even then, that if the politicians could not stand the heat then they should tuck up their balls and go play with them elsewhere. Elected positions were not for self adulation or self promotion.

By 1997, I took my own lumps from dealing with public office because I know that this is the base premise of democracy. It is mainly through the public venue of free speech that we can modify the behaviour of our elected. However, by December 2008, (read the previous emails or blogs below) I knew that our laws were intended to be the ultimate protectorate of the rights of all citizens. I also knew by 2008 that this concept had been completely removed by partisans using the same tactics as Hitler. Align with other partisans. Change the law to protect the partisan. Promote the partisan into the courts and policing institutions to protect the new law of the partisan.

In December 2008, I sat in a room of the elected where the “journalist” sat and hid the depth of this decay. You might have to read the book to understand the full lessons I had in hand by that date. Or you might want to simply do the math as to why Glena Clearwater is simply one small example of a big problem in the principle of free speech making our politicians accountable to the law. Daily.

By 2011, I am watching my town fill with people paid out of extracted taxes. I watch old employees of rich mills bagging groceries. I hear about elected professional foresters who work in day care centres. I hear of houses being sold in town to a false economy of rich cops and richer teachers or medical professionals. Citizens of my town and my nation do not do the simple math.

Read the book for the whole story or at least work your way through the simple math of the next three blogs at my book’s web page.

The town of Nipigon might generate work using $12.1 million in taxed dollars. It is more likely that much of that will go to administrative fees for big shots outside the town. Lawyers. Accountants. Consultants. Rich construction companies. Many are rich donors to the partisans who redirect our taxes back to these good partisan donors. Start doing the simple math.

In February 2011, I launched a first edition of my book. It makes record of the battle I had against partisans as I sought to protect a $36 million dollar opportunity gained from honest and hard work in business. Because I dared to demand honesty into our institutions of governance, starting in 2001, this book details what my blog summarizes happened to me. Intimidation and harassment guided by “legal professionals” with partisan connections. Arrest by cops with partisan connections. Shades of Nazi Germany entering my nation.

So, in February 2011, I made a symbolic trip to Ottawa. The subsequent copies of my book included the record of how men in blue blocked delivery of my book to our elected in that pretty ugly city of political denial. The simple math of the role of free speech in all of this becomes this.

By the time I arrived in Ottawa, I had stumbled across a CP (Canadian Press) article by a specific reporter said to be working from an “Ottawa bureau”. She wrote sternly and eloquently about the problems associated with partisan judges being appointed into our courts. I went to the CP site. I searched for her name. Most businesses tell us how to contact their employees, after all.

In the end, I sent a frustrated email to the web site’s only allowable address. I offered to give this specific reporter a free copy of my book. I was travelling 1600 km to Ottawa. Surely Ottawa-based she could meet me for breakfast. With the three politicos I had invited.

The result? A CP big shot, named Rob Russo, offered to accept a copy of my book, if I dropped it off at his Ottawa office. I would not get the contact information for that reporting journalist, Russo thereby assured me. I would not get to sit down with a journalist who had written critically about the critical condition of this nation’s justice system.

Aw, yes. Glena Clearwater may have become the small example of a small town situation that emulates a big problem in my nation. IF Glena had talked to me about my emails of 2008 to her, she just might have brokered a story that led my nation, and other nations, to understand how incipient rot in our courts has illegally rotted the accountability required, and protected by law, in our democracies. It now comes down to the simple math for all citizens to contemplate.

Read at least three of the next blogs below. When our elected abuse their positions, do we meekly bow to the rule by criminals? Do we allow the likes of Layton, Rae and Harper, and all others, who appoint their friends into strategic positions to protect them, to rule us? Or, as should happen in the simple math from a town in Nipigon, should our elected be forced out of their positions for their repetitive abuse of position and privilege gained, to then breach our trust?

Oh, I assure you, concerned citizens of our nation. We do have the instruments to throw the likes of Harper out of office for abusing our taxes in the promotion of people like Comuzzi and Harvey. The original laws were created because of the history before 1948. The simple math from that lesson from our history became this.

Our vote was never to become an instrument for politicians who thought that they should rule us without daily accountability or challenge. Because these people have created new laws, we are not obliged to accept that our only option is to fume for 4 years until “our vote” gives us the opportunity to turf these people out. No, we need to start to have the courage to boot the accountable and the criminally acting out of our Parliaments, town halls, courts and even policing stations.

If you read the blogs/emails from before, you will know why I dare to challenge. I do not really care if it bothers citizens in my small town. I posted brochures in their mail boxes in the same month that I launched my book. I purposely challenged their complacency to the growth in their town of the phenomenon that existed in Europe too few decades ago. It is, therefore, ironic that the simple math comes in the past week from events in this small town.

Simply because veterans from the war intended to end all of this are now passing on does not remove our obligations to recognize the role of history in guiding our daily democracies. The politician must never be allowed to make the citizen pay for the politician’s neglect. The citizen must never be made of lesser importance than the politician on any day of our years between our votes. Our vote should simply be an affirmation that we have chosen the best to lead us. It must never be an instrument for the politician to make themselves all powerful.

When this base rule of democracy, protected in our founding laws, is neglected and the partisan consolidates their powers by placing partisans, or simply complicit bureaucrats, into our institutions of justice and governance, then other citizens should think about this. While German “leaders”, including “judges”, were jailed or hung for abuse of power first gained via the vote, the citizens of Germany suffered the consequences of their neglect. Warned to stand up against injustice, they did not.

In time, other citizens had to violently oppose their collective complacence. But, when the credible rule of law returned, yes, even Jews eventually sued the citizenry of like nations for taking away their rights and property. Nevertheless, we should never forget that Germany gains ground in the realm of credible democracy because its children dare to ask their fathers and mothers, “Why did you do nothing?”

The lesson became that we, the citizens, carry some responsibility for stopping the abuse of privilege and power. Even DePape’s singular protest is irresponsible if it does not lead to clarity as to why our concerns are legitimate. But, it is the citizenry that stays silent that becomes irresponsible if this is not stopped before it becomes what lessons from our history show us we will have if we do not wake up.

It is ironic that 2008 is the year when the economy of America fell apart, and so did the world’s. This happened primarily because the citizenry no longer trusted the dishonesty in business and political leadership. This distrust continues with justifiable reason.

We need to rectify the problems in all parts of our democracies or we will be into dangerous and tenuous grounds. Untrustworthy governance leads to disillusionment. Disillusionment leads to dissent. Dissent not delivered credible change through credible structures leads to anarchy. We need to get the justifiable cynicism with our modern democratic structures dealt with. Now.

Will we do that or will we simply allow the simple math, that “$10,000 costs 1,500 citizens only $6.67 each!”, while forgetting the costly ramifications of allowing self-serving criminals to rule over us?

(My apologies... but these daily revelations have led me to set aside my revisions to my http://TakeBackDemocracy.ca web page. There, I will suggest the strategies we must take and use our Criminal Code to set an example to elected in our positions of governance and the appointed, especially in our institutions of justice. I invite you to visit that web page next week to see how this can be achieved. For now, I hope that you will read the first four blogs accessible via my http://JustBusinessTheBook.com site.)

Delusions of Grandeur versus DePape for Prime Minister

2011-06-12T11:15:00.005-04:00

(About 4 pages long)
After suffering living with the vulgarities of even my imperfect human nature, it did not really surprise me. It nears one year since a spouse of 35 years decided she could endure no more.

After all, she endured the harassment and intimidation from the rich and the empowered. She heard a few of the nasty phone messages that came into our house, daily, for two years. I did not save all of them on the answering machine for her to listen to. She suffered the threats, that our house would be taken away. She worried. Meanwhile, she refused to read the laws and my arguments into courts that made these threats illegal and without cause. She expressed anger when pee-ons under the direction of “collections agency lawyers” called me a thief and shouted on my answering machine that I should “stop hiding behind the phone”.

These were people who were working on the behalf of big corporations whom I had already dragged into courts. I was still pursuing my much larger claims against them and their Conservative political friends in our courts as these belligerent phone calls came in. Up to 25 times in one day.

She did listen to my explanations as to why I was battling on. She did agree that I had been wronged, but, having worked briefly in the Ontario Small Claims Courts system, she warned that the battle was impossible. “Lawyers rule the world”, was her opinion.

Yes. Some would say that I am a difficult man to live with. I am too honest, to my human nature, my humanity. I refused to hide my failures and weaknesses from my spouse and family. The weaknesses of even a “normal” marriage of modern times would be teetering on the brink of disaster with the harassment that began in 2001 and accelerated after I entered Canadian courts with vigour in 2002.

Having to then take your husband out of a jail, for letters he wrote protesting the injustices of two years, would break the resolve of most women. This is especially true for those who simply see life as making money so that Soaps and TV can be freely watched. My spouse turtled away, wanting only what 90% of Canadians want. A safe home to live in. Enough money to luxuriate in the spoils of working hard. Not a situation where 35 years of hard work together slid into a house that had no clear title of ownership.

She saw no value in that we lived in it without paying Conservative supporting big bankers. She cared not that this was allowed because I fought the bank’s politicized lawyers and the court's politicized lawyers until the phone and mail harassment ended in 2009 (read the blogs below to understand why).

It becomes unbearable to some, this battling of the “big man” in our societies. It becomes more unbearable when the energies are transferred to writing a book. It is intolerable to some, who fail to remember that 75% of my time was spent, to 2010, fighting off the political lawyers and then the politicized cops. So, yes, my spouse of 35 years decided that she could not take all of the uncertainties and the honesty of my human history. At the end of this month, it will be a year when she walked away from all of this. I cannot blame her. I just do not accept that I must then turtle away from all of this battling, myself.

I battle on, I suppose, because of this. I suppose that there are some genetics that leads to a warrior fierceness that causes me to stand up against wrong when I know that wrong is in my face.

My great uncle fought in the trenches of France during World War I. He returned to die in Canada from lungs damaged by mustard gas. He returned to a nation that supposedly began to awaken in that era to the realization that “the Queen” was not everything when it came to democracy. Instead, Canada carried the arrogance of tradition and began to treat First Nations with the same contempt as monarchies had treated the hinterlands of their colonies.

My father then put on a WWII Canadian army training uniform in 1942. Not knowing the depth of the depravity in that moment, he did eventually express the dismay that humans would do those things to other human beings, as happened in that war. Our humanity can change into inhumanity, too, too rapidly. On the basis of the lessons from that war, his brother, my uncle, went to Korea when I was a tiny baby. That United Nations effort was to uphold the precept that the exclusive philosophies of the Nazi or the Communist should never be allowed to spread into nations that did not want those philosophies forced down their throats. Few did. My uncle went away to Korea in defence of the premise that violent or even unscrupulous denial of any human’s rights was intolerable, and illegal, after 1948.

I took these lessons to heart. Honesty, in business and personal life, requires courage to our own human nature, humanity. I try to practice this in all daily walks. I try to admit to the mistakes that I do make when I make them. I used this premise of honesty in trying to build a healthy, long-term relationship with a new lady, starting about three months ago.

She admitted being an ostrich in many things, including politics. She was offered my book to read. I wanted her to know my background politics in real depth. Perhaps I should have clued in then. We walked and talked. I summarized the story for her, in short bursts of explanations why this book was so important to me. She sympathized. At the same time she asked me to stop sending me the short political emails I was firing off during the 2011 election. Ironically, she said that she did not want to be linked to my name, politically. During one of these discussions, she said she did not want to have the risk of becoming “marked”, the word she used, for potential “arrest”, the word she used, by big partisan cops.

She agreed that I had valid concerns. I wanted only someone to talk to about life and loving life. I had other friends who are willing to deal with my political side. The relationship continued. I tried to keep her updated on my hopes for my book while being realistic to the long journey such journeys sometimes require. I was honest to the negatives and the positives, when the positives and the negatives, in relation to developing the book, appeared. She appeared to accept that this journey was my right. She would work on a healthy relationship with my realities in mind.

That is until I received a distressed email on the night that I had posted my blog below. Her issues were many. Many were about piddling history related to human nature, my humanity, that I was apparently too honest to. However, that debate would be for another book that makes observations of what happens when we stay honest to our humanity: not just the personal history but the history of humanity when it comes to human nature. I could accept her doubts and decisions related to that. But I became disturbed most when part of her assessment was that I “have delusions of grandeur”.

This came from a lady who is otherwise a responsible Canadian. This came from a lady who, unlike at least one journalist and other citizens, has never sat down for an hour and a half to get the background story to my arrest. She said that she admired that I continue to fight the corruption in my nation. As the lawyers like to say, "notwithstanding" this supposed admiration, this fine lady did not want to educate herself. This is a lady who refused a gift copy of this book so that she could educate herself to why I am more than just a sexual animal looking for good sex.

If we are honest to our full humanity, we all are sexual or we become shallow, using beings on the edge of being human and dishonest to the history of our human nature.

But I am not a deluded maniac. I assure all that I have no ambitions to become Canada’s next Prime Minister. I suggest that a Page named DePape, standing in silent protest on June 3, 2011 in the throne speech session for Canada’s Parliament, similarly had no such motives.

I have simply achieved clarity. I reached a lucid concern after 47 years of independent-thinking, political interest and activities in my 59 years. I observed and pondered. I simply have ideas about what this collection of modern humanity on this threatened “small sphere of living”, for generations yet to come, must do to stop the abuse of power and privilege so that future generations can indeed prosper and explore our universe. Breathless breathing, yes, my concerns.

I have one thing over DePape. I have the advantage of a long life of living, while trying to achieve what democracy should be. I do know that, if Canadians suddenly started shouting “DePape for Prime Minister!”, I would want the critical controls against her that our current Parliamentarians have removed through their abuse of power and position. Namely: the application of our Criminal Code against the miscreants who have criminalized our institutions of democracy.

Oh, I have no delusions about the difficult nature of this journey of mine. It means that I can only mourn, for a short time, the disappearance of those, some who even said that they loved me, so that they could ostrich away from our collective duty to our history and our future. I relish, on the other hand, the slowly growing numbers who say that change is critical and who become cherished friends.

I can and do forgive the simple souls who come and go out of my life. They have no legal obligation to educate themselves in the moment. What I will not tolerate are Prime Ministers, political party leaders, the political in our institutions legally required to protect us from the wrongs these people continue (namely, our ”judges”, “legal professionals” and politicized cops in our justice systems) and servile bureaucrats who ignore the stark message coming at them when a brave Page stands in silent protest in our Parliament. I will not tolerate the illegal abuse of privilege and power that began before I was born, despite the bloodshed of my father’s generation. I will not allow tradition to prevail over the legal promises of our constitutions and our United Nation’s international laws.

Neither do I mock the friends who remain friends, free to criticize me because they are willing to take the criticism back. So, when one friend dares to say to me, in the same time frame that I am told to go kicking stones down the rocky road of male and female relations, that sometimes I "bring these things on myself” because of what I write, I dare to say this.

I have this clarity from my father and uncle’s preparedness to die.

The lesson from that part of our human history became that we are to stand up against the first sign of illegal abuse of privilege and power. The lessons came from Germany, Russia and now Libya and too many other nations.

It was not “the Jew”, “the dissident” or even 1200 Libyans, summarily executed because they dared to ask for more blankets, who “brought this on themselves”. It was the illegal abuse of power and denial of human rights that led to gross violations before the citizenry awakened.

It was not and is not the singular voice, daring to challenge, that should be dismissed. It is the history of our humanity, this incipient apathy, that should concern us. But, we should be more deeply concerned when, as did my spouse and this last “lover”, the collective of humanity stays silent to the abuse of privilege and power because they do not want “to bring the heat” to themselves.

