|
BE INFORMED
BE RESPONSIBLE DEMOCRATICALLY BECOME INVOLVED
BETWEEN ELECTIONS |
|
BE INFORMED
BE RESPONSIBLE DEMOCRATICALLY BECOME INVOLVED
BETWEEN ELECTIONS |
What is Our
Democratic Responsibility?
WHY THIS WEB PAGE IS NOW DEDICATED TO
PROMOTING LEGAL ACTIONS
Transparency International Commentary
on the Critical Criteria to Make a Good Justice System: Key TI Speeches-PeterEigenWordVersion.doc Link to Transparency
International Web Site: speeches
and articles / news room / home - Transparency International IF WE BELIEVE THE WORLD CANNOT BE CHANGED, IT WILL NOT BE CHANGED.LEGAL
CHALLENGE EXTRACT LINKS (Note: Excerpts are from a large original document
and may take a few moments to load as Adobe files) 1)
index to Formal Document (Names Parties) 2)
Reasons for Naming Parties and Suggested Penalties Dec05LegalActionReasonsAndPartiesPDF.pdf 3)
Relevant Laws Violated (interpreted from a normal persons perspective) Dec05LegalActionRelevantLawsPDF.pdf 4)
Paragraphs Related to Electoral Corruption Dec05LegalActionElectoralCorruptionParasPDF.pdf 5)
Paragraphs Related to Corruption of our Legal System (over 300 pages, slow to
load) Dec05LegalActionJudicialCorruptionPDF.pdf REQUESTS
TO RCMP FOR CRIMINAL CODE INVESTIGATIONS December
23, 2005 Request January
12, 2006 Additional Information March
13, 2006 Additional Information RCMP2006
Mar13LetterCombinedWithEmail.pdf Warning
Letter to Courts About Access to Justice and Right to Untainted Courts Dec05WarningLetterREAccess2CourtsPDF.pdf Back to Top |
Top WHY “Democratically Responsible”?“…THE SINGULAR ISSUE FOR CANADA [and the USA] REMAINS GOVERNANCE WITH INTEGRITY AND HONESTY. …” This web site was originally posted on or about January 6, 2006. Its main goal was to promote the importance of independently minded, but responsible, representation in Canada’s Parliament. It has been revised to promote respect of our existing laws and promises written to all our citizens. I do leave the first point from the web site after it was revised after the January 2006 election. Actions by our elected started to reveal the continuing ethical, and I allege, illegal dilemmas our democracy faces. Please ponder what I posted in March 2006 as you examine the issues of corruption and illegal suppression of our collective rights now posted here: “… Our system of
democracy has become corrupted by major political parties more interested in
gaining or retaining power than in ensuring functional democracy. Our latest
Prime Minister’s fiasco of cross-partisan recruitment is a primary example.
The rush in promoting the image of the “best of the worst” for “leader of
Canada” has replaced what democracy should really be about. Good government is
about good management of time and resources that ensures that the best
decision is reached which protects every citizen and the public good for the
long term. Democracy is about identifying issues
important to the public. AND, yes, all issues of importance should be brought
to the forefront during a public debate. However, any single politician, or
political party, who tells us they have the magic answers to one issue that
should then allow them to make decisions on our behalf for all other issues,
dishonestly manipulates the democratic system for their own purposes. This is
especially true when one issue hits a sensitive public nerve and becomes
hyper-rhetoric, not open and rational discussion. Therefore, we should start to recognize that, despite all of the other noise, we are still faced with a dilemma for selecting our representatives that makes them daily accountable to us. It should not take decades to resolve this issue. We need to ask ourselves: why are we hearing a recurring theme of lack of trust for politicians from citizens in two of the strongest democracies in our modern world? We need to start to ask how things can be changed. After all, in functional democracy, we are the people empowered. If we allow another “presidential election” that assigns leaders powers without accountability, we are to blame, not them. There are options and we need to think carefully about them. …” Back to Top WHY THIS WEB PAGE IS NOW DEDICATED TO PROMOTING LEGAL ACTIONS To fully understand why I believe Canadians need to start to recognize the significance of First Nation grievances and this relationship to our collective futures, please take the time to read the following (I apologize. In time, I hope to re-do what follows as a summary document. It is simply presented now as an extract of an e-mail document sent to politicians and others). -----
Original Message ----- From: Don
MacAlpine To:
webmaster@sixnations.ca ; forestry@tbaytel.net ; Grand Council of the Cree ; Pays Plat First Nation Chief and Council
; jgoldber@shaw.ca Cc:
Duceppe.G@parl.gc.ca ; Governor General Canada ; Graham.B@parl.gc.ca ; Leader NDP Layton ; pm@pm.gc.ca ; Lt. Governor
