|
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. There are times when resistance to those telling us that they
"are the law" is appropriate. February 2004. My hunting rifles were
taken away because I dared to ask politicians what options for just recourse
they were leaving me if they removed my income and my cash flows necessary to
take my cases to court. An OPP officer in charge of taking away my guns made
comment to me that I appeared to be "not normal" because I wrote
profusely on these matters. Evidently the freedom to write 24 or 60 pages of
petitions for justice to politicians is no longer a valid right in this nation.
Evidently the right to stand up and say that 200 years of violation of
agreements, for those impacted by "Indian apartheid" is no longer
acceptable. Protest is offensive to judges and police. Evidently, to our
police, we should become compliant and silent, like my spouse would want me
to be, in the face of vile violation of promises made in 1948, re-affirmed in
1982 and strengthened under the laws and declarations signed by Those laws promising us all "Never Again" are extracted once
again for repetitive reference and attached to this document. They make: the
influencing for positions of justice and governance; the harassment of
individuals with matters already before the courts; and the denial of access
to our courts, Criminal Code violations. And still our police stand in
defence of the privileged, using preferential parts of these laws while
denying the law in its full. Such is the state of this nation and our police?
No wonder a grieving father chastised our modern governors. I refuse to become the subservient, submissive Jews of Warsaw, I
refuse to kowtow to those who try to circumvent their duty to the law:
judges, lawyers, court clerks and now our "police". AND I applaud In November 2002, I had little legal experience and limited knowledge
of our laws. By December 2003, I was only beginning to uncover the written
laws forbidding the conduct of lawyers and judges I was also beginning to
uncover. I was arrested in February 2004 ironically days after I heard a high
ranking government bureaucrat admit that she had never read our Charter of
Rights and Freedoms but who insisted that she knew tax laws. I heard her make
the nonsensical remark that, because I did not have a lawyer, I must, therefore,
not have any "legal costs". I snorted at her comment then. And I
would snort even louder now. Our bureaucracy in a so-called "justice
system" and our government is too full of people who have no basic
understanding of what "cash flow" is and what the costs of even
entering our courts entail. While I won the trial related to my I have received "legal documents" from parties I warned in
2003 and re-warned in the past six months of my intention to gain impartial,
unhindered, just process. Nipigon’s "Small Claims Court" sends
documents. They come from a lawyer and law firms already sent records of my
formal intent in December 2005. Even as I started to prepare this letter, I
received another notice from the Superior Court of Justice filed on behalf of
the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB). They threaten to send
"Sheriffs" despite my stern notices to their lawyer and their
"collections officer", and my petition to the police. Court clerks, lawyers, bailiffs, sheriffs and police. Are they
instruments of justice, servants to the law or servants to partisans
entrenched in our justice systems? To date the answer can only be the latter.
I can only hope that this is going to change in recognition of their duty
under our laws, collectively. If not, the consequences these people will face
from me are eventually summarized herein. I have posted my intention to pursue just recourse, unhindered by
those conflicted by association with any party named in this posting or by
those warned that they would be added if they did not stand down. That
posting was available since I have exhausted my petitions to I returned to courts myself and uncovered the names of lawyers and law
clerks and judges with more and more donation records to political parties. I
presented material to police and courts showing the laws that follow and
showing data from Stats Canada exposing that 91% of Canadians did not belong
to political parties. I discovered again and again that lawyers becoming
judges or servants of our justice system were donors to narrowed partisan
parties. Impartial, unhindered justice? I filed more and more complaint in
civil avenues and with police as I discovered more and more partisan
influencing into our courts. Even the latest OPP letter admits that my
matters are "... under investigation by another agency. ..." [the
RCMP]. But these OPP officers cannot see their duty to stop harassment from
parties even remotely associated with the civil case and Criminal Code
investigation. They allow lawyers from LSUC with WSIB and "Collection
Agencies", even those I have already given as documented donors to
Liberals and Conservative federal parties, to return to harass me. "Small Claim Courts?" Unbiased court process? In 1996, I had
made a decision to leave the The laws of I filed legal action before our courts in February 2003. Local
companies and business individuals who knew me as a honest business person