So, yes, DePape should be praised for being one brave citizen. If the citizenry wants her for Prime Minister, then so be it. BUT, I have no delusions that, even under her youthful leadership, our problems would continue UNLESS she gained this position with the clear understanding that she would be yanked out of Parliament at the first hint of even her abusing our original laws.

Oh, I have no delusions. I have ideas, built from personal experience. I know the legal obligations that have been illegally destroyed by the partisans in Parliament, for their collective, not our, interests. I know what we need to do to assure us all that, for once and all, our original laws of governance can be protected by enforcing those original laws with the laws we already had by 1989 (visit http://TakeBackDemocracy.ca at the About the Law page). Even if DePape became a “popular Prime Minister”.

For those of you who may be offended by my tough talk on why this is critical in the next weeks and months, I dare to say “tough!” I dare to hurl insults at any who dare to say how we communicate, because we dare to communicate about the wrongs, justifies our arrest. I dare to use these words because I always remember this.

Some from my father’s generation survived the hail of bombs and bullets that became necessary because too many citizens decided that they would not say anything. I have read the stories of Canadians who listened to their comrades die swearing or loudly praying on the ground that my great uncle and uncle went to and the ground my father trained to go to. This happened and happens because citizenry from our history, even in more modern Libya, stayed silent so that the abuse of authority would not hurt their position or, eventually, jeopardize even their human survival.

The lessons about the consequences of collective silence are rampant in our history. So, you are damned right that I will spit words so that my friends, family and lovers should never ever have to think that, by being associated with a man who dares to spit only words, their own comfortable living is jeopardized.

Visit http://TakeBackDemocracy.ca next week to understand how we can peacefully take back our democratic rights. No matter what these criminals in our Parliaments try to do to us or fail to do for us. Simply because “democracy” has become defined by them as a right to a greed for power and a greed for greed.

I have no delusions that this must be stopped if my grandchildren and theirs are to have any hope for a reasonable and reasoning world to live in.

Visit at least the two blogs immediately below to build more understanding to why I dare to spit. Words.

Ending an Illegal Culture of Entitlement: the Real Promise of Democracy

2011-06-10T11:21:00.002-04:00

(About 4 pages long)

When does it end?

I finish sending off my June 9 emails that include my blog about Page DePape. In that communication, I call Tony Clement and his band of Conservative renegades “criminal”. I stumble across the CTV evening news.

There is good Conservative Clement’s face on the television. A year after the G-8 conference was held in Good Ol’ Boy Tony’s Ontario cottage country riding, another “auditor” is lambasting the Conservative Good Ol’ Boys Club as if they were the Good Ol’ Liberals Bad Boy Club of 2004. Remember that one about the good old lawyer Gomery and the Good Ol’ Boys and Girls Club of Lawyers made richer because of an issue over abused taxes?

In 2010, the Conservatives spent $169 million on a G-20 event that cost France $29 million to host, in “terrorist vulnerable” Europe, of all places, in 2011. Just luckily for Mr. Clement, another elected lawyer by the way, a lot of the money for the “Gee, only 8 of us should rule the world!” went into his riding. And, a year later, we pay another highly paid “auditor” to expose what real democracy would have stopped over a year ago.

Yes, read my blog/email of yesterday. Yes, I dare to say that, if we did not have criminals in our Parliaments and courts, we would have less need for highly paid “auditors”. BUT, yes, even the likes of Elizabeth May and her pending “Green Party candidates” have become servants to the illegal instead of defenders of the rights of all citizens.

Yes, Green Party “candidate” Sandra Finley was delivered a copy of the first edition of my book on a dark March 2, 2011 night. I dropped it off at her “pre-election” meeting of her Saskatoon branch of that “party”. Her Party was already starting to “organize” because they smelled “election fever”. If this Party had become defenders of democracy instead of eager hopefuls to the sense that the vote would give them power and privilege, then our “democracy” would recognize this, made record of in my book.

The function of our bureaucracies is solely to policy and law. Our bureaucracies, laws and policies are supposedly designed for the public good. What has happened to enable these elected people to think that their gaining of elected position then gives them special entitlements?

IF Elizabeth May AND Sandra Finley AND every elected or wannabe elected representative had read my communications (Yes, Ms. May, you were approached more than once about what I was experiencing in Canada’s “justice” and electoral systems after 2004) or my book, as it was offered, then the farcical “election” debates of 2011 would have discussed this.

Our constitution promised “all citizens” equivalency AND freedom of speech. That constitution arrived in Canada in the very month that I had been fired from my Ontario government position. If you read the book, you will read the details behind why a corrupted Conservative government was challenged by little bureaucrat me (before my one year probation as a 29 year old civil servant was up).

What should make every citizen madder than hell was this detail that was not discussed in my blog/email of yesterday.

I was told by whom to shut up, even on “professional forester” issues? A lawyer, who was supposedly acting on “my behalf”. The book gives the detailed discoveries that this “legal professional”, Alick Ryder, worked on behalf of a big civil service union. The book reveals that, by 2007, I had data that showed that Alick Ryder was a generous donor to the NDP.

So, months after our constitution arrived in Canada, “expert” people like Ryder told citizens inside our bureaucracies that “democracy” was not about making politicians accountable on a daily basis. No, said the legal expert, while not giving the bureaucrat a copy of any law to read themselves, the public servant must serve the elected, not the public.

IF you read our constitution, there is no discrimination against bureaucrats. They are protected by our constitution even when they dare to challenge politicians breaking their own policies. (By the way, I support that the “bureaucrat” has a duty to first try to warn the poobah politician/bigger bureaucrat when they are viewed as being in violation of law (unless blatant Criminal conduct is in progress) or their own publicly stated policies before seeking outside support. The record is that I tried to do that in 1982 but was blocked by higher bureaucrats who told me to simply do as I had been told).

Why are bureaucrats no longer protected by our constitutional right to freed speech?

Why did lawyers in the United States of America and Canada declare that Blacks and First Nations could be shoved off onto discriminating, oppressive, racist tracts of discrimination after the International law of 1948 (read my blog/email of yesterday to find links to my http://TakeBackDemocracy.ca “About the Law” page that discusses that international law)? Because the attitude became that partisan politics gave the partisan-implicated lawyers a right to illegal entitlement because “the vote” had entitled their friends to empowerment. If the blatant culture of racism could prevail, why should not the tradition of elected position giving the elected privileges over the rest of us also not prevail? Despite the legal promises of 1948, the illegal role of racism and partisan privilege continued. And continues.

Aw, yes, DePape may be a temporary symbol of a growing realization that a deep, deep problem exists in this nation. It exists because politicians and their “legal expert” buds have brow beaten bumbling, placid bureaucrats and the public into believing that only “Whistle Blowing” legislation will protect bumbling, complacent bureaucrats.

I have news for you.

The Whistle Blowing legislation already exists. It came in the international law that made even the politician and the “judge” our equivalents “under the law”. It came in the Canadian constitution that continued this premise. And, it was strengthened in a Criminal Code that forbids even cops and bureaucrats from abusing their positions to side with any partisan, while our rights disappear.

Yes, visit that http://TakeBackDemocracy.ca “About the Law” page to come to this understanding.

People like Ryder abused their positions to intimidate us into believing that the bureaucrat MUST submit to the pompous politician. Ryder, and the whole legal profession, violate our trust AND our laws. Read my book to see how big shot lawyers, like Liberal Bill Graham and his Conservative equivalents, are positioned in our law schools as “esteemed experts”. And, if they are partisan, why would the young lawyer not eagerly join the same political parties in the hopes that they will indeed prosper? And that this is “just” because, after all, “their” political party is more amoral than “those others”.

The base problem comes back to this. “Education” too conveniently becomes “indoctrination”. Indoctrination too easily convinces the friend of the politician that our legal right to completely impartial institutions of “justice” does not include the right for the citizen to not face the promoted friends of politicians in our courts.

This has gone on since 1948. It accelerated after the reiteration of this legally compelled promise in 1982. BUT, when the Criminal Code of 1989 forbade Trudeau and Mulroney and Turner and Chretien and Martin (all elected lawyers) and Harper (a patsy who consults the “legal expertise” of his best elected lawyer friends named MacKay and Nicholson and so forth) from exercising illegal influence, these arrogant people passed new laws making new “courts”. They called them “ethics commissioners” and “auditor generals”. They created them for themselves. This became collectively good for all of the partisans in Ottawa because they were, after all, elected and hence “entitled” to make themselves above the rest of us.

Regrettably, the base principle of democracy, that even the bureaucrat should be able to shout justifiable warnings without fear into our free press to make politicians accountable to what they would hide from us daily, has been suppressed so that we must put up with the reports of scandalous behaviour a year after it happens, and weeks after Clement is re-elected without this being presented, even as a full-blown election issue.

Yes, my anger is breathless. We would not have such need for so many bureaucrats auditing auditors, our bureaucrats and accountants, who are supposed to be loyal first and foremost to the public interest, IF our courts indeed enforced and protected the constitutional right to any and all citizens, even our bureaucrats, to speak out in the defence and promotion of democratic institutions dedicated to protecting the principles of honesty and truth in the daily conduct of every politician and bureaucrat and appointed individual who is supposed to be an agent of “democracy”. Yes, breathless anger.

No. With the help of a deeply rotted, partisan implicated “legal profession” and courts now filled with these partisan buggers, our politicians have created a culture of entitlement that is protected by partisan implicated courts. And by partisan implicated provincial and national “policing” forces.

What the citizen should think carefully about is this.

IF Tony Clement would do this in a “minority government” situation and our PM flies off after the last election to a Boston hockey game in a jet that costs us $10,000 per hour, while search crews are cut back in Newfoundland, what abuses will we face under these arrogant bastards under a “majority” government? And the Conservative Party will rush to say that their political coffers paid for this latest jet-setting PM? Remember that partisan coffers are simply re-directed taxes, made possible under "new rules" passed by these arrogant buggers, that would otherwise go to search crews or freed access to principled "justice".

We can change this. Peacefully.

We can do this by using the power of our voice. We can do this by returning credibility to our institutions of justice. I invite you to visit my book to understand the record of history that led to this arrogant “culture of entitlement”. Then, understanding the reasons behind my strong exhortations, I trust that you will visit the TakeBackDemocracy.ca page at the end of next week to understand how, with a little courage, we can peacefully oust these criminals in Ottawa and return this nation’s Parliament to truly being for the people.

All of this abuse of power and privilege will end only when we raise collective voices to insist that it ends. Do we have the courage to do this? Or will we make DePape our temporary, and wrong, hero and then turtle in the hope that someone else will change all of this for us?

DePape The Parliamentary Page Needed a Bigger Skirt

2011-06-09T13:27:00.010-04:00

(About 12 pages long)

A straw poll at CBC (http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourcommunity/2011/06/page-protest-was-it-appropriate.html ) first showed that more than 66% (on Monday... dropped to 63.66% by Wednesday) of the nonscientific survey supported a Canadian “Parliamentary” Page (Okay, yes, she really worked for “the Senators”) named Brigitte DePape. Courageous DePape held up a handmade stop sign during the official Parliamentary opening throne speech. It read “Stop Harper”. She was hustled backstage to this staged affair, called “democracy” by some, and summarily fired.

That was a Friday, June 3. What Canadians might want to remember, and to really start to worry about, are the subsequent images that appeared on Monday, June 6. That was the day that Canada’s smug Finance Minister, Jim Flaherty, appeared in front of Canadian cameras, again. He smugly, to the wild applause of his party, noted that he was presenting, word for word, the same budget that was the supposed reason for the 2011 federal election. He smugly noted that it was being presented by a party that now had a “Parliamentary majority”.

What should scare the hell out of Canadians is not just that these “majority” rules were designed by partisan parties, to allow who would or would not “rule” us all for the next four years. Yes, Canadians should be angered that our Parliament is not what our constitution and our international laws compel it to be for all of us. That is to say, Parliament was never legally intended to be structured so that any political party, gaining not even 25% of the eligible votes, could then say that “the election process” was a mandate for them to then do whatever they want to.

What should scare the hell out of us more is that DePape was arbitrarily fired by friends or servile servants of those men and women whose images on our televisions three days later should have caused us to throw up.

Why?

Jim Flaherty, the good Conservative, is an elected lawyer from Ontario. Flaherty competed for the job of Premier, vacated by good old Conservative named Mike Harris. He competed against the likes of Tony Clement. He did so in 2002 when Julian Fantino, then a good member of Ontario’s Association of Chiefs of Police, was only contemplating becoming the big shot Commissioner of Canada’s largest provincial police force, the Ontario Provincial Police.

On June 6, 2011, Bev Oda, a reelected Conservative promoted back to cabinet, was panned over as Flaherty puffed up his self importance. Oda, before the election, was on the hot seat over altering a document. Any common citizen would have been thrown into jail for this fraudulent behaviour. BUT, since the good Conservatives have gained a “majority” under the rules designed for hopeful partisans of the likes of even Jack Layton (remember his “the next Prime Minister of Canada!” promotions as election 2011 began?), the law becomes irrelevant. The good Conservatives become the law. After all, Julian Fantino, the ex-cop, is also a grand poobah in this newest “majority” government.

And my personal experiences, yes, made me into a reader of laws which few other citizens of Canada would want or need to read. Those experiences should lead every responsible citizen of Canada to ask Page DePape why her stop sign did not read “... Stop all of these Arrogant Idiots in our Parliament and Senate ...”. Just maybe her skirt was not big enough?

What becomes irresponsible is how the mainstream media treats these events. And, yes, I dare to chastise the likes of CBC’s Jian Ghomeshi. Jian made DePape the lead-in commentary for his June 6 show (http://www.cbc.ca/video/news/audioplayer.html?clipid=1972629048). Eloquent commentary, Jian, I would say, but the main media’s problem becomes this.

Many chastised DePape. Jian praised “audacious” her, saying in sections of his 3:59 minute June 6 essay, “... there are no short cuts to real power ... historical change has come from citizens who have taken a stand ... democracy is not just about marking an X every 4 years ...”. What Jian, and every other Canadian might want to remember, is that, yes, DePape’s dream of an Arabian style revolution is an undesirable short cut. The risks and ramifications exist. The examples are rampant in our human history. They exist even as living history in our mid-Eastern nations continues today. Few of us want to see martyrs of revolutions carried away in body bags.

This violence happened, and happens, why? Because the relevance of that ‘X’ that Jian referenced is undermined by hypocrisy. Much of the hypocrisy comes, unfortunately, from our mainstream media.

The hypocrisy in our media and from our privileged in our society is this. Jian and others received a book, my book, called Just Business, some, months ago. The thick book was accompanied by documents relating how I tried to deliver three copies to people on our Parliament Hill in February of this year. However, evidently even Jian Ghomeshi has no time to read a book that outlines why DePape should not have to be brave. Few ask why it is irresponsible for us to laud her because the self education does not lead to “journalists” thinking about this.

The illegal equations, which led to DePape’s brave but needless demonstration, are revealed in my story. Yes, my book is a tome that is undergoing vigorous editing. But, something that you might want to think about, is that my book reveals why the panned face of criminally acting Flaherty and Harper should have already been tossed out of Parliament IF our laws had been reexamined and challenged by “the media” reading this book.

It essentially comes down to how the criminal violations into our courts by partisans have made our institutions theirs and irrelevant to the legal promises of democracy.

Early sections of my book outline how my parents refused, during an election of the 1960’s, to reveal whom they had voted for. A politically interested teen, I was told that the vote is a sacred thing. The citizen has every right to hold how they voted close to their chest. So, I was surprised when my elderly parents told me that they had voted Conservative in the 2011 election. This, they said, was because they had been served so efficiently on old age security payments by their local Conservative MP. I wrote a letter chastising my 84-year-old mother and 94-years old father.