Ontario ; OntMPPNDP
Leader Hampton ; dalton.mcguinty@premier.gov.on.ca ; Conservative MP Prentice Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2006 Subject: Will a Hunger Strike be Required?- When Resistance to Those Claiming
That They "Are The Law" Becomes Appropriate Canadian Parliamentarians
assure us that Canada is still a democracy. In 3.5 years of reading
Canada’s laws, I have found no laws compelling lawyers or law clerks or
employees of our justice system to belong to political parties. In the same
period of time, I have read multitudes of laws compelling those employed in
our justice system to be completely free of even a hint of bias of any
nature, including "political affiliations". In 3.5 years, I have
uncovered a sad history of lawyers and law firms rushing to pay to narrowed
political agendas with a repeated higher priority of dedication to higher
economies than higher principles of respect for all citizens required under
our laws. And then these "legal professionals" become appointed, by
the political they pay to, as judges in a system of justice compelled by law
to be completely impartial and accessible, and compelled to be seen to be so
by the common citizen. In the last week,
Conservatives of Ontario appear in the media saying that the Ontario
Provincial Police (OPP) Association (OPPA) is complaining that Liberals of
Ontario have interfered in how police are to dress themselves in Caledonia
(they claim the safety of officers has been compromised by direction to
stay in normal uniform not riot gear). Then a report appears criticizing the
Ontario government for not providing enough direction to police. This
appears on the same day of reports that, on Friday, June 9, 2006,
an American border police vehicle was surrounded by Caledonia protestors in
anger. Now First Nations face charges from the police while the police
instigated escalation, at least in appearance of growing intimidation by
the appearance of another nation's policing agency. No, violence is not
tolerable democracy. But we send troops to Afghanistan to protect its
citizens from suppressive systems. Police from a jurisdiction outside our
country show up in a vehicle that would need permission to cross our borders
and Canadians should not be collectively concerned? Our police are
allowed to complain to politicians while common Canadians are denied voice on
the injustices that surround us for decades? This follows too ominously the
criticizing of a Toronto police association giving to partisans favouring the
agenda of police. (What was the outcome of that Toronto fiasco? And, were
partisan lawyers becoming judges instrumental in that review? And, is our
OPPA a donor to political parties?) If we allow ourselves to
be ruled by those who rule on the basis of fear, we will be ruled by fear. If
we allow ourselves to be ruled by those who are morally and legally corrupt,
we will be ruled by the corrupted. For 200 years, the
governments of Canada set aside written and spoken contractual agreements
with First Nations. Our Federal government still denies culpability. Since
1948, the governments of Canada ignored written agreements, given
international status, proclaiming the equivalency of person, in daily living
and in treatment by the laws of Canada. Strengthened in 1982 by Canada’s own Charter
of Rights and Freedoms and laws emanating from it, these promises have
instead deteriorated to the benefit of lawyers and elected lawyers and to the
detriment of the common citizen. Our Federal and provincial politicians deny
culpability. Meanwhile, the credibility of our justice system declines daily. If Canadians were
collectively as responsible and as concerned about democratic freedoms as
they claim to be, they would explore the sad history I summarize in pdf files
at this web site . And, they would collectively learn why I will not be
silenced like a Jew in Warsaw in the short years of worldly war just before
Canada signed the 1948 UN Declaration of Human Rights and Freedoms, re-affirmed by Canada
in 1998. Nor should the legitimate concerns of First Nations be suppressed by
police from within our borders. And, when our police appear at a site, with
national consequences, with "policing friends" from another
jurisdiction, we need to challenge our police and politicians. If Canadians were
collectively responsible, then they would walk down to Caledonia and link
arms with First Nations to demand that 200 years of twisted words by
politicians and political "legal professionals" end and that the
suppression and alienation of First Nations end. OR, they would go into the
closest office of any First Nation in their province to assure them that they
will collectively stand together with First Nations against 200 years of
injustice. And they would read on to understand why I will go on a hunger