set aside "their right to money" as soon as they saw the details of
my case. It was only large corporations or large government bureaucracies who
sent small pee-ons and then lawyers and law firms to harass for money I no
longer have. And, when I researched those law firms and the lawyers, I
repetitively found their names on donor lists to big political parties. I
would make my case before judges. I would discover their own partisan
backgrounds. I would notify lawyers of my intent to go to the next level of
justice. Despite these notices, the harassing telephone calls for money
returned and too often gained momentum in the short days after the court had
rendered their verdict. I appealed to politicians. I even put the matter of
harassment before police who then gave me the run around because they could
not, or would not, define what jurisdiction my complaints should go before. This harassment has been going on for 3.5 years now. It will end. I
will not be made a "Warsaw Jew". Nor will I be silent to the
treatment of partisans, like David Peterson, who promote their greater honour
while hiding the history of their personal conduct in relation to
"Indian Apartheid". As of the date of this letter, the following is my position: Now that the premise of my arguments and case is
posted for public notice as to my intent at (this web site) , I am returning
to self-employed work to gain finances to allow me to carry forward my
rightful case before an unbiased jury of 12. I also have a right to full
investigation against the parties named who harassed in this case, including
those of the "legal profession" associated with LSUC who returned
to harass me after the notice of my intent of December 2005 was sent to them
(WSIB, ARC and PMCI, etc.). Those of the legal profession with known linkages
to partisan activities will face tougher civil action pursuit AND should also
face Criminal Code charges if our police were doing their duty to protect the
processes of justice. Until I receive report from the RCMP, with whom
complaints against agents of PMCI and others were filed, my rights to
non-harassment should be protected. I also filed new information with the
OPP. If they are not forwarding the materials on to the "investigating
agency" they themselves reference and as I requested, then they are not
doing their jobs. I am setting up a company named "Nipigon
Stone Inc.". I will use it to gain sufficient revenues to allow me to
survive and deal with debts accrued after February 2003 to others in order to
advance my legal case to date. I will work in frost free season to make money
and then I will finalize the draft of my first book telling my story in the
fall for sale across the country to raise awareness of the violations I
endured and saw First Nations endure. I will use that book to raise more
money for advancement of my legal case and to petition First Nations for
joint legal action against "legal professional" organizations who
have blatantly violated our constitutional and international agreements for
decades. I have finally gained access to most of the
relevant laws, although I need to review further. I borrowed money I should
not have been obliged to borrow in order to advance my cases or to defend
myself into courts I subsequently found corrupted ("access to impartial
systems of justice regardless of social status or creed"). I am an
individual. I am a citizen of I placed those matters before courts. I
discovered those courts tainted. I put my matter before the court in Under the laws that follow, I must be allowed
sufficient resources to advance my case. If the government will pay others to
oppose me but will not provide finances for my case to be advanced, then
those named or even remotely associated with this case, including WSIB, must
allow me sufficient resources to advance this case. If it takes time for me
to accrue those resources, this must be allowed. It took I have a right to advance my case unhindered. I
have a right to advance my case on my own and with sufficient resources to
subpoena expert witnesses and prepare and gather complete documentation,
regardless of the time it takes me. It is my opinion that, since I have
expended over $40,000 of my own earned or borrowed money trying to defend
myself in courts or to advance my case over the last 3.5 years AND that this
did not give me sufficient resources to subpoena the persons I wanted to my
September 21, 2004 trial, I should be allowed to accrue a minimum of $50,000
of the profits from the business I begin to allow me resources to advance
this case. I will be paying aggregate fees and resource
royalties required to advance this business since these fees go to specific
purposes. However, I am denied the right to tax dollars to advance my
arguments while partisans extract tax dollars from general coffers to either
oppose me or defend their positions. Therefore, I will not report or pay to
GST or PST based agencies. This position will continue until I receive
written notification that the federal government of In the advancement of my case, the only person
whom I have heard promote the concept that the ultimate responsibility of
every citizen and agency and corporation in this country is to the
constitution is Daniel A. Hazuda, Audit Officer of the Revenue Canada agency.