Had they not read my book telling the story of what Conservatives had done to their son? I was offended because, you see, on the same trip that I had made to Ottawa in February to deliver my book to politicians, I had finally delivered one copy of my book to my parents. I asked how they could have voted for a party that had been instrumental in events leading to my politicized arrest in 2004.

I just received a letter from my father this week. He writes, still eloquently at the age of 94, years after he put on a Canadian Army training uniform in 1942. He echoes the sentiments of two others who say that they have actually read the book. He would not have voted for any of these scoundrels, if he had fully informed himself before he voted.

But, the Canadian media, many who had been offered the opportunity to read this book before the federal “election” of 2011, failed us again. Our “X” became subject to 35 days of carefully staged propaganda. Even the simplest issue of PM Harper breaching our Criminal Code, by using tax dollars to entice people like David Emerson across the floor in 2006, is never hotly debated. This is because, by god, even the Green Party’s Elizabeth May, along with the hack Jack Layton, hope to “gain power”. They will follow the “35 days of bashing” rules so that they can, one day, do as the Liberals and Conservatives have illegally done since 1948. After all, as Jian says, there are “no short cuts to real power”. Hell, we should simply let the world go to hell in a bread basket. Or follow the lead of Arabs seeking “democracy” to riot to make “the short cuts to power” real?

Perhaps it is time to recognize that “democracy”, and all of its legally compelled acts and institutions, were designed to stop the need for rioting and blood shed. The rights of the citizens were to the power of real, daily democracy. The law was not to make our institutions instruments for the empowerment of the arrogant partisans, despite our history.

We citizens are failed by institutions, like our free press, that do not do in-depth analysis. Instead, even “ethical” Jian Ghomeshi will turn away a first edition book, that, yes, is in the depths of harsh reediting for public consumption. Holding up a “stop sign” is short term eloquence that ignores why the images of criminals like Flaherty are viewed as the only option in 2011. It is the panning of Oda and then a smug PM, a criminal who abused our taxes in 2006 and since, that should give us cause for pause. But, we should be stopped in our tracks as criminal, promoted cop friend, Julian Fantino’s face comes into view. That is, if we dare to whisper “shades of Nazi Germany!”

Partisans? By god, the citizen who does not vote is irresponsible! So, sensing that this is so wrong, the citizens enter polls wondering which Criminal they should vote for.

I dare to say this, why?

Read my tome. Struggle through it at JustBusinessTheBook.com. But start to think about the Flaherty, Oda, Harper and Fantino equation and why I dare to say that these people have become modern versions of Nazism that should scare the hell out of common citizens. However, we should also recognize that this criminal behaviour has spread across all partisans in our Parliaments. This happens simply because they think that, just maybe, one day, they will be empowered.

I do dare to ask all reading this why I have not been soundly denounced into a court where all of these partisans pursue me for malignment of character. After all, I dare to insinuate that even the smallest partisan politicians, the Elizabeth Mays and Jack Laytons, become criminals as they engage in the same activities simply for the sake of gaining position and “power”. I have not been dragged into a court because these partisans know this.

I would counter sue them as I have warned since 2004. I would compel a trial on this before a jury of 12 common citizens. I once made a record of what happened with PM Harper’s Conservatives when an Ottawa lawyer started a law suit. It was rapidly settled out of court to the favour of that old Progressive Conservative lawyer when the new Conservatives in Ottawa were told that they would have to face a trial by jury, not the dithering and blathering by a partisan-tainted singular judge. I know, because I have read too many laws, that these partisans, all of them in Ottawa, when dragged before 12 of my peers would then be forced to admit that they have indeed violated our Criminal Code and should be thrown out of Parliament.

So, yes, my story is a record of why DePape should have worn that Princess’ wedding gown that we suffered watching short weeks before her brave protest. That dress should have included a train under a stop sign pasted at the top of that train. Instead of singling out Harper, Depape should have listed the (308) names of all Parliamentarians who participated in the illegal election of 2011. It should have included the partisan-appointed members of our Senate. And, yes, those "Supremest of Judges" that were dressed in ermine behind DePape's back.

The safe and legal reasons I dare to say this come from my personal experiences with the corruption of our courts that has protected the criminalization of our institutions of governance and justice. So, suffer a summary.

1982. I am barely a year inside my job as a government “professional forester”. As a “professional forester”, I am required not to lie about wood supply from our forests. Ontario’s Minister of Natural Resources is Conservative. His bureaucrats want me to lie on official papers needed for a big Conservative friendly business man to cut wood in the Nipigon area. I refuse. They persist. I refuse on professional grounds and go to my local elected representative, who is not Conservative.

A furor arises. I am fired for taking my case to my elected rep. I enter a legal battle. Roy McMurtry is Ontario’s Conservative Attorney General. I win my arbitration case. The public, generally, is on my side. McMurtry and Conservative Premier, Bill Davis, announce that they are appealing my case to the courts. They hide that they are enabled to do this ONLY because a Conservative appointee to my hearing tribunal is Conservative-party affiliated. Because one dissented on the panel of three “judges”, I am hung out to wait for another year before a court rules that the other two on the panel, whom I later discover are Liberal and NDP-affiliated “judges”, are the “right” ones.

I return to work, briefly, under the direction of a Minister of Natural Resources named Mike Harris. Harris sits on the same Conservative cabinet as Roy McMurtry before the Conservatives are booted out by the Liberals. I work 15 years under three different political parties. What I experience leads me to the sad conclusion that our “democracy” has collapsed to a state where partisans become our temporary rulers. They seize elected positions to do as they want, not to lead as we want them to. In 1996, I do not realize that this is also how our founding laws compel them to act: to lead, not rule.

Mike Harris returns in 1996, as Ontario’s Conservative Premier. I cannot stomach this hypocrisy. I leave the government’s service for private business.

I have been politically interested all of my life. During the federal election of 1997, I am approached by a fledgling political party to run. I explore the rules for getting on a ballot. I have not read our constitution. However, I sense that something is deeply perverted in our electoral system as I discover “the new rules” set down by the big political parties. Read the book. Or, visit http://TakeBackDemocracy.ca at the Stop the Fraud button to understand why and how conditions of social status, partisan-implicated control of “candidate application” approvals and a complete failure to protect the legal condition of equality to freed speech violate our original laws.

I am asked in the same year to run for the local town council. I am elected, garnering the highest number of votes in that town’s election. I serve my full term from 1997 to 2000.

2001. The book makes a record of my involvement in a stone related business. It makes a record of the gross incompetence of bureaucrats and politicians when it comes to treating business people as equals, as I eventually learn the law compels. Ready to finally break into a multimillion dollar opportunity in 2001, the collapse of the towers in New York puts my small business on the brink of bankruptcy. All economy shuts down for six weeks at a critical time of business for me.

However, by December of 2001, I have a letter of intent from an American. He is willing to invest $40,000 Canadian into my company in exchange for an exclusive distributorship into the USA. He is willing to commit to a minimum in $36 million in sales over 6 years. As long as I get the required government permits.

My business is like farming. I can only operate when there is no snow covering the ground. I have six critical months in each year to get my natural stone product into the marketplace.

I have worked inside government. These permits normally take two weeks to process. The politics, of big union partisans (the NDP-affiliated Public Service union of Ontario) versus big corporation partisans (Conservatives), begins. A Public service strike begins as the Conservatives begin a leadership convention to replace Mike Harris. Harris, the newspapers report, is being wooed by the old Reform Party of Canada. They are looking to create an alliance with federal Conservatives. Some want Harris to lead them. He wants out of politics. Eventually, the newspapers report, he is hired by a big law firm as “a consultant”.

The Ontario Conservatives? When teachers strike, the Conservatives gain a reputation for recalling Provincial Parliament. They legislate the teachers back to work in days. In the public service strike of 2002? It begins in mid March and does not end until mid May.

There is a grand scramble leading up to the shut down of government offices, needed for my permits. I am told that my applications have been set aside in favour of applications for big corporations. This happens a month after we first make written application to the local managers.

I am on the verge of losing my contract into the USA. I phone and write to my local elected representative, Liberal Michael Gravelle. He insists that he can do nothing for me. The Conservatives are refusing to recall the legislature to deal with this critical strike. I have not donated to the Liberals or the Conservatives or any political party. Evidently, therefore, I am worthless. Guys like Conservatives Flaherty and Clement do not care. They are in power, after all.

I become concerned when the Conservative “parliamentary” office, in charge of all things during the “leadership convention” and strike, tells me that they will breach other legislation. They will simply send me permits. I refuse this counsel. I know that this is illegal. Government staff is supposed to make certain that my permits meet all other legislation beyond extracting stone. This counsel comes from the staff in another office of another elected lawyer named David Tsubouchi. It comes after Ontario has dealt with the deaths in Walkerton because environmental legislation was ignored. I am an honest business man. I warn Tsubouchi’s office that all laws must be respected. I register my concerns again and again.

Eventually, Ernie Eves has been elected as the Conservative Premier. But, instead of calling Parliament back, under the auspices of Harris, the Conservatives continue with their arrogance. They hold a by-election so that Eves, who resigned his finance minister position to go work as a lawyer for a big bank on Toronto’s Bay Street, can actually get back into the legislative buildings. A token election is held. Another month passes. My clients and my main client’s commitments begin to disappear or to be vastly reduced for 2002. After all, business is about the ability to deliver at critical times of the year. I have been vocal in making it clear to bureaucrats and politicians that spring is a critical marketing time for my company.

The strike ends May 10. It takes days to get bureaucrats back to work.

The book summarizes the games that began even as I discovered that a competitor had violated environmental legislation. In this aspect, I did not get all of the permits that I needed until a year after I had applied. And, after my application had been set aside in favour of big corporations.

So, in December 2002, I warned that I was going to sue the Conservative Party of Ontario. I warned big corporations, whom I owed money to, that they had better wait for this suit to finish or I would add their names to the law suit. This was because I had discovered that many of these big corporations were starting to pester me for money which I no longer had. Meanwhile, they had donated more wads of money to the Conservatives in the 2002 leadership convention than I had ever owed them.

I began to seek legal assistance. I knew that our big politicians always bragged that we are all equals. I was astonished when I phoned the Legal Aid office in Thunder Bay. When I revealed that I was a self-employed person seeking assistance to file a civil lawsuit, the response was that I need not apply. The clerk at the Legal Aid office bluntly said that the Conservatives had changed the rules to exclude the self-employed. I knew, without reading the law, that this was illegal discrimination. The same lady said that if I became a criminal or violated Family law, I would qualify for assistance.

Ironically, the Thunder Bay paper carried a November article. Elected lawyer Eves and his cohorts bragged that the recognized disparity in access to legal institutions would be resolved by adopting a “pro bono” program in Ontario’s courts. I researched this. I applied through the Ontario Law Society, as required at that time. I received a rejection notice. I did not fit the narrow criteria that the lawyers had established for the “trial development” of this “program”. I knew that this was more illegal discrimination, despite not having yet read our constitution or other laws.

I began to read Canadian laws. I also began to petition law firms for assistance via the internet. My summary application noted that I was concentrating on suing the Conservative Party. This was because the citizens had not forced me to lose this 2002 income. It was the discriminating Conservatives who had violated our constitution and my rights.

I became concerned when I began to receive snotty rejection notices. When I would go to the hard listings that I had received for that 2002 Conservative leadership convention, these law firms had donated to the Conservatives.

I received one from a lawyer saying that she felt that I had a case but suggesting that I should be suing the government, not political parties. She insisted that my tactic was not allowed “because of precedent”. But, she said, she could not help me. I searched Elections Canada donation records. This law firm donated to the Liberals.

I knew that partisan implications were building. The insinuation was becoming that big partisans had come together to agree that what was good for one partisan group was good for the other. The rights of the citizens be damned.

The final straw came when a lawyer from one law firm said that he believed that I had a case. Unfortunately, his law firm could do nothing for me because they did work with the public service union. That union was also implicated in my pending suit. This was one rare law firm that I found donating to the New Democrats.

And, so, yes, I became a “law” “err!!”

I started off in January 2003. I faxed warnings to every business or individual whom I owed even a cent to by that month. There were approximately 26 at that stage. Most small guys and gals agreed with me and stepped aside. By the official launch of my court application, suing to recover the $2 million in lost revenues, after initially offering much lower out of court settlements, I faced only 8 large corporations. These were big donors to the 2002 Conservative convention. They insisted that they had no obligations to me, and were only exercising their “political rights”. By then I had read constitutional and criminal law.

By May 2003, I was into court rooms. I knew that our courts were corrupted because of two things. First, I had read the Criminal Code. I knew that it was illegal for a party named on a court document to harass the opposing party. I was getting up to 25 phone calls a day from collection agencies acting on behalf of these big corporations. When I looked up donation records for these collection corporations or their “legal advisors”, their names were on political party listings. 99% of these lawyers or law firms gave to either Liberals or Conservatives.

I warned that these were political parties who had redirected taxes and then claimed that there was not enough money for the citizens to have equal and impartial access into Canada’s courts, all courts. By May 2003, Ernie Eves and his cohorts, including Mr. Flaherty and Mr. Clement, named on my initial documents, had sent a “constitutional expert” to oppose me. This was a big shot lawyer from Ontario’s Attorney General’s branch. This was the same branch that had declared that I, the simple citizen, need not even apply for legal assistance.

Our taxes could be redirected to protect lawyers elected as Premiers or cabinet ministers. Lawyers stayed conveniently silent as they got paid from our taxes for this. Meanwhile, I was denied assistance of any kind. I began to warn that even the lawyers were violating the Criminal Code sections forbidding the exertion of influence to their gain while the citizen’s rights declined. I dared to insinuate that this was Criminal conduct that was no better than what had happened in Nazi Germany.

On May 8, 2003, I was walked out of a crowded, public court room. I then stood before a judge who did not even know which “party”, myself or my opposing lawyers (whom I eventually found on Liberal donation records), should “go first”. I protested loudly to the press and others after this farce. I had been moved out of an open court room into one occupied only by cops and lawyers. Contemplate that when you eventually come to the name “Bill Graham” in this summary.

By July 2003, I had a “you have no case!” response from a judge. A Liberal-implicated lawyer hinted that I look into Judge Helen Pierce’s background. I did. She was appointed by the Conservatives barely a year previous. She had donated to the Reform Party of Canada in the era that this party was trying to recruit Mike Harris for the “alliance” conservatives’ leadership. She “judged” over an issue which bore the names of Mike Harris, the Conservative Party of Ontario and other “good” Conservative names, including Flaherty and Clement.

I was furious. But, I was not as furious as I was at Revenue Canada. Warned that I was also dragging them into court, this federal agency was particularly aggressive in trying to drag money out of me. I warned that I needed every dime I had to try to advance my legal arguments. I warned that they could not take “taxes owed”, that were also being hotly contested by me into federal courts, as I was denied assistance to advance my cases into courts on my own.

I am not going to make a record of all of the things that my book does. I will make a short record of this.

Angered by all of this, I wrote a snotty letter to Canada’s Prime Minister. I copied it to other politicians. I made a long record of what I was experiencing in Canada’s so-called “justice system”. I quoted sections of the Criminal Code. I used that “fucking” word and told Paul Martin and others to get their “fucking heads out of the clouds”. I also warned that they had created, allowed, a system of “justice”, ultimately the responsibility of the feds, that breached our laws. I pointed out that I was being harassed and intimidated at the same time that I was being told that I had no rights to justice UNLESS I became a criminal or abused my wife. So, as I wound this October 29, 2003 letter down, I asked how a citizen was to get justice in my nation. I wrote, asking “... must I barricade myself in my house and shoot the first peace officer who comes along just to get justice? ...”.