strike if I do not see the unbiased and accessible justice, that was promised
all Canadians, materialize. (Carefully review this web site) to
understand why. The foundation of
democracy is critical upon two basic elements: First, an elected executive
granted powers only to create laws that meet
the promises set in the constitution (our Charter); Second, a
completely impartial system of justice, accessible to all citizens
of that nation, which rules on whether the rights of any citizen have been
violated OR whether any newly created law set by the "elected
executive" violates the promises of the constitution or any pre-existing
or international agreement. Read the speech by Peter
Eigen of Transparency International, posted at (this web site). Then ask
yourself why an organization from Germany stresses the importance of
completely independent and impartial systems of justice. Review the
commentary of our newest Prime Minister (PM) and his and former Prime
Minister Chretien’s histories of criticizing the biassing of Canada’s system
of justice. Then ask yourself why Mr. Harper finds it more important to set
mediocre and only token changes to our democracy, of set election dates and
feeble Senate reform. Then ask yourself why the issue of "marriage and
gays" becomes more important to Parliamentary debate than our
PM appearing at Caledonia or making judicial reforms to remove
the partisan influencing that has permeated our justice system. Demand investigation of
the impartiality of our police and all employed in our justice system, a
system we were promised was to be completely free of any hint of bias of any
nature, including political paying. Unlike many Jews when
they were first incarcerated into ghettos in Warsaw, I will not be submissive
in the face of injustice. And, I have only discovered the violation and
extent of corruption of our justice system for 3.5 years. First Nations have
personally experienced this corruption for 200 years. Instead of burying our
heads in fear of the tenuous nature of our own positions, we need to get
informed about the sad history of this nation in the repetitive twisting of
our laws and written or spoken legal agreements for all citizens, violated by
those who infiltrate our justice systems with their partisan biases. Then, if
we speak only among ourselves about our complaints and the injustices we see
or are told about surrounding us, we need to remember the lessons that led to
a 1948 declaration that Canada re-affirmed in 1998. Ask yourselves why
humanity continues to act like sheep when we need to be braying like stubborn
donkeys when surrounded by wolves in sheep’s clothing. (For Six Nations
perspective on what is happening at Caledonia, go to: http://sisis.nativeweb.org/actionalert/action.html ). Don MacAlpine -----
Original Message ----- From: Don
MacAlpine To:
webmaster@sixnations.ca ; forestry@tbaytel.net ; Grand Council of the Cree ; Pays Plat First Nation Chief and Council
; jgoldber@shaw.ca Cc:
Duceppe.G@parl.gc.ca ; Governor General Canada ; Graham.B@parl.gc.ca ; Leader NDP Layton ; pm@pm.gc.ca ; Lt. Governor
Ontario ; OntMPPNDP
Leader Hampton Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 Subject: Fw: "Indian Apartheid" and Modern "Warsaw
Ghettoization"- When Resistance to Those Claiming That They "Are
The Law" Becomes Appropriate First
Nations and Others THE
CHUCK GUITE TRIAL- WHY ANOTHER JUDGE SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED AND
ALL CANADIANS SHOULD BE CONCERNED After
sending the following e-mail, I returned to my labours. First, I realized
that I had not enclosed copies of the laws I referenced. Then I heard a
report on CBC radio that strengthens our collective duty to expose the
corruption of the Canadian justice system. The
news report discussed the jury selection process in the Chuck Guite
"sponsorship trial". Apparently the presiding judge had agreed
to allow the question to be asked of every potential juror if they had
followed the related Gomery inquiry and if they felt that they could be
impartial if they had. Then Guite asked to be allowed to question prospective
jurors on their political affiliation. My understanding became that he was
concerned about "Bloc" party members being involved in judging him
because the "sponsorship program" was created primarily to impact
their hold in Quebec (If I were Guite, I would be more concerned about
Liberal members hiding their affiliations to sway judgement because of the
backlash that lost them the last election). What became incredible to me is
that the report announced that the presiding judge had denied the question
saying that this would "... be entering a slippery slope ..." and
he would not tolerate it. Read
the laws that follow that guarantee us all freedom from bias in our system of
justice. Remind yourselves of what happened when Jews were judged and juried