In 2005, Mr. Hazuda admitted verbally to the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms being the highest law in the land. He stopped harassing me and I
respect him for this. If Mr. Hazuda wishes to conduct respectful inspection
of the information and the data used to file accounts for the tax reports I
will file at year ends (while I retain profits and taxes until I have accrued
sufficient resources to advance my case), then he is the only government
individual who I will assist in providing such data files upon making a
mutually acceptable appointment for inspection at the above address, via the
above telephone number. While police have been polite in their approach
to my petitions to them in this case, if the police were doing their job, they
would phone the people I named in documentation sent to them. They would warn
them to stand down until I am financially able to take the matter to court,
as is required under the other sections of the laws I provided to them. This
would include warning to WSIB that the police will not support enforcement of
their latest "court" document sent warning me that a
"Sheriff" might be used to extract money I do not have now but
which I need to get justice. Indeed, if the police were doing their jobs,
they would have already warned the lawyers involved from WSIB, PMCI and ARC
to stop their harassing actions in this matter OR that they will face
Criminal Code charges of obstructing justice. Since I am being denied access to justice simply
because I do not personally have money, if Sheriffs or other "agents of
the courts" appear at the above address and try to extract property or
value before I have accrued sufficient resources to advance my legal case on
my own, then they will be given copy of this letter and told to go away and
read it. They will also be told that, unlike the Jews of Warsaw, I will not
allow "my piano" or any other resources I need to advance my case
to be taken away. This means that they will be informed that they had better
come accompanied by sufficient police if they want to harass me in this
matter. I will peacefully place my body between my properties and any
supposed "officer of the law" who refuses to respect my rights
under the constitution and laws of I will also be taking the badge number and name
of every "peace official" and "officer of the court",
including OPSEU paying "court clerks", who stay silent as my rights
to accessible and completely impartial and unbiased processes of justice are
violated again and again. I will, in time, be adding their name to the
already too extensive list of those who set aside their real duties as they
fawn to the precept of War memorials every November 11. Every November 11, I watch Lawrence Martin become frailer in body.
However, seeing the strength of his spirit and the spirit of his people gives
me hope. I also take hope in the court clerk who listened to my June 2003
arguments before partisan "judge" Helen Pierce. That transcript
clerk had the courage to say that she was disappointed that I needed to
continue to appeal to higher courts because she found my arguments sound and
reasonable. I also take hope in the one OPP police officer who appeared out
of uniform in my home in the summer of 2004, saying that he was impressed
with my documentation and legal arguments he reviewed. He said he hoped I was
continuing to advance my arguments. I assured him I was. I can only hope that
their collective spirit of knowing what just process is grows with others in
respect of the spirit of Lawrence Martin. Strange thing. I always see Lawrence Martin on November 11. I have
seen him there when Canadian Tire Corporation trucks (a party named in my
court filings) find their economy more important than one minute of silence
on one day of the year. They drive by, grinding gears for the sake of economy
while citizens struggle to hear silence for one minute on November 11. I have
yet to see full flotilla of the MNR employees I know, from the building I
once worked in as a "professional forester". Few of them appear at
Nipigon’s cenotaph. When working in their company, I refused to pay into
political parties as a government employee because I learned from a Czech
forester, who had been oppressed first by Nazis and then by Communists, that
duty to the public interest demands proof of complete impartiality. OPSEU
pays into the NDP. A NDP paying lawyer appears with police to suppress my
written words. Aw, it is clear why my former cohorts need not appear in
silent, respectful reflection. Their rights are being protected, by God, so
why should they bow their heads for one minute in one maybe cold day of the
Canadian year? Another person I have never seen at these local cenotaphs? The
multitudes of judges and lawyers I have appeared before over the last 3.5
years. They, too, appear secure in their positions. Nipigon is too distant a
corner of Politicians? The statistics of their taking bribes from lawyers and
law firms to advance the narrowed partisan natures of their history, in the
name of "partisan rights", shows that they completely and miserably
fail to understand the message they propagandize every November 11.