Now, note this. This letter went to elected Conservative leader of the day, Peter MacKay. This was in the era that he was starting to drag the Conservatives into that unholy alliance with Harper’s gang. Mackay, an elected lawyer, responded immediately to my letter. He supported my concerns. He corresponded again on January 8, 2004. He supported my less harshly worded, but still very critical, follow-up letter to the Liberals. Eventually, these letters went to two other lawyers (one implicated in a law firm that donated to the Liberals and who refused to reveal his own partisan affiliations to me, after my arrest). Both lawyers said, by May 2004, that there had been no reason to arrest me. However, also remember this.

That Liberal-implicated lawyer read a letter from me sent to his good Liberal friend Paul Martin. He said that the arrest was illegal. BUT, when I suggested that he should be able to simply get the charges dropped, he informed me that our law does not work that way. He wanted $2000 down before he would even “lift a pen to help”.

So, why was a Page named DePape so rapidly fired, while even Jack Layton condemned her? Start to think about partisans controlling our institutions of freed speech. And, more ominously, “justice”. DePape was not given any hearing. After all, if Jack Layton would also condemn her, she warrants condemnation and immediate firing?

I was not arrested for that October 29 letter until February 24, 2004, nearly three months after Peter MacKay said that the letter had merit. In time, I extracted a confession that the order to seek my arrest had come from Revenue Canada’s head offices.

Before my arrest, I received a disturbing call from the federal minister’s office for Revenue Canada. On February 6, 2004, a Lois Willett, saying that she was a “communications expert” with that Minister’s office, told me that she had “talked to lawyers in government and cabinet”. I politely argued about my constitutional rights to retain whatever money I needed to get through the courts. When I asked this lady if she had ever read our constitution, this lady first said “no” and then said this to me. She said that she had been told, “by lawyers in government and cabinet”, that she had to worry about nothing beyond the tax laws that her department oversaw. I was astounded. I registered my concerns, politely, in yet another letter.

This was also at the time that the Gomery commission was starting to crank up. It was supposedly intended to expose the “scandalous” abuse of tax dollars, mostly in Quebec. I wrote another letter on February 12, 2004. This one was politely serious.

I noted that Canada’s auditor general was gaining much grand admiration in the press while the background noise was never discussed. I noted that this “profession”, her accounting one, had a bad reputation of sending big bucks to only the business friendly Liberals or Conservatives. I noted that she had been on the Liberals’ donor listings in the year that she was appointed. I noted that her “profession’s” supposed “controlling bodies” had an ethical dilemma. They were sending cash to political parties when they were supposed to be protecting taxpayers from the abuses of even politicians.

So, I dared to challenge that this Liberal appointee’s sudden elevation carried harsh implications. She vigorously appeared with this issue in an era when business friendly Liberal Paul Martin was looking to oust old stodgy Liberal named Jean Chretien. She was an accountant from Quebec whose profile suggested that she was once the head of the ethics committee for accountants in that province. She came from a big accounting firm that was a big sponsor of big political parties. Meanwhile, I noted, she had worked in Quebec in the era when the sponsorship scandal raged. I wondered, in writing, why only bureaucrats were being targeted when the Chief Auditor for Canada belonged to a “profession” that had allowed millions to disappear. I noted that my own accountant made me account for cents. I asked how the “disappearance of millions” could have happened in the grand auditor’s home province for 7 years.

I was arrested on February 24, 2004 for my October 29 letter. A police man in the interrogating room told me that “we cannot write what we want after 9/11!”

And so, I entered another legal battle, into yet another court, this time a Criminal one. In July of 2004, I watched lawyer Bill Graham, then Minister of Foreign Affairs, screaming in the press. Iran had barred attendance in their courts in the case of a murdered female Canadian Iranian photographer. Graham cited international law. I had been marched in May 2003 from a crowded, public court room into one occupied only by lawyers and cops. I subpoenaed him and Michael Gravelle. Their lawyers committed perjury to avoid their clients appearing as witnesses in my criminal trial. I won my Criminal case on my own while building up more and more records that 99% of lawyers and judges are either Conservative or Liberal affiliated.

Fast forward. I got back to fighting for my civil case in Ontario’s courts. In November 2004, that old Conservative toddled back into my case. Roy McMurtry, the highest “judge” in Ontario in 2004, appeared to review my papers. My court documents had the name of his old Conservative Party and Conservative friends, Mike Harris included, on them. This farcical, partisan-implicated conduct continued all of the way up and into the Supreme Court of Canada.

So, by December 2005, I knew that Statistics Canada registers that 94% of Canadians do not belong to any political party, or donate to one. I made a record of the record of our courts filled with lawyers, of whom 99% were donors to the political parties that promoted them, or had a hand in ensuring their appointments. I made a record of the fact that my February 2004 arrest was guided by a “Crown Counsel” who confessed in Canada’s courts that he was a regular donor to the NDP. Do not forget that my complaining letters this man used to justify my arrest referenced the role of the NDP-supporting public service in my dilemma stemming out of the public service strike of 2002.

And, so, knowing that our justice system is completely corrupted, I tried to get into the 2006 election campaign as an independent. The book records the subsequent illegalities that these big partisans have come together to create. They do so on their principle that they are all of the political parties that Canada needs.

So, go back to 2006. Go back to Harper taking our taxes to lure Liberal Emerson across our Parliamentary floors without a vote.

You see, to February 2004, I had only written to courts and politicians about stuff like this that violated our Criminal Code (visit my “About the Law” button at my http://TakeBackDemocracy.ca web page to understand the depth of this problem and the sections that are repeatedly broken). Starting in March 2004, I applied to the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) to have Criminal Code charges laid against, yes, even Paul Martin, PM. The OPP expressed confused support for my concerns but begged that Ottawa was a RCMP jurisdiction. Then the back and forth between the OPP and RCMP began.

I was puzzled as my complaints bounced about, about the obvious criminal abuse of privilege with PM Harper and his gang’s activities in 2006. I puzzled only until February 2007. In that month, I was shocked. I stumbled across not just more data for unionized court clerks. They were redirecting taxes through union back doors into the pockets of the partisans. The unions targeted who would support their members getting bigger salary hikes, as the taxpayers’ rights to “justice” continued to disappear. However, the biggest shocker was finding that the cops were doing the same thing.

They were sending money to only the Liberals and the Conservatives because only these two parties said “Let’s get tough on crime with more cops!” Meanwhile, the breaching of the Criminal Code in our parliamentary offices accelerated.

I protested to the RCMP. Julian Fantino, once a big shot in Toronto’s police and then the Chief of Police in London, Ontario, had participated in redirecting money from the Ontario Chiefs of Police Association into the pockets of mostly Conservatives and sometimes Liberals. Even in that leadership convention of 2002, cops had donated to lawyer Ernie Eves’ political campaigns.

By July 2007, when the federal Conservatives appointed Brian Mulroney’s ex bud, Bill Elliott, the good lawyer, to head up our RCMP, I knew that my nation was in deep trouble.

So, I threw all of my energies into writing this book while fending off the continuing harassment. It came, repeatedly, from partisan-implicated lawyers acting for “collection agencies” with a history of donating to these partisans. I continued to warn the local police to exercise their duty under the law to protect the citizen from politicians and others abusing their positions. Illegally. I quoted and re-quoted the laws from 1948, 1982 and the relevant sections of the Criminal Code. Still, the harassment continued.

Then, with the book nearing completion, so I thought, I began this tactic. These collection agencies were ordering me to phone their toll-free numbers for amounts barely exceeding $1,000. I had a toll free number when I had my own business. I knew how much these “toll free” systems can cost a business. So, I cranked up my stereo. I was 60 lbs. overweight at the time. But, I would dial the toll-free number and fill these bastards answering machines with ACDC’s “I’ve got Big Balls”, or other protest songs, including one where a popular band tells the crowd to go home by singing “Bugger Off!” as the crowd shouts back “Fuck You”. I learned that these large corporations have lots of extension numbers.

I flipped my three portable phones as I danced naked on the way to the shower or into my kitchen to do my daily chores. I filled the ears or the answering machines of the “agents” with the profanities sung by others or simply loud protest music that I liked.

The day that I knew that Canada has slipped into the infamy of Nazis is recorded in my book. June 24, I believe, 2009. An Ontario cop shows up on my doorstep. He is accompanied by another cop. He threatens to arrest me again, if I do not stop my calls to this London, Ontario based “collection’s agency” (the town from whence “Chief” Fantino ruled as London cops redirected taxed salaries from their pockets into the pockets of politicians). This is “public mischief”, he insists. I hand him my prepared statement. I am ready to warn persons like him that his own policing force has violated the Criminal Code.

Besides, I tell him, snidely, in the lawyer’s language that I have learned. These arrogant bastards have virtually ordered me to phone their toll-free number. They have not specified how many calls I am allowed. I do not give a damn if it is anywhere near the 1,000 he claims that I made. He obviously does not care that I have warned, again and again, of my intent to drag these buggers into courts, even if it takes 30 years as it did for “those Jews”.

However, the blatant arrogance existing in this land comes in the words that come from this modern Nazi’s mouth after I warn him, sternly. I warn that his policing association has criminally redirected tax dollars to partisans while the same partisans deny me access to completely impartial justice. I warn that he has aligned himself with lawyers who are criminally promoted by partisans to become “judges”. I warn that he must go back to his supervisor and talk carefully about all of this. I warn that, IF he returns to my doorstep with this stupidity, I will exercise a citizen’s arrest on him for abuse of privilege, exercising influence and breach of our constitution and other Acts of Parliament.

The man asks if I dare to defy “the Queen and Julian Fantino”. My response to this arrogant young snot is a question. The man has to admit that “the Queen and Fantino” are both obliged to protect and respect the law. But, my blood runs cold when this young Nazi says this to me after I reiterate that the partisan implications, that he carries with his tainted gun, puts him on tenuous ground. The young snot responds to my comments about the blatant partisan connections with these words: “Too bad! That is the way it is in Canada and if you do not like it, you can just leave!” I see that the only hope in my nation is the astonishment that appears on his cohort’s face when these words are uttered.

My phone did not fall completely silent from the illegal harassment until November of 2009. It was silenced forever thereafter from these partisan-implicated collection agencies because of this. Yes, I returned to filling answering machines and ears with my loud music in that month. BUT, I also wrote to the local police and made note of this.

The RCMP was being criticized by big shot lawyers for allowing their own to be scrutinized by their own. On a CBC radio program (read the book), I pointed out that a big shot, partisan-implicated lawyer said that cops who played baseball together should not be investigating when their friends were facing charges of abuse from citizens.

The phone harassment stopped. I had asked the cops why the more illegal abuse of our Criminal Code, forbidding “registered” friends from exerting influence into any government institution or our “justice” system, would be allowed to continue.

So, I hastily finished the book, because I know politicized lawyers. I wanted a tome to throw at them when they popped up with abuse of our institutions of “justice”. No, my book is not a simple red “stop” sign that DePape can use in her brave but gullible “protest”.

But, I have this question for our grander members of our media, like Jian Ghomeshi.

I wrote a tome and placed it or offered to place it on the desks of credible reporters or those who claim to be concerned (yes, you, Jian). It outlines why all of this should have stopped in November 2002, the moment that I began to protest that our courts were being corrupted by illegal discrimination.

The question is, why should it take an Arabian revolution, as Ms. DePape seems so keen on?

On May 31, four days before Ms. DePape planted her braid in front of cameras, cops were back in my yard again. This time, in response to my suggestion that the local detachment commander was obliged to educate himself to the full story in my book, his response was that he had no such duty. And that should scare the hell out of our citizenry. In any nation.

Nazi Germany. Obey the command from the partisans. Deny the role of partisan-appointed “lawyers” and “judges” in the decline of the rights of citizens.

Sorry. Nuremberg trials showed that, indeed, the cop who failed to educate themselves to why what they were doing was wrong, could be indicted and convicted.

The question is why the privileged in high positions in our media stay silent to the full story that reveals why immature DePape had every right to demonstrate. When our electoral systems and institutions of “justice” become the instruments of any partisan group, or collective of partisans, then, yes, our media have a moral obligation to educate themselves and the public to why they should be concerned.

BUT, will our media, and those in privileged positions, start to read why this needs to be stopped now? Or will they simply play up the image of a young adult holding a stop sign, because that is what makes the best “media play”?

That is not the role of our media in a real democracy.

What we need are credible courts protecting principled and credible elected institutions where ideas are brought forward to deal with daily issues. That was the legal promise made by 1948, reaffirmed in 1982 and set down in rules that protected all of this in our Criminal Code. But what DePape failed to understand is that a criminal gaining power over an institution makes the institution criminal until the criminal is removed.

That needs not happen through violence. It should happen through an educated public demanding that the original laws are enforced against all of the miscreants.

It is all too easy to hold up a stop sign. It is time, yes, to read a tome to understand why these people are all criminals who sit in Canada’s Parliamentary and Senate halls. And our courts.

But, who among our media will work to educate the public to all of this?

Making Certain that Change Happens

2011-05-17T12:01:00.002-04:00

It is all fine and dandy to write and complain. I hope that I spur some deep thinking via the blogs that follow. I hope that you do take the time to read them.

But, how do we achieve real change?

I dare to suggest that, yes, in 6 months time, we, the Canadian citizens, can force our Parliamentarians to understand that we will not accept dictatorship via political parties. When majority government is achieved by partisans whom 75% of the population did not want and the "leaders" do as they want, yes, it is dictatorship, not leadership.

I dare to suggest that this change can be achieved by peaceful and lawful means.

I intend to revise my web site, TakeBackDemocracy.ca. There, I will make suggestions on how we might start a functional, peaceful revolution against, count 'em, 29 years of Crimiinal constitutional violations, since 1982, and 63 years of Criminal violation of international law. I hope that you, the responsible citizen, will take the time to think about what is posted at the "About the Law" page at the TakeBackDemocracy.ca site for now.

If you have not, take the time to read the blogs below so that you understand why I think that we have every right to be angry and concerned. Take the time to read the open letters that will be posted at the JustBusinessTheBook.com site, hopefully by the end of this week. Those letters summarize why we are ruled by criminals in Canada. And, yes, even in the good ol' USA, I dare to say.

The questiion, and challenge, becomes if Canadians will have the will and courage to change all of this. So that democracy does indeed become the daily leadership that our laws originally promised. The original promises were rapidly made insignificant by self-serving partisans. Who just too conveniently appointed their partisan friends to our institutions of justice, to protect their illegal manipulation of our institutions of governance.

Hang in there, honest citizen. WE can indeed lawfully change things. BEFORE we are forced to face another illegal farce which partisans call "elections".

The honest among us know that our "democracies" have become illegal and farcical when it comes to any consideration of "representative voice". WE can change all of this, and without putting masks on our faces and rioting in our streets...

Don MacAlpine, Nipigon, Ontario, Canada (a town that is hours closer to Winnipeg, Manitoba than Toronto, by the way)

Mixing Murder with “Democracy” in a Mixed Up Week of Another Canadian “Election”

2011-05-16T11:25:00.001-04:00

Mixing Murder with “Democracy” in a Mixed Up Week of Another Canadian “Election”
(by Don MacAlpine, May 16, 2011 version)

[Note... Primarily written as a blog meant as a post-election warning to those who continue to breach our Canadian and international laws, what follows should also be of interest to the citizen concerned about peaceful protection of our rights. And the advancement of democracy. Nevertheless, I trust that concerned citizens will read it and pass its thoughts onto others... Don MacAlpine, Nipigon, Ontario, Canada...]