by Nazis, when blacks were judged by Klansmen and when Iranians judged
the treatment of a Canadian reporter beaten to death by their assigned,
narrow-minded "non-jurists". In
the latter case, the record I put before courts shows that now
"temporary leader" of our federal Liberals, Mr. Bill Graham, when
Minister of International Affairs (or whatever the official title is), came
out loudly demanding that Iran allow open and fair trial of that Canadian
reporter's alleged assailants. Mr. Graham loudly proclaimed in our
media that all proceedings of justice should follow
precepts of international law, including the concept of open court rooms. Read
the international laws that follow, and our constitution, and our Criminal
Code forbidding influencing of any nature. Then send a letter to the RCMP or
the police in your jurisdiction and ask why there is no Criminal Code
investigation of this latest judge. Our
laws guarantee me, you and even Mr. Guite trials AND HEARINGS free of
any hint of bias. The issue becomes NOT whether or not the jury ended up with
a Liberal or Bloc member on it, but the fact that this judge had NO
CONSIDERATION WHATSOEVER to the duty of impartial, just process. Ask
yourself this question: If this judge has a history of partisan giving at any
time during in his employ in any part of our legal system, does his
position of "not allowing that question" become one of
guaranteeing freedom of association of jurors OR of a fear that, if he
demands this question of the jurors, it then implies that he must reveal
whether or not he, himself, has any evidence in his background of having paid
into a narrowed political agenda, indeed, potentially the very political
parties who have attacked Guite in Parliament (Opposition leaders demanding
Criminal Code action) or political parties which have been impacted by
the negative ramifications of this "sponsorship scandal" (The Bloc
and the Liberals)? Remember
this: Statistics I found and which I have used in documents put before the
courts show that 91% of Canadians do not belong to
political parties. The history those documents I post at (this web site) shows
repetitive and blatant giving by partisan lawyers who then enter our courts
appointed by too many highly-positioned, elected lawyers of the same partisan
affiliation. Surely, of all of the potential jurors, a sufficient number
could have been found free of partisan biases. Therefore, it becomes clear
that this judge had concerns beyond Mr. Guite's right to non-partisan
judgement in a highly partisan issue with much public profile. This
is Criminal Code conduct in the highest positions of our democratic
institutions. IT IS AN ACTIVITY STRICTLY FORBIDDEN UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAWS
AND OUR CONSTITUTION AND IT MUST END NOW! You,
I and every citizen of this nation, including Mr. Guite, have a right to
unhindered and impartial and unbiased just process. Another clip on CBC radio
made reference to an elderly activist author who wrote a book on Entering
the Dark Ages (?). She was said to criticize the decline of moral conduct in our
"professional organizations". By god, she certainly had it right
for the legal profession of this nation. And, our so called elected
protectorates of our freedoms, politicians, continue in their sad displays of
their duty in this. Our "professional media" needs to be challenged
on why they are not challenging such blatant immorality, much less
continuous illegal activity. Every
day there is more and more evidence accumulating of the corruption of
principles of justice in this grand land. That is why copy of this e-mail
will be enclosed with my mailing to the Commissioners of the OPP and the
RCMP. That is why you need to take the time to read what follows. It
is time that we collectively stood up together to stop this nonsense! Don MacAlpine -----
Original Message ----- From: Don
MacAlpine To:
webmaster@sixnations.ca ; forestry@tbaytel.net ; Grand Council of the Cree ; Pays Plat First Nation Chief and Council
; jgoldber@shaw.ca Cc:
Duceppe.G@parl.gc.ca ; Governor General Canada ; Graham.B@parl.gc.ca ; Leader NDP Layton ; pm@pm.gc.ca ; Lt. Governor
Ontario ; OntMPPNDP
Leader Hampton Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2006 Subject: "Indian Apartheid" and Modern "Warsaw
Ghettoization"- When Resistance to Those Claiming That They "Are
The Law" Becomes Appropriate Standing up to Corrupted
Systems and Judges who Say that "I am the Law" I heard on CBC news this
morning that this is the day "judge" Marshall has ordered the
Commissioner of OPP (police), the Attorney General and others to explain why
his "order" to shut down protests at Caledonia were not carried
out. I hope that this arrives in time for consideration by Caledonia First
Nation representatives. I apologize for its length. I have sent it via e-mail
where I have addresses. Stand Tall. Stand Firm.