"Never Again"? Such hypocrisy. No wonder their status continues to
be one of abhorrence and disdain. As to our police? I have only encountered one who found it his duty to
express concern about our overall duty and our collective right to impartial
and accessible justice. Indeed, my assessment is that the excuse of our
police is that they have higher priorities. This becomes excuse for their
dismissing of my complaints on the basis of the popular notion of their
superiors, not on the basis of full consideration of Canadian and
international law. Or, more cynically, they care less for those unable to
defend themselves. It is easier to make the right to money and the rites of money the
measure of lawful conduct. However, this becomes vile violation of promises
made to all Canadians, including those descended from "Indian
Apartheid" or defined by "Warsaw Jew" partisan ghettoisation.
In Perhaps Lawrence Martin’s spirit will finally have rest after his
failing body disappears. However, if our police continue to fail in their
duty to the law in its whole, then at the next November 11 ceremony I suggest
that they shrug off the hypocrisy of their "blues" and "reds"
and reveal their real identities. Stop the pretense. Stay away from the
cenotaphs. Goose step on November 11 in leather boot straps and salute the
partisan politicians, lawyers and judges who demand that "they are the
law". Or step up to defend the very laws that emanated from the blood
spilled by common Canadians in defence of all Canadians,
not just the "privileged" and "the partisan". Then I know
that the spirit of my relatives will finally be at rest and I can return to
have respect for the men and women in our "blues" and
"reds". Sincerely Don MacAlpine Attached- Copy of letter from OPP Nipigon dated Extract of laws relevant to the case Letter only sent via e-mail or fax notice to First Nations, politicos,
NGOs and media. EXTRACTS
OF LAWS WE NEED TO THINK CAREFULLY ABOUT: RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE UNITED
NATIONS’ DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS BREACHED: (Extracts) Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Adopted and proclaimed by United
Nations General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of ... Article 2. Everyone is
entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration,
without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language,
religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property,
birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis
of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or
territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust,
non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty. Everyone has
the right to life, liberty and security of person. ... Article 7. All are equal
before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal
protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any
discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to
such discrimination. ... Article 10. Everyone is
entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and
impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of
any criminal charge against him. RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE CANADIAN
CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS BREACHED: (extracts) The Constitution Act, 1982,
primarily the following parts from (1) SCHEDULE B CONSTITUTION ACT, 1982
PART I CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS: Fundamental Freedoms ... 2. Everyone has the
following fundamental freedoms: (a) freedom of conscience and religion (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion
and expression, including freedom of the press and other means of
communication. (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and (d) freedom of association. ... Legal
Rights
7. Everyone has the
right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be
deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental
justice. Equality Rights 15. (1) Every individual
is equal before the and under the law and has the right to the equal
protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in
particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin,
colour, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability. RELEVANT CRIMINAL CODE SECTIONS
BREACHED: [NOTE- sections of the following
extracts, downloaded from the web on ... 19. Ignorance of the law by a person
who commits an offence is not an excuse for committing that offence. R.S., c. C-34, s. 19. ... 22. (1) Where a person counsels another
person to be a party to an offence and that other person is afterwards a
party to that offence, the person who counselled is a party to that offence,
notwithstanding that the offence was committed in a way different from that
which was counselled. Idem (2) Every one who counsels
another person to be a party to an offence is a party to every offence that
the other commits in consequence of the counselling that the person who
counselled knew or ought to have known was likely to be committed in
consequence of the counselling. Definition of
""counsel"" (3) For the purposes of this Act,
""counsel"" includes procure, solicit or incite. R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 22; R.S., 1985,
c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 7. Offences
of negligence —— organizations 22.1 In respect of an offence that
requires the prosecution to prove negligence, an organization is a party to
the offence if (a) acting within the scope of