What does a 29 years-old, third wife, witnessing the final saga in the life of Osama Bin Laden, have to do with a Canadian election? And, are we becoming like the passive Dutch of WWII, waiting for someone else to save us from anarchy?

It was well past Canada’s election day of May 2 before I actually watched videos of Americans celebrating the death of Osama Bin Laden. In fact, I would not have known that Bin Laden had been assassinated had a friend not emailed me scathing commentary about the incident on the morning of the Canadian election. That friend dared to ask where the independent judicial orders had come from. He asked this well before the debate about that murder accelerated. That Bin Laden had been without a gun. That little effort had been put into having the man arrested instead of being seemingly summarily executed.

[Footnote of May 16... I watched a hastily prepared "documentary" about the "hunt for Bin Laden" on the Discovery Channel, 10 pm on May 15. The commentator shown from the NBC affiliate made the statement that the mission of May 1 became solely a hunt and kill mission, with never any intent to have Bin Laden captured.]

Therefore, I suppose, I should understand. I suppose I should understand American comedian, Jon Stewart, sidelining his May 2 program’s scheduled skewering of rich man Donald Trump. Rich man Trump was only momentarily flashed on Stewart’s The Daily Show’s May 2 screens. Trump was caught showing his obvious distaste for the joke that was made of him at a national press gallery event. After all, the democracy of, the freedom of, greed should make the making of a wannabe President, like former Canadian-connected Trump, right? After all, Trump married Ivana after meeting her in Canada at the 1976 Montreal Olympics. This shallow marital equation should give us the right to make him Canadian?

Such shallow status, after all, condemns anyone connected to Osama Bin Laden.
The rightness of the rich man’s right rises above all other things “democratic”. Bin Laden suffered for this scowling hypocrisy. Trump scowled, brows furrowed deeply, a traitor to the democratic concept that not even he should be above recrimination or derision.

If the murder is through bombs and bullets, is it made any more condemnable than the mass murder by starvation? Evidently we are to accept the frowns of the modern princes of America. They tell us to eat cake. Meanwhile, silence should prevail? Those distant from the privileged in North America should suffer because of the arrogance achieved because the rich have gained greater positions? Or even in the nations of North America, we should accept this stupidity and be forever silent?

Maybe I should forgive Jon Stewart for his celebratory rant. Maybe even independent-minded I should stay silent to how appalled I felt as Stewart animated his May 2 speechifying. Stewart bounced about with such enthusiasm over Bin Laden’s death. This escalated to the extent that he eventually said that he would have gladly been the one to ‘off’ Bin Laden. Evidently, even to normally charismatic and humourously pensive American Stewart, this is “justice” in our modern world. Apparently, it can be justified, by an American, who claims to be proud of his Jewish roots while embracing the rest of the world, by then slipping in the prerequisite “qualifications” that will make this great celebration “right”.

Stewart made certain that he slipped in accolades for “those Arabs”. He congratulated the Arabian world. The reign by Bin Laden had ended while the “young Arabians” of Tunisia and Libya and on and on “sought democracy” in their streets.

On May 9, I asked myself “Maybe ‘democracy’ is ‘celebratory assassination’? After all, there was much dancing in the streets in some nations when Mussolini and his mistress were slaughtered as the Nazis were overwhelmed in Italy during the waning months of WWII. But, if ‘democracy’ is Presidents giving the order to murder without trial, why did the world hold trials for Nazi leaders in Nuremberg? Why then drag Saddam Hussein out of a bunker to be tried and then abused by those who hated him, in a show trial?

Why then assassinate Bin Laden instead of arresting him?”

My friend had already asked this question to Canadian “leaders” well before I watched these reruns on May 9. So, perhaps the writing gods purposely threw wrenches into my progress in writing this blog/email. It was the internal debates and frustration that led me to still be editing and re-writing this on May 12. Ironies appear in my daily world.

On May 12, I just happened to turn on the CBC radio as I prepared a coffee to set down to the day’s editing. Writing is sometimes such hard work. Listening to the rot that prevails in today’s world via our media is often the last thing I want to do on any day, recently. So, I wonder what it was that led me to the 9 in the morning broadcast on The Current?

Anna Marie Tremonti was talking to Benjamin Ferencz (http://www.benferencz.org ). Now over 91 years of age, he served in the American army in World War II. Speaking wisely, he related how he was conscripted to gather evidence from European concentration camps. He was an American prosecutor at the Nazi war crimes’ trials in Nuremberg.

Ferencz spoke like my 94 year old father. While some deride age in human beings, both of these aged men still speak with great wisdom, in my estimation. Ferencz answered Tremonti’s questions with conviction and clarity. He had written a letter to the New York Times in which he said: “... Jubilation over the death of the most hunted mass murderer is understandable, but was it really justifiable self-defense, or was it premeditated illegal assassination? ... The Nuremberg trials earned worldwide respect by giving Hitler’s worst henchmen a fair trial so that truth would be revealed and justice under law would prevail. Secret nonjudicial decisions based on political or military considerations undermine democracy. The public is entitled to know the complete truth. ...” (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/04/opinion/l04binladen.html) . He reiterated to Anna Marie that people, like the Nazi Goring, were not summarily executed when they were found.

The reason we should be concerned is what then transpired on the same radio program. An “educating lawyer” from Vanderbilt University in Tennessee, Michael Newton, was subsequently interviewed. Newton was, according to the CBC’s The Current’s web page “... the international law advisor to the Iraqi High Tribunal in the prosecution of Saddam Hussein. And he has negotiated war crimes parameters for the International Criminal Court. ...”. This in itself reveals the arrogance of the USA in all of this. This is because we know that Hussein’s trial was held in the nation where he was hated. That was a trial directed only by American lawyers with a vested interest in seeing the man murdered in apparent retribution. Or to hide the idiocy of a war started on the basis of “weapons of mass destruction”, which were never found.

Hussein’s was no “international trial”, no matter what the Americans may say.
We might also want to think on the fact that Tennessee was one of those states where racism was allowed to prevail despite the lessons to 1945 and the subsequent international law of 1948. That law was to compel that this base indecency of human nature, racism, ended immediately. It did not in more parts of the world than just the southern USA. But Tennessee carries a racist history after 1948 that should make the rest of us cringe.

We might then want to cringe at what became Newton’s thesis. His 'thesis' should lead us to ask which apple tree these empowered people fall out of. Worse, why does our media then assign any accreditation to what becomes pervasive and repetitive nonsense from our so-called “legal professionals”?

Newton went on record, as a “legal expert”, to say that Bin Laden’s assassination was justified primarily for this reason: ... The world was already educated to how bad the man was. ... "Common sense"... remember this phrase as you read further into this blog. This lawyer's stupidity is equivalent to us saying that, once the media has published the details of any crime, the alleged perpetrator should simply be thrown into jail. Or executed. Ah, the good ol’ Wild, Wild West!

I was appalled to hear this teacher of law telling the world that the trials of Nuremberg were needed to educate the world to what had happened in Europe; And, the trial of Saddam was needed to educate the people of Iraq to Saddam Hussein's atrocities; And the trials at international courts were needed to educate the people in the Serbian and Croatian conflicts as to the wrongs of the perpetrators like Milosevic in that part of our world.

But, because an American “legal expert” tells us that the world was already educated to Bin Laden’s history, America was justified in executing the man? Since when did America become the policing agency for our world? Since when did America become the epitome of Iraqi, Tunisian, Libyan and Egyptian dictators and the American mafia, whose “political leaders” determined who would live and die, without trial?

Trials are not opportunities to reveal the facts of any case to the world? Our courts have become “instruments of education” at the whim of these “legal experts”?
The harshest question is when the likes of supposedly highly moral Jon Stewart and other members of our media start to ask why Canadians and Americans should not be throwing the corruption out of our “leaderships”, as we are expecting from those “young Arabs”.

Now, Jon Stewart might have gained some credibility with his “qualifications” for young Arabia if our modern democracies could demonstrate that they had fulfilled the lessons of WWII. Instead the example set at the end of WWII in international courts deteriorated to this. Under America’s “lead” by 2001, for crying out loud.

Saddam Hussein was first publicly judged as a man who had led international incidents of terrorism and internal slaughter. He was not given a trial in an international court. His became a show trial of inevitable retribution. Iraqis desecrated Hussein’s carcass in a way that was not allowed with Nazis by 1946. Then, on May 2, 2011, Americans danced in the streets like many wild Italians and others did after Mussolini was gutted and rendered, without a real trial.

How often must we purposely repeat these reminders? And this one especially: Those trials in Nuremberg included German lawyers who had been promoted by the Nazis to become “judges”. We should all remember that as we fawn over the words of “legal experts” who rationalize injustice with blatant stupidity.

What should scare the hell out of us is that this question remains unanswered. What motivated and then allowed Mr. Bin Laden to get to the level of murder that he is alleged to have perpetrated? And what is it that will stop the American Presidents, of now or of our future, to decide that someone, who dares to challenge their policies with words, needs to be stopped before they indeed become “terrorists”? Since when did America become the self assigned policing state for our globe? Since when did the starvation of criticism and the suppression, or omission, of processes getting to the whole truth and nothing but the truth become any lesser an evil in nations calling themselves “democratic”?

Jon Stewart celebrates what on May 2, saying that America is on its way back to greatness because one man has been murdered? Stewart forgets what American song writer Griffin House says in his song I Remember (It’s Happening Again) from his Flying Upside Down album “... they teach us history so we can learn from our mistakes ...”. America forgets the lessons from Nuremberg. That was a war, by the way, that Americans were reluctant to enter until well after scores of Canadians had been sacrificed on the shores of France, yet again. 1942. The town was “Dieppe”, in case someone has forgotten the name of that European shore-town.

What does it take to remind all that Americans entered Iraq first, to find Saddam, based on lies? What does it take, as long-time American protest singer Jackson Browne says in his Lives in the Balance, when we are told, again and again “... how the USA stands for freedom, and we’ve come to the aid of a friend... but who are the ones we call our friends, these governments killing their own, or the people who finally can’t take anymore, and they pick up a gun or a brick or a stone ...”?

Does the celebration in America become reflective of history or repetitive of history? Does Jon Stewart step back and ask what leads to a level of frustration that leads to murderers gaining more credibility than peaceful change? Does the debate about the role of the legal promises of democracy, that have been run rough shod by the rich and the partisan, get exposed? Is the change in demeanor of television’s heroic man of business, Donald Trump, exposed as he continues seeking power through “the vote”? Is there internal navel gazing to ask why the voters in North America now treat the vote and the principles of law and “justice” with disdain? Or, do we allow what transpired in North America by May 2 to slide into obscurity in a repeat of history, not into constructive challenge because of history?

The harsh reality is that Osama Bin Laden cannot be brought back to life to ensure that “justice” became a true measure for the global community, not an excuse for dancing in the streets of an “America” that thinks itself great. The reality can become that even Jon Stewart will start to assess if his behaviour was appropriate when ominous signs exist.

Even his “democracy” is far from being legal in the rules of conduct set down in international laws by 1948.

So, in a mixed -up week of another illegal Canadian federal election, if we cared about the international laws that Americans no longer seem to care about, we might all want to muse on this. What happens when the legal promise of “democracy” becomes that even “our vote” is trumped by big money for the sake of appearances? And what are Jon Stewart and all other citizens “of democracy” doing to make certain that there is never any need for the desperate to turn to tyrants for hope when “democracies” have become shallow hypocrisies?

Stewart, and all of us, need to think more deeply about those ominous signs coming out of our own “democracies”. We are still reeling under the ramifications of dishonesty in business that started to reveal itself in 2007. If we think that one murder of one tyrant is about to change that reality, then the murder of innocent citizens in Iraq and Afghanistan and other nations should have already ended this economic crisis. After all, innocents died so that the recruited and indoctrinated disciples of Bin Laden would die. Sadly, the news rooms are still full of acknowledgements that Osama’s death will not end “the threats of terrorism”.

Might this be because we are unable to prove that our “democracies” are indeed respecting the legal promises of 1948?

The real challenge comes from the signals that came during and after another election in a farce of “democracy”. Canada’s 2011 “election” was any thing but legal under the promises of 1948 and then Canada’s own constitution of 1982. That constitution was supposedly modelled after that ground-breaking promise of 1948. Ironically, that ground-breaking legal promise of 1948 was constructed from the American constitutional promise of 1776.

What was the back bone to all of this clamour about democracy being best for citizens of our world after 1776, re-vamped in 1948, internationally? That we are all equals under the law. That the vote is an important instrument to ensure that our “leaders” are indeed “leaders”. That our leaders, who achieve power via our vote, will be forced to respect the base interests of all citizens. This is to be achieved by rules set out in our constitutions and international laws. Our "leaders" are to be forced to do so by completely independent and impartial institutions of justice.

However, on May 2, 2011, Jon Stewart’s program focussed first in on the prominent hair and nose of Donald Trump. That image and the subsequent celebratory focus on an all-important murder from the day before pre-empted the Canadian election. Some irony in that, is there not? Bad hair, from a Trump card who bonked and married a Canadian Czech, and murder Trump any and all discussions about real democracy. This is what makes “good television” in the eyes of the media magnates.

A little ironic, is it not, that one week later Canada’s CTV is engaging American ‘retired CIA experts’ as pictures are shown of Osama watching videos of himself, in his deeply-aged, grey beard. The focus on CTV is that Bin Laden’s image used in public was one of a dye job for his beard and hair. It is laughable that “our” media focuses in on Bin Laden’s shallowness about “image” in nations where the pundits point out that “image” is what creates presidencies.

The focus on ‘image’ continues while the real farce builds. And, yes, the farce builds because the same reporters rush to point out that Osama’s 29 year old “third wife” is the one who has led American ‘intelligence’ to the suggestion that Osama had another compound in the hinterland farms of Pakistan. The Americans express outrage that Pakistanis did not know who lived on the farm and in the compound in a Pakistani military town. Meanwhile, the same media show this local ignorance again and again in their own telling of stories in Canada and America.

The mass murderers in these nations are someone whom neighbours sometimes view as reclusive and unknown and sometimes even kind and gentle. In Canada and America, this is normal. In Pakistan, because it is a fugitive who hides in his compound and lets the kids out, rarely, to the corner store or to play with neighbours, the judgement is stupidly harsh.

Oh, this life of Bin Laden is so distasteful! At least it seems to be in the “Canadian and American” premise of “democracy”! After all, “democracy” is about “common sense”, is it not? If a man should feel the need for multiple partners to fulfill his sexuality, why should not a woman be equal? An old, bearded man dyes his hair to hide the grey and bonks 29-years-old somethings, without a divorce, for crying out loud! This would not be allowed in Canada or America, where monogamy is the law! After all, the image that we are fed, about a continuing war into Afghanistan that bleeds into adjacent Pakistan, is that the women are trampled human beings in that part of the world. This then justifies mass bombings at weddings and other civilian places.

We will save the women from sexism in other nations. We will build the random bombs in nations where racism prevailed, and prevails, despite 1948. Is there not some irony in the fact that Jon Stewart admits to another learned guest on May 2 that his appearance has been overshadowed by this philandering murderer’s murder?

Stewart’s final guest on his May 2 evening show was a lawyer. Philip K. Howard had written a book entitled The Death of Common Sense. Wow, it takes a lawyer to tell us that our nations are being ‘suffocated’ by lawyers!