Demand that the "Judge of Caledonia" reveal his partisan history. This is a time when it is
appropriate to resist. It is also a time when it is completely inappropriate
for politicians to be silent. To the collective future
of our children and their children’s future. Trying to think Seven
Generations ahead. Meegwetch and Sincerely, Don
MacAlpine COPY OF LETTER FOLLOWS: Don MacAlpine Box 907 NIPIGON, Ontario P0T
2J0 Fax and Phone Contact:
(807) 887-0708 Attention: Giuliano (Zack) Zaccardelli , RCMP
Commissioner RCMP Headquarters ATTENTION: Commissioner Ontario Provincial Police General Headquarters The L3V 7V3 VIA REGISTERED MAIL WITHOUT PREJUDICE "Indian Apartheid" and Modern
"Warsaw Ghettoization": When Resistance to Those Claiming That They
"Are The Law" Becomes Appropriate AND When Silence from
Politicians is Completely Inappropriate On May 26, 2006, a grieving father chastised the Federal Conservative
administration at a funeral for his daughter. The ceremony was for the first
Canadian woman killed in military combat. The father was distressed that the
government forbade cameras from recording the return of his daughter’s body
to Canadian soil. He expressed his concern that this was vile contempt for
the very freedoms his daughter had died to protect. On the same day, USA prosecutors crowed about a jury’s conviction of
Enron executives. They suggested that this demonstrated that no one was above
the law. The phrase, "not even lawyers", entered their public
pronouncements. Short days later, on May 29, 2006, it is announced that "the
Caledonia blockade" issue is going to court once again. On June 1, 2006,
former Ontario Conservative cabinet hot shot, Bob Runciman, says on CBC radio
that "if other residents from Caledonia did this (blockaded roads,
developments or used other forms of protest), we know what would
happen". Meanwhile, a Minister in the current Ontario government defers
comment on the use of former British military personnel by a company
embroiled with a northwestern Ontario First Nation in a mining claim dispute. Evidently, a judge issues an edict for Caledonia. It is not enforced
because police and politicians suddenly realize how sensitive the issue is.
Even the Commissioner of the OPP issues a statement saying that the police
recognize that there is a history of unresolved land claims that needs to be
addressed. The statement says that this is not their function. They have
withdrawn their attempts to disband the demonstration to allow due process of
negotiations. Despite the abundance of commentary in the media identifying
that this issue of land claims is the primary concern, the judge who issued
the first order to send in police then issues an ultimatum to the parties
involved. He wants them to appear in court to explain why "his
orders" were not carried out. He, evidently, believes that
"he" is the law. Runciman, evidently, also agrees. BUT niether
publicly acknowledges that "these people", these "copper
coloured niggers", in their small minds, of Caledonia and other First
Nations have watched violation of law for 200 years. Agreements made with
them have been pushed aside in favour of "new laws" and "new
contracts" conveniently favouring "white business friends". Recent news. Canadian softwood lumber negotiations. Our Prime Minister
trumps the legal process established under NAFTA. He negotiates a settlement
to gain favour with white conservative friends in Washington. It is not
Canadian judges or the "trade panel" who challenges why this
happened. It is rich white Canadian company executives who launch legal
challenges against both the Canadian and American governments. They insist
that the legal process that was leaning in their favour needed to be
respected. Politicians, they say, should not "negotiate" such
matters. The courts should be respected as independent arbitrators. Meanwhile, the same Prime Minister of Canada stays silent on Caledonia
and other First Nation issues with too long and too sad a history in Canada.