their authority (i) one of its representatives is a
party to the offence,
or (ii) two or more of its
representatives engage in conduct, whether by act or omission, such that, if
it had been the conduct of only one representative, that representative would
have been a party to the offence; and (b) the senior officer who is
responsible for the aspect of the organization’s activities that is relevant
to the offence departs —— or the senior officers, collectively, depart ——
markedly from the standard of care that, in the circumstances, could
reasonably be expected to prevent a representative of the organization from
being a party to the offence. 2003, c. 21, s. 2. Other
offences —— organizations 22.2 In respect of an offence that
requires the prosecution to prove fault —— other than negligence —— an
organization is a party to the offence if, with the intent at least in part
to benefit the organization, one of its senior officers (a) acting within the scope of
their authority, is a party to the offence; (b) having the mental state required to
be a party to the offence and acting within the scope of their authority,
directs the work of other representatives of the organization so that they do
the act or make the omission specified in the offence; or (c) knowing that a representative
of the organization is or is about to be a party to the offence, does not
take all reasonable measures to stop them from being a party to the offence. 2003, c. 21, s. 2. ... Breach of
trust by public officer 122. Every official who, in connection
with the duties of his office, commits fraud or a breach of trust is guilty
of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding
five years, whether or not the fraud or breach of trust would be an offence
if it were committed in relation to a private person. R.S., c. C-34, s. 111. ... Influencing
or negotiating appointments or dealing in offices 125. Every one who (a) receives, agrees to receive, gives
or procures to be given, directly or indirectly, a reward, advantage or
benefit of any kind as consideration for cooperation, assistance or exercise of
influence to secure the appointment of any person to an office, (b) solicits, recommends or
negotiates in any manner with respect to an appointment to or resignation
from an office, in expectation of a direct or indirect reward, advantage or
benefit, or (c) keeps without lawful authority, the
proof of which lies on him, a place for transacting or negotiating any
business relating to (i) the filling of vacancies in
offices, (ii) the sale or purchase of offices,
or (iii) appointments to or resignations
from offices, is guilty of an indictable offence and
liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years. R.S., c. C-34, s. 114. 126. (1) Every one who, without
lawful excuse, contravenes an Act of Parliament by wilfully doing anything
that it forbids or by wilfully omitting to do anything that it requires to be
done is, unless a punishment is expressly provided by law, guilty of an
indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two
years. Attorney General of (2) Any proceedings in respect of a
contravention of or conspiracy to contravene an Act mentioned in subsection
(1), other than this Act, may be instituted at the instance of the Government
of Canada and conducted by or on behalf of that Government. R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 126; R.S.,
1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 185(F). ... Misleading Justice 131. (1) Subject to subsection (3), every
one commits perjury who, with intent to mislead, makes before a person who is
authorized by law to permit it to be made before him a false statement under
oath or solemn affirmation, by affidavit, solemn declaration or deposition or
orally, knowing that the statement is false. ... Idem (2) Every
one who wilfully attempts in any manner other than a manner described in
subsection (1) to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty
of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding
ten years. Idem (3)
Without restricting the generality of subsection (2), every one shall be
deemed wilfully to attempt to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of
justice who in a judicial proceeding, existing or proposed, (a) dissuades
or attempts to dissuade a person by threats, bribes or other corrupt means
from giving evidence; (b) influences or attempts to influence
by threats, bribes or other corrupt means a person in his conduct as a juror;
or (c) accepts or obtains, agrees to
accept or attempts to obtain a bribe or other corrupt consideration to
abstain from giving evidence, or to do or to refrain from doing anything as a
juror. R.S., c. C-34, s. 127; R.S., c. 2(2nd
Supp.), s. 3; 1972, c. 13, s. 8. 336. Every one who, being a
trustee of anything for the use or benefit, whether in whole or in part, of
another person, or for a public or charitable purpose, converts,
with intent to defraud and in contravention of his trust, that thing or any
part of it to a use that is not authorized by the trust is guilty of an indictable
offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years. R.S., c. C-34, s. 296. 380. (1) Every one who, by deceit,
falsehood or other fraudulent means, whether or not it is a false pretence within
the meaning of this Act, defrauds the public or any person, whether
ascertained or not, of any property, money or valuable security or any
service, (a) is guilty of an indictable offence
and liable to a term of imprisonment not exceeding fourteen years, where the
subject-matter of the offence is a testamentary instrument or the value of