What we all might want to think about is that, on the same day that I finally went to Stewart’s May 2 video clip, I received an email from an independent thinking Canadian friend of mine. If the reader of this email (or blog) goes to my http://TakeBackDemocracy.ca web page, the one “About the Law”, then you will find extracts of the 1948 international law. Canada and the United States and 46 other “democracies” signed onto it in that year. These nations then began to blatantly ignore that law. You will have to read, struggle through, my posted Part 6 “fine print” posted at my book’s site, http://JustBusinessTheBook.com (and, yes, it is undergoing intense editing to change its hastily-written flaws). There, you will come to understand, especially if you read the whole book, how lawyers became the epitome of slime three years after the trials at Nuremberg began to march along.

What even Jon Stewart needs to think about is this: when does ‘education’ become indoctrination? After all, I watched Stewart blathering on with another “legal expert”, “trained in the law”, who explained that America’s law makers had made the law theirs and hence impossible to change. Apparently what happened in 1949 in America is acceptable because “legal experts” tell us “this must be”? After all, the law of 1948 promised us that racism and sexism and partisan exclusions and all other forms of discrimination would end in 48 “democratic nations” in 1949.

Instead, in America and Canada, it took race riots and two decades of marching to end the simplest, most visible discrimination of segregation based on colour of skin.

If such base injustice can last so long, even Stewart needs to be challenged as to why he buys into the indoctrinations by the indoctrinated “legal professionals”. Stewart, and all other readers of this communication, might want to think about how this is enabled. What my Canadian friend noted in his email commentary, about Canada’s latest “elected dictatorship”, is relevant.

My friend took note of this gem, recorded in Canada’s Supremest of Courts, again and again: " ... The constitution of Canada does not belong either to Parliament, or to the Legislatures; it belongs to the country and it is there that the citizens of the country will find the protections of the rights to which they are entitled." - A.G. Nova Scotia and A.G. Canada [1951] SCR 31 at p. 34...”. This 1951 extraction is oft quoted into Canada’s courts. I quoted it into courts starting in 2003.

What we should remember is what happened after 1951. The indoctrination, that even Jon Stewart falls hook, line and sinker for, plays too much into why we have lost credibility in our “democracies”. We need to muse on why tyrants and violence seem our only recourse to ‘change’. Might it be that we allow the nonsense of lawyers to prevail over “common sense”? We need to muse on why our structures for peaceful change, namely our voting systems, are now sessions for cynicism in our nations. We seem united only when some politician is successful at making someone else our enemy and, hence, the culprit for our own sad failures.

Our constitutions are “laws”. Our law of 1948 became an international constitution. Even lawyers, promoted to Canada’s supremest of courts by 1951, allowed that the law should never become the property of any one sector of society. So, why have we, even the supposedly educated Jon Stewart, fallen into the trap that “the law” is now the sole property of “the legal expert”, the lawyer?

Why do we forget that Nuremberg became a trial for lawyers? These were people who were promoted by Nazi partisans so that “new laws” could eliminate the basic common sense that prevailed in our world, even before 1939. There was no right imbued in any society for anyone to murder anyone simply because they were different. Instead, the base naivete shown by even Stewart becomes that, if a new law is made by lawyers and enforced by partisan courts, then we must accept this, even into 2011.

Do we assign this parameter of behaviour in Tunisia and Libya and Egypt? Do we expect responsible citizenry to stand up against those who tell us that they are the law when we know that they are gross violators of the laws of human decency?
If we listen to the common man and common sense, we just might become brave young Arabs in our own small worlds. We just might return to seeking truly democratic leaders instead of settling for the pompous priests of the likes of rich men like Trump and indeed a President named Obama.

The reader might want to think about what my wise Canadian friend said in an email to Parliamentarians after the Canadian election. He is not trained as a lawyer, but, like me, forced by circumstances created by lawyers and their political friends, he has read too many laws. Therefore, while talking about how the latest ‘elected dictatorship’ in Canada is still beholden to all citizens and our constitution, my friend makes this wise observation: “... it is only by the mere fact of the parliamentary convention created by politicians within the party system's guise of "responsible government", that we are forced to endure the notions of "minority" and "majority government" -- the latter of which puts everyone opposed to a Government's agenda (as now most of Canada is in regards to Harper's take on "free trade" and the tar sands and... ) in the role of a starving Oliver Twist, empty bowl in hand, before a miserly Mr. Bumble. Don't know about you, but I don't put much stock in making prayer and/or supplication to those who've been profiting from our undoing. Similarly, I don't put much stock in "leaders" who do. ...”.

For those who do not fully understand what is being said here, you might want to go to the relevant parts of my book. There I discuss the illegalities behind Canada’s (and America’s) “electoral” systems, but especially my experiences in Canada’s. Let me summarize why, yes, electoral corruption has corrupted our democracies. But only because partisan corrupted courts protect corrupted voting systems.

In 1997, the rawly created Canadian Action Party tried to recruit me. In 1997, they fielded 58 candidates in Canada’s federal election. My book makes a record of the behind the scenes fiascoes that led me to stay away from party politics. What is relevant is this consideration.

By 2004, I had discovered the depth of partisan appointments to Canada’s courts. I was warning even the Canadian Action Party’s newest “leader”, Connie Fogal, to think carefully. Fogal, another indoctrinated lawyer, was leading that Party into the financial duress of challenging Canada’s newest electoral rules in Canada’s courts. Having run in three elections with over 50 candidates in Canada’s federal elections of 1997, 2000 and 2004, that fledgling party was publicly claiming financial election fatigue. The Conservatives, Liberals and New Democrats, and even Canada’s separatist Bloc Quebecois Party of Quebec, were conveniently draining taxed coffers to filter taxed money back into their campaign coffers. Fogal’s party was protesting that this redirection of taxes was unfair. Her party declined because of a declining ability to retain enough finances to generate propaganda of their own.

I warned lawyer Fogal that she was appearing in front of “judges” with partisan backgrounds. I warned Fogal and her friends that these “judges” were saying, again and again, in response to my own civil arguments in Canada’s supremest of courts, that “the government” must be allowed to make whatever new laws they needed to. Fogal and her band of the indoctrinated lost because lawyers are indoctrinated to believe that partisan judges are above reproach.

And the politicians in power use their propaganda to promote that the citizen is too stupid to listen to our history.

Even during an election in 2011.

Will Jon Stewart and others think about this?

I refused to vote in this election. I registered why at my blog and in emails to politicians and others. I knew friends who also did not vote. One subsequently expressed some guilt about this.

After all, a friend of hers was a volunteer driver for one of Canada’s big three political parties. This friend had picked up an elderly lady of Ukrainian descent, a supposedly “responsible voter” in Canada’s Thunder Bay. This lady, of Ukrainian history, expressed anger and disgust at any Canadian who did not vote in 2011.

This, this elderly lady said, as she rode in a car sponsored by a big Canadian party, rich enough from our taxes to recruit “volunteers” to make the elderly feel good about themselves, was because of history. She was from the Ukraine where the vote had been denied.

This becomes the base for the stupidity of our modern hypocrisy and indoctrination. Why do I dare to say that? Because my ex was from an Ukrainian heritage. I know this base history.

First, the Ukraine was overrun by Nazis who said that anyone who aligned with them would be justly rewarded with imposed slavery. All others would be executed. Then the Ukraine was overrun by communists who said that their political party would be the only one that would be legally allowed for any citizen who wanted to vote.

So, will the likes of Jon Stewart educate themselves to the truth behind Canada and America’s pretence at “democracy”? Or, will they subvert their responsibilities to the indoctrinated and a continuing indoctrination? Nazis and communists allowed “a vote” at various stages of their histories. Because we “have the vote”, we are “democracies”? The hypocrisy of this is revealed after Canada’s 2011 election when I talked to my parents. I did that on the same day that I was musing about my friend’s email. And that Uke lady.

I am following up Mother’s Day in Canada with a call to my parents. The conversation somehow gets to the election held one week previous. My mother confesses that she and my 94-year old father voted “Conservative”. I am shocked, I tell her. I wonder why she would vote for these modern Nazis, I say. She becomes defensive. They have voted based on the local candidates. They are old. They had some problems getting old age supplements redirected in the previous year. The local Liberal provincial parliament representative was not helpful at all. After bureaucrats told them that they would have to wait two months to get money they were desperate for, the Conservative federal parliamentarian leapt into action. My parents' supplement arrived in 6 days time. Why would they not vote for this Conservative man?

The worst commentary from her became “What credible options did we have?”

Despite our “freedoms”, our ballots have become constricted options where the citizens see only big political parties as their options. The citizens see it as their obligation to tick off one box on their ballot. They do so, even if they do not like the options. They do so, especially if they see that they might personally gain or are rewarding those who helped them gain.

All of this commentary comes after I receive mid-election-campaining e-mails from “Independent” candidates. I had first met these people over the internet after the 2006 federal election. Eduard Hiebert and Tim Hickey exchange emails after Hiebert sends emails out noting how unfair Canada’s 2011 electoral system is.

But, you see, those who survived World Wars and fled to Canada to escape pogroms will not ask why they have listened only to the propaganda on Canadian airwaves, about political parties. Propaganda, that the responsible citizen should vote, is spouted by the partisan-implicated Canadian media well before the “official” election announcement is made. The old Ukrainian lady and even my father, who trained to lay down his life in a war where only the Nazi partisan was allowed, will not ask why the independent candidate is not speaking in advertisements at the same time that Liberal and Conservative and New Democratic Party advertisements appear. These big party ads appear before an election is called. The elderly people will not make the connection.

Their taxed dollars are first taken away so that they are redistributed to those who make new rules in our nations as to who will be allowed to have voice in our nations and when. Our taxes are then paid to “our free media” so that “voice” will be made by those with money.

Unfortunately, Hiebert and Hickey perpetuate the propaganda. After all, if their names make a ballot, then all must be good in our “democracies”? It does not matter that these big political parties drain the coffers of our taxes to make propaganda that leads that old Ukrainian lady and my war-surviving parents to think that, if they have an option to listen to these three, big, political parties shout that they are better than all others, all must be well. It must be because, in Canada and America, we get to listen to at least 2 big political parties, rich enough to advertise that they are our best and only “credible” option!

Who cares how illegal it becomes when this propaganda hides the truth. The constitutional obligations of equality have been suppressed for the easy propaganda that, if we do not vote, “we” are irresponsible. Vote without thinking. Like those good communists did for the only-allowed political party of propaganda in that old Ukraine.

The stupidity of this is too readily illustrated to an even greater depth in Canada on May 2, 2011. This is because the Canadian media is full of this report.

A lady named Brosseau has been elected in the province of Quebec. In an apparent backlash against all other options, the people of Quebec vote for Jack Layton. He is ‘New Democrat’. At least he is not Conservative. At least he is not Liberal. At least he is not Bloc Quebecois. So, the simpleton voters vote for Ms. Brosseau. She, after all, is listed as the New Democratic Party’s potential representative for these citizens.

She is sitting in New Democratic Party headquarters in some Ontario city. She is just returned from a gambling junket to America’s Las Vegas. She is astonished to see that the official results make her the elected representative for a Quebec electoral riding. The Canadian media is full of reporting that she has never once stepped on the geography of this part of Canada. Its citizenry has now put her into Canada’s Parliament, simply because her name is associated with Jack Layton’s New Democrats.

So, old lady from the Ukraine and even my parents, who was the responsible voter in this election? The citizens who showed up to vote on the basis of their self-interests having been served, like my parents? Does it matter what the same Conservatives now elected or appointed to Canada’s Senate (read about Bob Runciman and that former Ontario copper named Julian Fantino in my book) did to our constitution and even their own son starting in 2002? Or are the irresponsible really the voters of Quebec who acted like the Germans before 1936 and voted for a man they thought would best serve their interests? Because they saw no other options.

A commune heist is still a commune heist when the communist is still someone in the same house saying that the citizen has enough choices while the citizen despises the commune heists no matter the brand name of the jesters. Or simply votes for the commune heist, not realizing that the commune has been already heisted.

Who was the ‘eligible voter’ who was irresponsible? Yes, those who stay silent to all of this are culpable in the measure of responsible behaviour. However, the truly responsible ones are the ones who dared to register with the Elections Commissioner, politicians and all others that this federal election was an illegal farce in 2011, because our constitution had been completely violated... Since 1982. ... And it was illegal because our elected have engaged their lawyer friends who made our laws and our courts theirs and their partisan friends all powerful.

The “citizen”, who merely marked a ballot, is irresponsible. The citizen who marked while not caring about why they had limited options and heard little else beyond voices from the commune of partisan pretentiousness is as irresponsible. The citizen who then voted willingly but unwittingly for someone that 75% of the rest of citizenry did not want to vote for is no hero in our “democratic” nations.

If we apply the common sense that comes out of Iraq and Tunisia and other Arabian nations, the common sense is set in those nations. IF we were truly responsible citizens, we would refuse to legitimize the systems that our “leaders” have corrupted with the help of corrupting “legal professionals”.

It all comes back to recognizing our history and starting to respect the law of 1948 that came out of that history. Let us use “independent thinking” as an example.
Independent thinking? If our constitution calls us all equals, why do we buy into the precept that, if it is not a political party or an association of some kind, then the citizen who speaks independently bears no condition of equality?

I do not know the conditions of electoral eligibility in the United States of America. I do know that, in 2008, I drove through the State of Michigan and listened to candidates for “judges” using paid advertisements. These hid their sponsored affiliations with Democrats or Republicans. I do know that, in Canada, I faced lawyers and “judges” who had original loyalties registered with the limited partisan affiliations of Liberals or Conservatives and rarely New Democrats. I do know that, in 2006, when I first encountered Hiebert and Hickey, I began to argue that it was ludicrous that even independent thinkers had to form “associations” for democracy to be served.

“Independent Thinkers”? History? Bin Laden? A little bit of irony in Canada’s history.

One of the first, registered “officially independent thinkers” in Canada’s federal electoral history was Manitoba’s Louis Riel. To educate the likes of Jon Stewart and others, Riel became a rebel. He was eventually forced to take up the gun to try to defend the rights of his Metis nation. Acclaimed as an independent in 1873, the democratic voice of Riel was overwhelmed by the arrogance of party dictatorships. Riel was eventually hung by federal government. It was not until recently that Riel became recognized as a real Canadian leader whom big political parties had wanted suppressed as a threat to their omnipotence.

Do we really know the whole story of Bin Laden and why he felt compelled to undertake violence to promote and protect the perceived rights of his people? Worse, do we ensure that we have truly democratic institutions that will allow the truth to be exposed and dealt with? My personal experience is that we do not.

In 2006, I started to engage independent thinkers in an attempt to bring accountability to our constitution back into Canada’s electoral system. In reviewing the history of this part of our political spectrum, the following interesting aspects arise. The numbers I now present are quick counts and rough ratios.

Since Canada’s inception in 1867, the number of candidates applying to represent Canadians as an elected “Independent” was relatively insignificant. Fewer than 10 candidates appear as independents in most earlier elections. Ironically, after battling partisans in WWII, this number surged to 68 candidates in Canada’s 1945 post-war June election. The number fell back down to relative insignificance, near 10% of the total number of Parliamentarians, until after 1972.

By 1972, separation was being hotly debated in Canada’s Province of Quebec. Creeping back up over 50, the number of independent candidates spiked at (about) 71 in 1984. That was the first full federal election in Canada after Canada’s “we are all equals!” constitution arrived in 1982.

What becomes disturbing and ironic is that, by 1993, the credibility of Canada’s three federal parties was in question. Not only did the satirical Rhinoceros Party come uncomfortably close to unseating some of the major party candidates. About 122 Independent candidates were also officially registered in that election. Consider that, in 2011, only 155 of Canada’s 308 seats are required to grant a “governing majority” under the new rules made by ruling partisans. It was clear, in 1993, that the major political party’s of Canada faced a serious threat from persons who did not buy into the concept that only the big political parties should rule us.