Evidently the issue of broken agreements in the history of "Indian
Apartheid" is "the duty of courts". A judge reaches back in to
interfere on what we are told are ongoing negotiations over violations of
previous promises made. This follows more observations by people other than
me. One writer muses that the assigned high profile "arbitrator" at
Caledonia, former Ontario Premier David Peterson, makes commentary that is
insincere. Peterson is recorded by the media as saying that there has been
148 years of sad history here that needs reasoned assessment. The observer
finds irony that Mr. Peterson did not find the First Nation situations of
concern during his tenure in Ontario's highest political office. But, now a
judge decides that his own edict is the ultimate declaration of what must
happen. Not for NAFTA. On that the Caledonia "judge" stays silent.
But, by God, for those bothersome "Indians" his orders had better
be followed. And, Mr. Runciman continues to add fire to the pot with his
racial discriminating and selective comments while other politicians hide
behind the convenient rhetoric of "it is before the courts". Such is the sad state of Canada’s democratic system. Even judges do
not trust the politicians. Even politicians do not trust the judges.
Politicians, elected to be a voice in democracy, even against corrupted
justice systems, deny their democratic duty. This, despite our rules of
democracy that suggest it is the duty of our politicians to set rules for all
of the people and that it is the function of judges and courts to ensure that
those rules are respected and obeyed. Independently. Impartially. And on
behalf of us all. And in full consideration of all of the facts, even from
our history. And in respect for all of our laws and written promises.
And with freedom of voice, yes, even in criticism of those calling themselves
"judges" and declaring themselves "the law". This history of sad just process should not spur concern just because
of the sad neglect of promises made to "Indians". Yes, the promise,
"The Queen, the Crown, the Government of Canada will look after your
children and your children’s children for as long as the rivers flow and the
forests grow", disappeared in the convenient interpretations by
politicians. Yes, "Indian apartheid" began in a country that
decried the apartheid of The new rules that allowed the decline of written or spoken promises
to Indians from "the Queen" were set by rulers who assigned judges
to oversee these rules in a manner recognizing aristocracy of the few. The
rules of privilege that favoured the legal aristocrats were promoted for 200
years. And, now? David Peterson, a lawyer since 1969, is assigned chief
negotiator at Apparently an So, what does this have to do with "police"? What does this
have to do with me? Why am I writing to you with this lengthy introduction? Because we need to start asking: "What is the significance of the
symbols we promote to Canadians? Soldiers and police, what is their function?
Who controls them? The politicians? The judges? Or "the law"? Strange coincidence? On the same day that it is announced in the media
that the judge is summonsing " How easily we forget. This "promoter of democracy" evidently forgets the
documentaries showing the 80,000 World War I veterans who gathered at
Toronto’s Canadian National Exhibition (CNE) grounds in protest of their
treatment short years after their return to Canada. They gathered to protest
the very violation of promises made to them as they struggled to survive in
trenches and mud while blood spilled around them. Walk Save the poor some money. Put the children on a bus and drive one hour
to And then give those school children this letter so that they can hear
the lessons I have learned in the most recent years of my own life. My great Uncle eventually died choking on lungs damaged by mustard gas
on the fields of So, why is this letter addressed first to the highest commissioners of
police forces with responsibilities in the So, what does this have to do with "the police" and this
"judge of So, what does this have to do with the police and this "judge of By the invasion of So, what does this have to do with "the police" and an
arrogant "judge of In the same year a grieving father chastises our government for
respecting the freedoms his daughter died for, another grand commission ends
in From the Nipigon OPP Officer’s letter of There is no reference made to the extensive documentation this
officer’s office was provided but the officer does acknowledge that the
matters "... are under investigation by another agency. ..." (the
RCMP). If our police had done their duty towards full investigation, they
would have found the following. I began to seek justice in 2002. Because I