the subject-matter of the offence exceeds five thousand dollars; or (b) is guilty (i) of an indictable offence and is
liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or (ii) of an offence punishable on
summary conviction, where the value of the subject-matter
of the offence does not exceed five thousand dollars. ... R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 380; R.S., 1985,
c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 54; 1994, c. 44, s. 25; 1997, c. 18, s. 26; 2004, c. 3,
s. 2. Sentencing
—— aggravating circumstances 380.1 (1) Without limiting the
generality of section 718.2, where a court imposes a sentence for an offence
referred to in sections 380, 382, 382.1 and 400, it shall consider the
following as aggravating circumstances: ( a) the value of the fraud
committed exceeded one million dollars; ( b) the offence adversely affected, or
had the potential to adversely affect, the stability of the Canadian economy
or financial system or any financial market in ( c) the offence involved a large
number of victims; and ( d) in committing the offence,
the offender took advantage of the high regard in which the offender was held
in the community. Non-mitigating factors (2) The court shall not consider
as mitigating circumstances the offender's employment, employment skills or
status or reputation in the community if those circumstances were relevant
to, contributed to, or were used in the commission of the offence. 2004, c. 3, s. 3. 381. Every one who makes use of
the mails for the purpose of transmitting or delivering letters or
circulars concerning schemes devised or intended to deceive or defraud the
public, or for the purpose of obtaining money under false pretences, is
guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not
exceeding two years. R.S., c. C-34, s. 339. Back to Top |
|
|
|
“Those who make peaceful revolution
impossible will make
violent revolution inevitable”. John F. Kennedy
The Problem- The “Big 3” make accessible “Public Health Care” a major issue. They stay silent on accessible and credible systems of justice. Fall off a ladder, they will guarantee that you will get health care even if you have no money. If you discover illegal conduct in our courts and have no money to advance principles of justice? You are denied voice.
I speak from personal experience. Every bureaucratic step of our justice system will be imposed to protect partisan lawyers and judges, who are appointed by partisans, from dealing with the complaints of the disadvantaged.
Our potential leaders talk about “gun violence”. They do not debate the sad state of courts crowded by youth and others made cynical as padded lawyers in suits appear in overcrowded rooms, supposedly on the behalf of the oppressed.
The media even gets involved in the latest debate about inappropriate lobbying. Liberal MP Bulte appears in January 6, 2006 media reports. She is criticized for support from music and film industry “heavyweights” who are sponsoring her January 19 fund-raising event.
The media stays strangely silent on a legal document being filed by me in Thunder Bay courts. My documents are repeatedly blocked by court room bureaucracies but that document was sent, as a draft, to the four major political parties in October 2005. Its final version was then sent to the media on December 22, 2005. It outlines, in detail, the repeated donations by lawyers and legal firms and Chartered Accountants to the big three political parties. The media stays silent on this “influencing”, forbidden in international laws, our constitution and Criminal Code laws. These laws demand that our justice system function free of any hint of partisanship (see Dec05LegalActionRelevantLawsPDF.pdf). The tainted trail to judges and other “court officers” has not become part of the current election debate. The documentation shows, again and again that those lawyers, who first pay into political parties as lawyers, are repeatedly rewarded with judicial positions.
AND, ask yourself this: why were the concerns of a simple civil servant, raised in 1994, ignored by “Chartered Accountants” until a public furor arose in 2004? Why did one accountant from Quebec, Sheila Fraser, first work for ten years in this “system of accountability” without ever challenging these goings-on? Why did she first pay to become noticed by Federal Liberals, before being appointed as a “government auditor”? Why did she work silently in a system for ten years where her “ethics”-guiding-fraternities, and former employer, are found to give regularly to “major” Federal political parties? Why, in the December 2005 election process, must any potential candidate first obtain a letter from those who are members of these “influencing fraternities”, called “Chartered Accountants” or otherwise, before Elections Canada will even consider any candidate’s application?
AND, then ask yourself: why an organization advertised as “non-partisan”, Elections Canada, is found full of persons whose names appear on federal political party donation lists?
Statistics Canada suggests that less than 9 % of the Canadian population finds any inclination to donate to or belong to political parties. And yet, when the discovery is revealed to our media of partisan seepage into systems, which our laws demand be free of partisanship, there is resounding silence.
Why the silence? Is it because our media is no longer a function of open voice in our democracy but a puppet of pretence by a business so entrenched in maintaining profits that it forgets its constitutional duties? It seems so.