When I was asked to consider running in the 1997 federal election, I began to discover that our federal parties had changed “taxed financing eligibility” rules to “percentage of votes achieved” ratios. This made it nearly impossible for fledgling political parties to get established with any voice. After all, new parties, like the Canadian Action Party that tried to recruit me in 1997, first drained their coffers fighting the already established advertising by Canada’s big 3 political parties. Then the new rules set by these big political parties ensured that the new political party would be exempted from access to four years of taxation. Meanwhile, the big political party continued to campaign with renewed coffers replenished by taxed dollars.

By 2006, when I explored running as an Independent, I understood how the “new rules” excluded independent voice. In 2006, there were 88 Independent candidates. This was, in part, spurred by the appearance of once party members of the Liberal and Conservative factions who publicly stated that being independent was more important than being servile to the big political parties. Hope arose for those thinking like independents. However, by 2008, with the trotting across Canada’s Parliamentary floors (read the book or the blog at my book’s site for the partisan horse-trading stories on Brison, Turner, Emerson, Comuzzi and so forth, without a vote), it was publicly acknowledged that even the elected independent in Parliament was discriminated against.

So, Ms. Ukrainian and my parents stay silent to the implications of that base fact. The few elected Independents that did exist in 2008 disappeared in the 2011 election. After all, why would a fatigued citizen vote for anyone labelled as “independent” when Garth Turner, a once “journalist”, and Joe Comuzzi, a once lawyer, said by 2008 that the label “independent” purposely removed them from any opportunity to make voice ‘for their citizens’ in our Parliaments.

So, Canada’s citizens stayed silent to the obvious discrimination that this implies. No one questioned the repeat of history where partisans illegally changed the rules of governance so that they prospered and other voices were shut out.
How did this happen? Because, as in the commune Ukraine, the commune's of elected Big Party members and their partisan lawyers and their appointed partisan-implicated judges all said that there were enough political parties. Therefore, the propaganda conveniently became that it was the citizen who was irresponsible if they did not vote.

This is why a 29 year old beleaguered lady in the breeding stables of Osama Bin Laden is relevant to the mixed up politics of North America in May 2011.

Sorry. I have been in too many court rooms since 2002. Read the book. Contrary to what Canada’s “legal profession” tells us (and I suspect that the same applies to Americans), “justice” is not what our lawyers have made it: a plethora of rules that belies any common sense. Canada’s laws state that, no matter what the judge and the lawyer may tell us, “justice” is to be seen as something that any citizen would see as just. Not just the lawyers.

So, yes, Jon Stewart should start to ask lawyers why we should view them with any more credibility than the judges and lawyers and bureaucrats in places like Tunisia and Libya and Egypt. There, citizens have finally stood up to say that the institutions of those nations no longer have any credibility because they have lost all common sense and any sense of what justice really is. The question becomes what it takes for citizens in supposedly real “democracies” to demand the same from their corrupted and corrupting “leaders”.

Instead of standing up for our constitution, my try in 2006 to arouse independent thinkers into independent action deteriorated into a debate of people seeking political alliances. They wanted to gain the taxed dollars allowed by “those rules”. “Those rules”, I warn again, were passed by partisan lawyers and then protected by partisan judges.

I wonder if this complicit submissiveness is what happened in those nations that Jon Stewart applauds in the Arabian part of our world? Did the independent thinkers in those nations bow to the rules of those who broke the laws of democratic considerations? Or did they simply stand together to say “enough of this!”? The public record is that they defied the “new laws” of their “leaders” so that principles of real justice could be exposed. The risk becomes that they have no geography in our world that can really demonstrate that they know what justice and democracy really are. America is rapidly proving that it is no example to these “emerging democracies”.

Not only do our big political parties hope for voter fatigue so that they retain power. Our big, partisan-linked “legal professionals” spout off that we must “respect the law”. So, yes, the dilemma is exposed, yes, in relation to that 29-something wife of Bin Laden’s.

Common sense would tell us that, if Bin Laden’s nations of refuge were truly democratic, his wives would be equals. Common sense tells us that the women of places like Afghanistan and other places should not suffer criminal assaults simply because they are women. Common sense tells us that, if these situations were occurring in North America, the principal means of stopping these violations of rights should not be that the victim would be forced to protect their rights after a criminal assault had begun. The rules of common sense tell us that the primary role of our courts should be to protect constitutional rights through civil courts, before the citizen is criminally abused.

Common sense also tells us that, if the principal is that religious intolerance should not be a factor in the grievances of such oppressed women, then the woman should not be forced to appear before a judge who is appointed by the religious order that made the new rules to take away a woman's rights.

So, why do Canadians, and Americans, stay silent to the fact that the public record is that even George Bush became a President in 2000 because partisan judges ruled the courts? Why do Canadians stay silent and dumb to the fact that police in Canada pay into partisan parties that promise more police powers, even as our rights to our democratic institutions are diminished by the same partisans?

The unfortunate lessons from our history are that civil rights are the last thing that our courts and politicians have any motive to protect and uphold. After all, bloody murder gained more attention than two decades of civil oppression, after 1948. It was not until the civil oppression started desperate riots and ground wars with internal soldiers in both Canada and America that suddenly constitutional civil rights to racial equality gained any “common sense”. This should have happened in the courts of all democracies. These courts should have been protecting those rights the minute the 1948 law was passed

In obvious matters related to racism, First Nations in Canada face the same dilemma for over 2 centuries now. Civil courts do not solve breaches of treaties. It is not until First Nation activists build blockades that civil rights become something to consider. So, yes, we bear no greater credibility in Afghanistan and other nations because of our own illegal situations in our own courts and other democratic institutions.

This did not all happen through the failure of the citizenry. Indeed, the record is that the likes of Eleanor Roosevelt petitioned her Presidential husband during World War II to end the USA’s racial segregation. Unfortunately, the partisans entrenched into our institutions of democracy were keen on retaining power, not on retaining credibility to international promises. The lawyers let the common sense from WWII fail us all. Read Part 6 of my book, especially, to understand this.

So, we have a decision to make. Do we set an example to generations to come or do we continue to allow those who rule us to perpetuate the illegalities against us?
My position is that I will not allow the common sense of our constitutions, our history and our international laws, which came out of that history, to continue to be defied and defiled. So, yes, while I work on re-editing my book into something that is acceptable to the masses, I make these small stands. As a common sense citizen.

I refuse to participate in an election that has been made illegal by violations of international law, starting in 1949, and of Canada’s constitution, since 1982. I send copy of this communication to those who are responsible. I warn them that, in time, they will be forced to resign or to face Criminal charges.

The problem is not my parents nor that naive Ukrainian lady nor the gullible people in a riding in Quebec. They are not violating our laws when they exercise the vote. That does not remove the culpability of those persons of elected or judicial or appointed bureaucratic positions. The illegal fact remains that the partisan judges in our courts have taken away all of our options. They have made their partisan friends our only option for “leadership” every four years. BUT, as Nuremberg demonstrates, the eager bureaucrat or soldier or police man, who is warned to stop allowing the illegal, becomes as culpable as those who direct them. Especially if they continue to participate in the illegal actions.

It is our right to make daily voice about the problems we see to expose the options that we have for our representative voices. It is the legally compelled obligation of completely impartial courts to protect those rights.

So, when a provincial government, saying that it is controlled by Liberals, sends me illegal harassment in the middle of a federal election, warning me to file “2008 corporation tax reports”, I also enclose print off of this document. It goes to provincial officials. This is because the record is that I warned them and our “institutions of justice”, starting in 2003. I continue to write to these arrogant people and warn them of the depth of corruption exposed in my book. I warn them, and their bureaucrats, with every attempt they make to harass and intimidate, via taxed dollars.

The illegalities leading to my illegal arrest of 2004 remain unresolved because our courts have become the property of lawyers, not of the original law. Unlike what exists in those Arabian nations that Stewart holds much hope for, in Canada, this activity by our “leaders” is punishable under our laws. It is their illegal manipulation that has made our courts, our laws and our democratic institutions irrelevant.

So, when another eager temporary bureaucrat shows up at my door, do I accept that I must do as “the government” says I must? I do not. A young university student assures me one week after our election that she does not care if I fill out Canada’s Short Form Census. Then she says that if I do not, I could face a $1,000 fine or 6 months in jail.

In nations that have bankrupted the rule of law, do we allow “the bureaucrat” and “the government” to intimidate and harass when the base rights of democracy are illegally denied? Or, do we take the stance of brave young Arabians to say that we will not accept any of the rules from tyrants to prevail while real justice and democracy are denied?

I refused the Census. The young student received the Rare Book #95 of my book Just Business. She protested that she was a mere University student with no time to read my tome. I told her to take her book to her supervisors. This essay now goes to the newly elected, learned head of Canada’s census bureaucracy.

Ironically, it now comes down to this.

On the last evening of editing this essay, an old bureaucratic work associate appeared in my back yard. Curious as to what I was doing that night, our conversation eventually wandered over to his daughters. At least one of them used to enter my basement to play with my daughter’s dolls years ago. One is now entering University in the next year.

I told him that I no longer recognize these girls. They used to be fair and blonde. They are now dark-haired. He admonished me. He had been fair-haired as a child. His hair darkened as his teen-aged hormones kicked in. Eventually the suggestion became that this was probably a genetic trait from his family’s relatively pure Dutch heritage.

Like most people, this man is a nice man. However, he is a professional forester whose personal actions will gain him some criticism in my second book. Others have referred to him as somewhat of a “wuss” when it comes to uncomfortable, but responsible, decision making. These are the types that make things good for the politicians only. These kinds of bureaucrats are favoured by politicians. I suppose that he is on his way to a comfortable retirement. This complacent compliance, after all, a good bureaucrat makes!

But it is the despicable denial of our history that should concern us in these places.

He mused that this genetic trait of blonde versus black-haired Dutch persons had a history in the overrunning of the Dutch nation. He made the mistake of musing that his forbearers’ home lands had been relatively stable in recent centuries. They had not warred, he mused.

Immediately, visions of my father in 1942 training uniform arose. Immediately, the documentaries showing Canadians being mowed down on Dutch soil in 1945, as that nation was liberated, came to my mind. And so I gently scolded him by saying that, no, the Dutch had simply let others fight their battles to save them from anarchy.

That evening encounter, on a Friday of May 13 that some would call unlucky, happened after another CBC program aired an interview with another young Egyptian. A man who had lost an eye in the demonstrations that led to hope, this man showed some more naivete. He arrived in near bankrupt America to solicit financial and moral support to create new economy in a newly emerging “democracy”. This may be naivete for the uninitiated. It is stupidity for those of us who have sent our generations into WWII to stop the control of democratic institutions by the self-serving partisan.

This young man showed some wisdom when he said that he sought honest economy for the people of his nation. He quoted the citizens of Egypt who said that they did not want to steal so that they did not starve. So, why is it that we assign any hope when our options become the dishonest business from the likes of Donald Trump, who claim that “democracy” is simply the right to their greed while others starve?

What role does this “democratic” idiocy have in the creation of desperate anarchists like Bin Laden? What lessons have we learned from Marie Antoinette’s “Let them eat cake!”?

Stupid leaders lead to stupidly violent revolutions so that people do not starve.

The question, for Jon Stewart and others, becomes when responsible citizens start to stand in peaceful demonstration in North America to end the illegal anarchy that has hijacked our democracies. Do we take on the bravery of those young Arabians whom we applaud? Or do we become passive Dutch men and women, hoping that someone else will arrive to save us?

Have we learned anything from our history?

“VOICE”: The Hypocrisy of Election 2011

2011-04-29T19:11:00.000-04:00

“VOICE”: The Hypocrisy of Election 2011 .... Have The Courage

Curly-haired, an almost lovable-hippy image. Yup, that is what appears in my Nipigon mail box.

Evidently, many around town think that they should be proud to have their Reeve Richard Harvey spending our tax dollars. Those are redirected taxes no matter how you do the math. Our taxes go to produce a fancy mailout. Handsome Richard announces in bold type that he is “VOICE” for the “Thunder Bay-Superior North” electoral riding that I sit in. Ironic that, by flipping the newsprint ad rapidly, it almost appears that Stephen Harper is hugging Harvey’s family nearest the point where Harvey’s front-page-plopped nether parts sit. The image of Harper is not near Harvey’s heart. And that is the heart of this electoral matter.

“Democracy” is now all about “image” as it was in the nether lands of our world’s history. So, why would we not concentrate on Richard’s whitened teeth over the complete lack of teeth, and credibility, in this advertising idiocy? And, the continuing illegal hypocrisy of all of it?

Why?

Because Harvey’s supposed first words, by his own hand (must be, because his name appears under the words, not his signature, mind you), by his hand some face are “Only a strong economy makes it possible to fund the programs and services that all Canadians require”.

If this were true, then the headlines in Canadian business reports would not be of “expert” economists sucking in their sphincter valves again. More doom and gloom about the international economy, on the back of our good ol’ neighbour, the USA, appeared in every major international business newspaper on April 28, 2010.

What Harvey and his butt buddy Harper want us all to forget is that Canada is rolling along with the high rolling demand for commodities. Meanwhile others, including too many Canadians, suffer from the backlash of dishonesty in business. Dishonesty in business led to the current economic turmoil. But, what does Harvey’s propaganda do to assure us that this fact is indeed recognized?

Even from his own history.

Nothing. Indeed Harvey is the biggest hypocrite. He hides his own sad history in all of this dishonesty in business. He hides what he failed to do about it in 2009 in his elected position in his town. Harvey stayed silent to injustice in his community just because his hand had glad-handed the hand of Harper for some of that good tax money for Harvey’s claim to “hometown” morality.

Harvey is no moral man. He glad-handed with Harper for our taxes for his self promotion while citizens in our communities were told that there is no money for justice.

No, we are not even told IF this printed propaganda is outright fraud. Is it indeed Harvey’s own words or is it reprinted for every Conservative candidate so that they mouth the terms of their party? And their leader? We are told to accept that, because the advertising is approved by the latest Conservative Party, we should forget the history of this political party and all others. We should just accept that Harvey will indeed represent us all, as he promises anew while he did not by 2008.

Because the words appear at our expense with his name and picture beside them, they are freely his? These words are not from the donkeys, or asses, who created an election that Canadians did not want? Again. Or is Harvey indeed accountable in 30 days of published propaganda that may just give him and his buds power none of us want any of them to have?

The biggest fraud becomes this statement above the picture, that shows the Harvey family gladly hugging beaming Mr. Harper: “Raising a community”. What community, pray tell?

The answer comes from this farce called Election 2011 which continues the farces of recent elections in Canada.

We apparently are expected to suffer a lesson in short print in how Harvey’s life history makes him affable, not laughable. But, we should be concerned because the last paragraph links to the titular title by assuring us all of this: “... Richard Harvey is a businessman who is currently the Mayor of Nipigon. As a father, he deals with the issues of raising a family every day. As a Mayor, he deals with the issues of raising a community.”

Hmmm. Read the book, Just Business. Read Part 6 and the Final Chapters, especially. They make a short record of Harvey’s record when it came to protecting honesty in business and principled justice in our nation.

Mr. Harvey had an opportunity to show, by 2008, that he understood that honesty in business was critical to making strong economies. Mr. Harvey had an opportunity to demonstrate that he understood that, when one dime of our taxes is redirected to the friends of Conservatives or for propaganda from any political party while justice is denied even only one citizen, Criminal conduct occurs. Visit http://JustBusinessTheBook.com to access that story.

But, at least start to think about this.

For the third election since Harper’s Conservatives reorganized from other radical conservative factions, a friend from Manitoba has tried to run as an independent. When Harvey’s ad appeared, I revisited Hiebert’s recent email, petitioning for support. The allegations are that over 60% of Canadians did not want an election. Again.

I am pondering this as I listen to CBC’s programming on Wednesday night as I wait for the 9 pm news. Fed up with all of this, I rarely listen to our main media anymore. This is because they make it about “the vote” not about the anarchy behind this “electioneering” farce. When the corruption is from all political parties and our media becomes part of it, no wonder that the citizens despair.

And they do.

Another friend reads a political cartoon from Thunder Bay’s badly written rag called The Source, published as this election began. The issue with my friend is the grammar used. The issue that we should think about is that everyone still applauded the cartoon’s perception that politicians start these elections for their own benefit, not giving a damn about the electorate.

Yes, think deeply about that. The messages are rampant out there. The public does not want what these politicians tell us we are now obliged to deal with. And, the idiocy comes from the national news network called our CBC. I am forced to endure three advertisements, “free”, we are told, on a taxed air wave. I endure the repeat tactics of the Marxist Leninist Communist Party. They cannot afford Harvey’s party’s paid ads that tell us, again and again, that the Conservatives are “... fighting the ... Ignatieff-NDP-Bloc Quebecois Coalition ...”. Tactics of the commies, these Conservatives and Liberals and NDP and so on. Repetitive blaring through the mouths of our main media assures us that we have no options beyond joining the community of the Conservatives or the Liberals and on and on.

But, what option do the 60% plus in our community have, who want none of the above?

The idiocy is that we are forced to endure the voice of the Marijuana Party. Their ad is not repetitive in the short minutes that their representative “officially” was allowed to speak. At least the repetitive dogma is not blatantly obvious. That is, until we listen to the part that says that the ad is endorsed by that obscure party.

So, the repetitive propaganda that we are fed is that we must endure party politics and that we have no options.

Unfortunately, the Marijuana Party rep speaks more coherently than the Conservative ad-libber who follows. “Their party” at least recognizes the anger and disillusionment. However, while forecasting the “lowest voter turnout ever!”, the Marijuana representative then exhorts us to vote for his party. For a party whose main focus is the legalization of more drugs?

But, what is worse than that? It is having to listen to the propaganda by Conservatives that they are for immigrants. This, says the ad, is true as long as the immigrant buys into the Conservative definition of what “being Canadian” really is.

“Community.” We should be scared as hell that the likes of Harvey and his gang of misfits want to define what that will be for us all.

It should scare the hell out of us that our electoral processes have been kidnapped by a bunch of partisans who say that, as long as we buy into their propaganda, they will treat us right. Join their community and we will all be better off, becomes the mantra.

But, most scarey of all? It should scare the hell out of all that anyone, wanting to make a complaint about any of this fraudulent use of our money to our exclusion of independent voice, will face judicial officials who once were members of these political parties!

It should scare the hell out of all citizens that we allow ourselves to be told by the likes of Harvey that we have no other option beyond this latest election.

We do.

And it is to NOT vote as any of these donkeys using our taxes to build their propaganda would have us do, when our vote IS indeed irrelevant in 2011.

Visit http://TakeBackDemocracy.ca, “About Law” and “Stop the Fraud” to understand why we need courage. NOW.

What About the Real Crime in Canada The Removal of Voice

2011-04-26T20:56:00.000-04:00

I am continuing my tour. I am dumping my book off to “educators of ethics”. I am now short a book as I leave Vancouver Island.

This is because I have met an artisan who talks the politics of the day. She has an 18 year old son who is starting to get actively interested. He does not know how to get engaged. She is encouraging his interest in politics but is dismayed with the options and the history. But, after my patient listening to her explanation of her art and the story behind many of her pieces, I guess she feels obliged. Her face registers her concern, astonishment and dismay as she is given the short summary of my story in a period of minutes.

She says that she will read the book. And so, I eventually arrive in the Vancouver airport to suffer a six hour wait for another air plane, to Edmonton this time. I am one book lighter than I had intended, in my Edmonton baggage. But, the baggage of dealing with people who say that they are the epitome of ethics in my society is now measured by this.

It is better to feed the stone to the gullet of the willing bird-reader than to take the risk of throwing the same stone-book at a higher flying bird of our society. The risk is just having the book either ignored or “shit upon”, as a good friend on Vancouver Island often says. The high flying birds in our society seem wont to do that, shit on the story, without the book even being opened. Of the 18 "stones" delivered to eastern Canada's "epitome of ethical educators", 5 have been returned unopened. This happens despite the "registered letters", even to my old alma mater, suggesting that our "ethical" start to prove that they are. "No", the answer becomes, they simply do not have time.

This happens in Canada even as editors out of the USA indicate an interest in publishing this Canadian story but "next year", because they have already committed to "this year's" publication. This happens as Liberals controlling Ontario use our bureaucratic system to send more bureaucratic harassment while failing to meet the legal conditions of accessible and impartial justice, as set in international and constitutional laws. And fail the standard of these laws in electoral law. In my case, this has gone on since 2000 (visit the "About Law" button at http://TakeBackDemocracy.ca web page and the full story at http://JustBusinessTheBook.com ).

Think about this as our current "leaders" throw out idiocy about "getting tough on crime".

Think about this as you consider IF you should educate yourself to a story about corrupted democracy. Think some more about what follows as you try to decide IF you should take the time to visit the author’s diatribes on election 2011.

In the Vancouver airport, I was forced to suffer the Canadian version of the propaganda immersion that is detested, by "democratic us", in still existent communist nations. I walk by monitor after monitor. Peter Mansbridge is replaced sometimes by some cute lady of the moment with the same old news.

Jack Layton must suddenly find a new way to project that he too can be rough on crime so that his gains in the Quebec polls are not lost to mainstream party shouts that they WILL be “tough on crime”. I walk away from this hypocrisy. And, yes, I dare to call it even illegal hypocrisy because of what I have already posted at my TakeBackDemocracy.ca page, especially at the “About Law” and “Stop the Fraud” pages.

I walk away from the propaganda, but think on this real life parable that happens on the very next day.

It is April 19. It is a cold spring day in cold Edmonton. But, despite the briskness of the wind, I decide that I will walk to the University of Alberta campus. I have been cooped up in too many airports and cars. I need the exercise. It becomes an exercise in the exposure of the repetitive hypocrisy of those who say that they are best as Canada’s dictatorship for the, they hope, next four years.

Layton has crowed that Canadians need to vote for him because the Liberals and Conservatives have a history of broken promises. Layton stays silent to the history of his own party when it is empowered. In British Columbia. In Manitoba. In Ontario, in the days when now-Liberal traitor named Bob Rae was once the traitorous “leader” of a New Democratic regime.

The propaganda has been so rampant that even Layton and others think that they can get away with the premise that Canadians do not need good leadership so that the unforeseen can be dealt with rationally and responsibly. They have made “democracy” about “promises” that should never have been made in the first place. They care not that they are supposed to be leaders not readers of gutted entrails that have no significance to the real world that is developing daily.

And, on April 19, 2011, none of Canada’s wanna be leaders, including Elizabeth May of the Greens, will admit to the reality of what I then encountered.

I am walking back from the University of Alberta. I have already walked by a man who is slightly younger than me. He would be classified as homeless. He seems to be someone who could be me. He is “clean cut”. He is not clean, because he is obviously living on the streets. But he is not the ragged derelict who wanders muttering by. He seems sane and he has a system. He is working the double queue of vehicles passing by the island that he is walking down with his sign. He is asking for handouts “to survive”.

I am thinking that, in many cities, many will say that the man should simply go get a job.

And then I walk by the bar, the liquor store. There are signs assuring the public that a cold one will solve all of their problems. I am not a man who believes in prohibition. But, neither am I a man who believes that any corporation in my nation should be able to grow richer while in denial of the depth of the problem created by their dishonesty, to even their product, to the degradation of any human being.

I am barely past these signs when I see the lady. She is nearly a half block away. Still, I can see the bruising on her left cheek. There is a First Nation man, who is as beat up, staggering in front of her. He falls on the sidewalk and rests his body as she stops beside me. She is pushing the atypical shopping cart of the homeless. It is full of filthy old comforters and blankets. These are obviously their nightly shelter.

It is as I suspect. She pauses. Her friend is sprawled a hundred yards down the road. She asks, begs for a handout. I refuse to walk by. She is battered and bruised. I want to know who would do this to her.

She has the features of Inuit. Or Cree. Or Inuit Cree. She would be classified as a classical beauty of this race, if it were not for the swollen, blue and broken skin on her cheek. She starts off asking only for “$1.75”. I ask her for what. She says that she will not be dishonest. She wants it for booze.

I watch whites, comfortable in their attire, walking by. One lady pauses and turns. I am certain that she thinks that I am some dirty old man looking to abuse this woman further. I simply ask the battered lady if she does not have options. Oh, she does, she says. She could go to a place that would give her a prosthesis. I am shocked. She is not lying. Her right shoulder socket is vacant. I see the scars on her breast bone that indicate that she has had some major operations. I am looking into her eyes as she talks. She has also been to “rehab” and it has not worked.

“So, you need booze?” I ask. “Yes”, she says honestly, in a matter of fact tone. “You need it why?” I ask, “To take away the pain for at least a moment?” I see the sadness in her eyes. “Yes,” she admits. And her eyes are even sadder in the moment.

She is human. She is real. She is before me. There is no propaganda in this reality. Her pain is not in the physical being.

And this is the depth of the problem in this, our society of hypocrisy.

There is no leadership when the leaders abuse the system, take our rights away and then build bigger jails for this woman on the street.

I talk only a brief moment more. I ask who she is with and why I would give her money so that someone else would simply do this again to her. “Oh, that is my cousin!” she exclaims. “He did not do this! He is a gentle man! It was some girls who did this to me, about another issue.”

She is sober in the moment. Her story is too sobering.

I being an once-arrested man, do not even bother to ask, what did the cops do for you after this beating. I, a once-arrested man, do not even bother to ask, what have Jack Layton and Michael Ignatieff and Stephen Harper and Gilles Duceppe and Elizabeth May done to take away the lack of responsibility in a society that will build bigger jails just to get ladies like this off the street.

They all gladly take the money from booze companies so that the dishonesty can be propagandized in elections that are a farce when it comes to exposing the truth and the honesty and the role of dishonest politicians and their self-serving friends in all of this.

But, who is to blame?

It is us because we allow our politicians to make our electoral system a farce so that the voice of the woman on the street becomes inconsequential.

And that should scare the hell out of us more than the fear of the moment that too many have when they encounter the homeless on the streets of our nation.

Why? Visit my TakeBackDemocracy.ca page…. About Law? Stop the Fraud?

Will we have the courage to take back the rights that these criminals in Ottawa have taken away from us so that our elections become a plethora of propaganda, yet again?

Don MacAlpine
Box 127
NIPIGON, Ontario, CANADA
P0T 2J0

Electronic Version of the Book is "Free" Until May 2, 2011

2011-04-05T13:15:00.000-04:00

I am a citizen who was politically engaged before and since Canada’s constitution of 1982 arrived. I was asked to run as a federal candidate in 1997. In that year, I started to discover the illegal farce now assigned to our vote.

I was elected to a town council in 1997 and observed how politicians at all levels become too easily self-serving. I was arrested in 2004 for daring to protest the role of corrupted institutions of justice in all of this. After trying to engage in the electoral process, I registered my concerns about the illegal consequences of "electoral rules" in the federal election of 2006. I then engaged in the registration process for the federal election of 2008 to demonstrate how our right to voice is completely removed, blocked, again by partisan-entrenched rules.

With this current farce of a federal election, I hope that you will read the rest of my blog, posted below. I hope it brings most citizens to understand why I will not stay silent as the farce of "Election 2011" begins again. I trust that you will also visit my TakeBackDemocracy.ca web page to educate yourself to why silence by any person in our "esteemed democracy" is no longer socially responsible.

And I hope that you will encourage your friends to engage in educating themselves.

UNTIL the official federal "election" date of May 2 is passed by, I am making electronic versions of the book "free" to whomever asks for it. As the coming days progress, I will be updating the first edition electronic copy from the version that was first posted at JustBusinessTheBook.com. And, yes, the first edition is full of grammatical errors and wandering commentary... visit the Bill Broderick book review to get an honest appraisal... As Mr. Broderick says, that does not, however, detract from the importance of the whole story.

This blog will be a final commentary , here, about the state of things until this illegal election is over. I invite you to invite your friends to visit my blog to educate themselves to the hypocrisy behind this "election".
Meanwhile, I will also post my view on why this election would be shut down by protesting citizens IF we really understood our rights and role in any legally functioning democracy. The latter commentary will be posted at TakeBackDemocracy.ca.

I will be working on that web page in the coming week. I hope that you will visit it and send your friends to it to ponder what our rights are AND IF it is time that we indeed take on the courage of Libyans and others, before we allow the corrupt to abuse our vote for their own agendas.

Election 2011 and the Farce of "Democratic Canada"

2011-03-30T15:20:00.000-04:00

We have suffered the arrogance of contempt for our rights as citizens and our constitution for too many years.

Why do we accept that we must suffer another, maybe four years or more?

IF any of these current politicians in Ottawa do get a majority, why not let them pass a new law saying that "political and economic stability" is the most important factor in our nation, and let them make their residency permanent in Ottawa?

WE have suffered the arrogance of these people from the moment Middle Finger Trudeau waltzed behind "our Queen" in 1982, to declare that our constitution makes them "the Queenie", regardless of their LEGAL obligations to us.

So, why do we continue to allow this, given what we applaud in Libya and elsewhere in our world?

One citizen reads the book. Visit the rest of my blog below to get to why what he says is indeed significant to this election farce of 2011.

And then think about this, sent off in letters to many book recipients, again, this morning:

"... So, the first "official" book review is in. Today. Some will say that is an "obscure publication" of no consequence. It is "only" the rag Human Perspectives. It is only a "quarterly" publication. The reviewer finds it an "enjoyable read". But, he is one of many whom I have met in the last month, who says that this nation is in need of "revolution". And, in his final email confirming that he will send me an "e-copy" of his review before it is actually published, he writes, in response to my hope that we meet sometime this summer, "... It’ll be great to meet someone who really has the balls to confront the bastards where it counts. ...".

World history? It was not the main media of nations, controlled by the elitist, that changed our world with revolutionary challenge to the elitist and the entrenched. ...".

So, what do we, the citizens, do? Allow the "experts" to rule us? Or start to demand that the real rule of law rule us, not the law as the arrogant have made it. For their own advantage and advancement.

I trust that all of you, the citizens of conscience or those who should be citizens of conscience because of your positions in our society, will all start to think about this. I trust that you will send your friends to JustBusinessTheBook.com and TakeBackDemocracy.ca pages to ponder why citizens of conscience find this book so relevant while the "ethical experts" stay so conveniently silent to all of this.

And, I trust that you will challenge those who say that they are our best options for "leadership" when they engage in an electoral process that has illegally removed our rights for much too long.

Citizens of courage? Or citizens of cynical apathy? What will the measure in history be for this so-called "democratic nation" called Canada, whose citizenry allows itself to be led around by the nose by a bunch of "dancing Queens"? Who seek the corrupted vote to "rule" us for another 4 years, or more.

And that thought alone is what should scare the hell out of every one of us and lead us to stop this farce of an illegal "election" by mass demonstration.

IF we indeed have any "balls".

Don MacAlpine
Box 127
NIPIGON, Ontario, CANADA
P0T 2J0