refused to pay into the coffers of a ruling partisan party, I had been
excluded from rights guaranteed under our constitution. I began to explore
laws and options. I had to beg money from a spouse who agreed that I had been
wronged but who felt that the courts and justice system were so corrupted
that I had no chance in hell of winning. What limited money I did make over the
next three years vanished into the bureaucracy of our courts. I lost more
work because of the time it took to review laws and prepare documents to meet
the rules set by lawyers. By June of 2003, my spouse and I had agreed that we
were essentially "separate" but could not afford the $3,000
demanded by those controlling our legal system to formalize that position. I
did, however, record this in our own words. By 2005, my elderly parents, who
survive on below poverty income, became my source for fees and paper
preparation and costs of documents required for my case. By December 2005, I
had read more laws than the one this police officer quotes. I read enough to
know that our courts and police officers have duty to our laws in their
whole, not the bits and pieces lawyers and police officers want to focus in
on. And, I encountered and documented more and more partisan nonsense in the
application for impartial and unbiased and accessible just process I put
before the courts in December 2005. It supposedly takes seven years to become a lawyer. In November 2002,
I was bluntly told that, because I was self-employed, I did not have a hope
in hell of getting "legal aid". As I struggled to find time and
resources to defend my position and present my case to the courts, more and
more parties I had put before the courts began to harass. Like the pianist, I
watched money I did not have to advance my case become jeopardized by the
very people I alleged to have been parties to violating my rights. In grander
irony, of the about 25 parties I ended up owing money to by November 2002,
only those of large corporations or government agencies began to appear with
paid lawyers to harass me through collection agencies. In even grander irony, the "court action" the OPP officer
references in his letter began in courts in June 2003. I heard the appointed
judge, Pierce, promote the too oft recurring theme I began to encounter again
and again that "policy is the prerogative of the government". By
December 2003, I appeared before a second judge, Smith, pointing out that,
while "policy may the prerogative of the government", the
obligation of the government and every citizen of Little did I know that this "judge" Smith had his own
history of partisan giving and appointment by partisans he had given to. I
did not discover this until after I appeared in the December 2003 court room.
And, I discovered that this same judge appeared before an old cohort from the
old law firm he had vacated barely a year and a half earlier. She was paid to
represent a party opposing my position in Smith’s court room, even while I
was denied legal assistance. But, the irony did not end. I wrote vigorously to politicians
demanding that I be allowed the time and resources to advance my case, free
of harassment and intimidation from the very parties and government
bureaucracies I alleged had violated my constitutional rights and wronged me.
In one of those lengthy letters in the February 2004 era, I even made
reference to the movie, The Piano, which I had just watched. I noted
that every November 11 we pause to promise that "never again" would
the poor be removed from the right to justice. I had not yet found the 1948
declaration signed by And, I tried to re-file my discoveries in civil court to then be
presented with another notice of another blockage created by elected lawyers
as high as Prime Ministers and Premiers. If I was as destitute as I wrote in
letters to the courts themselves, they wanted "proof". To them,
evidently, the written word I gave was not worth the paper it was written on.
This, to them, required more court bureaucracy. By September 2004, I knew
why. The history of lawyers is that they lie, repeatedly, even in court if it
gains them advantage. By September 2004, I had watched lawyers as high as
former federal "Minister of Defence", Bill Graham, commit perjury.
Not a perfect person, but someone who had been trained to respect the law and
processes of justice, I watched more and more lawyers violating more and more
laws I read. Now, in my application before the courts I tried to make in
December 2005, I was told to fill out forms to confirm if or if not I can
afford the fees the courts demand before I would be heard. The principles of "unhindered justice", regardless of social
status, were promised in international declarations signed by 200 years ago. First Nations were given promises, some in writing.