The three major political parties remain enamoured with this
situation because they view it as empowering. However, contrary to
IF you answer honestly after researching your options, you will see why candidates for these “major parties” should not even be considered as an option on any ballot.
Ideas for Discussion Leading to Solutions- Ban
donations from lawyers and law firms into any political activity until, like
other candidates paid or supported in any manner by tax dollars, the lawyers declare
removal from the business of law for the period of official campaigning and
their occupancy of any elected position in
Remove elected lawyers from debates related in any way to the system of justice in the same way Prime Minister Martin was required to stay away from debates on shipping related issues.
Force existing judges and “court officers” in all court systems to reveal what political affiliations they may have had during service of any nature in the legal system, as a lawyer, court officer or otherwise. Individual Canadians should not be appearing in courts wondering if any judge or any court officer has historic secret affiliations that narrow the appearance of impartial and independent consideration which they are required to serve in our justice system.
Our justice system is supposed to be an independent body of review for the activities of any citizen, including partisans. This precept has been ignored for 150 years now, despite signatures on constitutions and international treaties promising otherwise. See Dec05LegalActionRelevantLawsPDF.pdf.
…. Under construction ….
GET BETTER INFORMED. Read:
and
Back to Top
AUTHOR PROFILE:
Don MacAlpine was trained as a forester at Lakehead University starting in 1971. He worked in private industry for 5 years before becoming a professional forester with the province of Ontario in 1981. He was fired in March 1982 for daring to challenge the ruling Progressive Conservative government for what MacAlpine alleged to be lies they wanted him to present to the public as a professional forester. He won his job back after a 1.5 year legal battle. That legal action became the first revelation to him of inappropriate politics into a supposedly impartial and independent judicial system. The only dissenting "judge" was alleged by MacAlpine’s lawyer to have belonged to the Ontario Conservatives.
MacAlpine returned to work under three different political parties but refused to join any on the principle that he had a duty to be seen to be free and clear of partisanship as a "public servant". He left the provincial forest service after 15 years to write a book in 1996. Its proposed subject was the inevitable decline of Northwestern Ontario’s forest industry because of the lack of ethics of business leaders, "professional" foresters and politicians. He set aside the book to work for 7 years with First Nations to try to advance their economies based on forest resources. This led to his first reading of a treaty and a better understanding of the collective trampling of the rights of First Nations that he now believes Canadians must immediately start to deal with.
At the same time, he stumbled across stone business opportunities in the economically depressed area around Nipigon in 1996. As he worked to grow this business, he watched the predictions by himself and a few other vocal foresters come to fruition: rampant fires spread in 2000; the decline of moose populations was admitted to by a government report published in 2004; and extensive mill closures began in the Northwestern Ontario area in 2005. He served as a local town councillor from 1997 to 2000. This experience allowed him to see inside politics and the tendency for even municipal politicians to promote their personal interests over their public duty.
Starting in 2002, he personally experienced even more disturbing violations of Canada’s constitution by partisans. A law suit was launched in February 2003 against various parties that were seen as politically conflicted in the matter. This legal action brought him before various judges and lawyers whom he then discovered to have a history of political affiliations. This activity conflicted with the laws he had reviewed. He stridently protested to politicians about these discoveries and was thrown into jail for one night. He successfully defended himself from the Criminal Code charges laid by a Crown Counsel who had donated to a political party engaged in the February 2003 case. The details of this incident, and why you should also be concerned about our corrupted justice system, can be found at the PDF files section. Mr. MacAlpine now seeks effective change in the two venues meant to protect the rights of all citizens: A responsible and responsive elected house of representatives AND an independent, impartial and accessible system of justice.
Don is married and has an adult son and daughter. His spouse
and children have the right to their own beliefs and life and will not be part
of this campaign.
DEMOCRACY
is about effective representation of the individual not empowerment of persons
or organizations seeking to gain self-serving favours from systems of
governance.
If you believe that
this fundamental promise must be protected, please get the word out by:
I.
passing this website onto a friend
II.
voting responsibly …”
Don MacAlpine
Box 907
NIPIGON, Ontario P0T
2J0
Fax and Phone
Contact: (807) 887-0708
E-mail: Don
MacAlpine
Back to Top