Despite laws requiring agreements, written or otherwise to be respected, they
are silenced. They are, sometimes forcefully, segregated. They are forced
into restricted housing. They are then denied the very resources surrounding
their apartheid-designated, postage stamp-sized pieces of Canadian real
estate that would allow them survival, much less financial resources to
challenge the violations of historic, but legally binding, promises made in
the pretense of peaceful sharing. A corrupted quote from a priest imprisoned by the Nazi regime? First
they came for the Jews. And I stayed silent. Then they came for the weak and
the infirm. And I stayed silent. Then they came for the poor, and I stayed
silent. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me. In 2002, I encountered partisan biases in violation of our
constitution. I watched what meagre resources I had disappear, as I tried to
survive. I watched lawyers in fine suits and robes appear to oppose my
petitions to courts. I appeared in front of judges who were dressed in fine
robes and drove fancy cars. I found them paying into the very political
parties who then created laws to the favour of lawyers who were then
appointed by politicians who were too often themselves elected lawyers. I
protested. My wife suggested that I should be silent and accept bankruptcy. I
would not, knowing that our justice system and its lawyers and the elite
business aristocracy are morally and legally bankrupted (in irony, not one of
the "poorer" or local business people of the about 25 I owed money
to in 2002 harass me now. It is only those of large corporations or large
government bureaucracies that send "legal professionals" to harass
me, less than 20% of my original "debtors"). I begged for money
from my spouse to continue. She gave reluctantly saying that the system was
so corrupted that she viewed it as a waste of money. We went to lawyer, of
known Conservative party affiliations, Peter Young, to explore the options
for divorcing our positions before I began to appear before judges I
discovered to have the same history of giving to Conservatives and Liberals.
Young noted we needed money to proceed. I tried to work and research laws. I
made meagre money, and watched it disappear into the struggles for survival
and the bureaucracy of paper and fees required by our courts. I discovered
more laws. I was forced into dedicating more time to researching laws and
creating documentation to support my case. My income declined even further. I
made negative income reports to tax agencies who still demanded money from
issues put before courts in 2002. I continued with recurring discoveries of
partisan influences in the court rooms I appeared in. Lawyers from
"Collection Agencies", saying they represented the corporations and
government agencies named or warned in my court case of 2003, appeared. They
wanted my "piano", or whatever means of income I had. After all,
the new laws created by elected lawyers gave them this right, or so they
said. The right to full consideration of my case be damned. The right to
unbiased hearing be damned. The right to protection and promotion of the
complaints of the individual, regardless of the philosophies or
"creeds" of those he or she is forced, or voluntarily, lives with
be damned. Most important was the right to money they said I owed from 2002.
Justice be damned. I name the Law Society of Upper Canada (LSUC) as a principle target in
my December 2005 application. A "self-regulating body", they
publicly tell us that their role is control of their members. But, when they
are approached, they point me back to the courts where I am told to fill out
more papers under rules created by laws influenced by elected lawyers and by
judges who first pay into the coffers of parties who elect these lawyers who
then select which lawyer of preferred partisan stripes they will appoint as a
judge to appear before me or First Nations. The circle of corruption grows
and is protected by the corrupted themselves. Cassels and Brock? David Peterson’s law firm appears in my criminal
code complaint to the OPP filed in April 2004 with local OPP. By June of
2004, I am directed by the OPP to Thunder Bay RCMP. By August 2004, I am
directed by the RCMP back to the OPP. I file formal complaints again with the
OPP in December 2004. By December 2005, it is unclear whether or not my
complaints are being investigated. I send to the RCMP because our courts are
federal jurisdictions. In January 2006, I get indication that the RCMP is
investigating my complaints. Then, I start to get lower court notices. They come from parties who
engage lawyers who are members of the LSUC. I send warnings to these lawyers
that they must respect the laws and allow me to advance my case unhindered. I
send complaint to the OPP. Instead of full consideration to the laws I
enclose, the OPP officer references one section of the Criminal Code.
"They" have right to "collect debt" despite the fact that
I struggle to find support to advance my case. The OPP officer ignores my
documents saying that it is the activities of the very partisans these
lawyers and law firms can be found paying into that has removed my ability to
pay those debts they now chase me for. Milgaard. Our police sit back and say that lower laws made by partisans can be
used by those who are lawyers with a sad history of partisan corruption of a
justice system promised to change after 1948. |
