TakeBackDemocracy.ca  

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

 

Our Corrupted Justice Systems

 

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

 

AUTHOR PROFILE

 

 

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)

Dec05LegalActionIndexPDF.pdf

 

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

RCMPCoverLetterDec2305PDF.pdf

 

January 12, 2006 Additional Information

RCMPCoverLetterJan1206PDF.pdf

 

March 13, 2006 Additional Information

RCMP2006 Mar13LetterCombinedWithEmail.pdf

 

Warning Letter to Courts About Access to Justice and Right to Untainted Courts

Dec05WarningLetterREAccess2CourtsPDF.pdf

 

 

CONTACT INFORMATION

 

 

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 9:47 AM

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
Box 907
Nipigon, Ontario CANADA P0T 2J0
Contact Phone & Fax (807) 887-0708

 

 

----- 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 9:10 AM

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
Box 907
Nipigon, Ontario CANADA P0T 2J0
Contact Phone & Fax (807) 887-0708

 

----- 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 10:44 AM

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
Box 907
Nipigon, Ontario CANADA P0T 2J0
Contact Phone & Fax (807) 887-0708

COPY OF LETTER FOLLOWS:

Don MacAlpine

Box 907

172 Greenmantle Drive

NIPIGON, Ontario  P0T 2J0

Fax and Phone Contact: (807) 887-0708 

June 1, 2006

Attention: Giuliano (Zack) Zaccardelli , RCMP Commissioner

RCMP Headquarters
1200 Vanier Parkway
Ottawa, ON
K1A 0R2

ATTENTION: Commissioner

Ontario Provincial Police

General Headquarters

The Lincoln Alexander Building

777 Memorial Avenue

ORILLIA, Ontario

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 South Africa. Yes, Reservations were created. Yes, "First Nations" were segregated and beaten down mentally by "new rules" set by whites favoured by "the Queen". Yes, "Indians" were physically beaten in schools, meant to assimilate the children into "white society". But we need to remember this for more than just the reasons of justice for "Indians". We need to start to think of the ramifications for every citizen of Canada when the promises of old are so easily dismissed by judges and law enforcers whose duty is to justice for all, not to "justice of convenience".

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 Caledonia. There is no indication that he is volunteering his services because he has come to the sudden realization that he failed First Nations sadly during his 1985 to 1990 tenure of the highest position in Ontario’s government. Taxpayers pay his way to meetings? Why? Because he is the epitome of unbiased assessment of the situation in Caledonia? Why? Because he is the epitome of ethical, unbiased just process? Or because the state of our justice system has declined so much that partisan aristocrats entrenched in our systems of justice think that they can continue to get away with it? And that judges themselves think that they are above our laws demanding respect of all laws and agreements, regardless of their timing in our history.

Apparently an Ontario judge thinks he is above other laws. Apparently, an Ontario judge thinks that the courts, and orders issued by him, are the ultimate "independent arbitrator". But, strangely, in written petitions sent before, I have pointed out that law firms bringing the Caledonia matter to court first have a history of paying into old Conservative party folds. Has anyone asked for a Criminal Code investigation into this judge’s old affiliations? If he has even a hint of Conservative, or even NDP or Liberal, associations in his background, how can we be assured that he is not politically motivated? Peterson’s history is a known "Liberal". His law firm can be easily documented as giving to "Liberals" and "Conservative" factions at the Federal level. If "Judge Marshall" has any history of leaning towards "Conservative" or political party giving, or associating with those who do, the laws of Canada forbidding this are being violated. They have already been violated by the Liberal McGuinty government who assigned old partisan partner Peterson into the fray at Caledonia. Like judges of Canada, Peterson is no independent arbitrator free of bias or, indeed, of culpability in the sad state of "Indian" affairs. Where was he for five years as an elected lawyer occupying the highest elected office in Ontario? More concerned about reading and instituting laws to favour those who paid into his political party than in reviewing agreements made centuries ago is the obvious answer. And, more importantly, smug in the assurance that the laws he promoted assured his personal return to make income in a "profession" that gives more to politicians promoting the rights of lawyers than to the systems of justice that now fail common Canadians, including "Indians of Canadian Apartheid".

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 "Caledonia" parties back to court (May 29, 2006), a CBC radio host reports on a "Vimy Ridge" initiative. A man is interviewed. He is promoting that "every Canadian" should be made to go to this historic battle field to fully understand the duty of all in our democracy and our duty in the defence of its freedoms. He reports on the interaction between school children and veterans who went to the European beaches. He tells of the children who witnessed the reaction of veterans where men now growing old watched limbs disappear and comrades die in the next world war against oppressive regimes after "Vimy Ridge". He insists that children should go to Europe but that they should pay their own way. He relates the story of a single mother on welfare from an "inner city school". She told him that she engaged her daughter in the program. She told him that they cut back on their already meagre home situation because the mother felt it was important. She had relatives involved in those wars. The hypocrisy became that this man suggested that every Canadian should be like this mother and be willing to sacrifice miles of travel and person to send their children to visit these hallowed grounds of blood-spillage in the name of democracy and "freedoms we have".

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 Toronto’s children to these old fair grounds and tell them that story.

Save the poor some money. Put the children on a bus and drive one hour to Caledonia. Bring the "Indian" veterans from the Six Nations. Save the poor some money. Bring "Indian veteran" Lawrence Martin from Nipigon’s Ojibways to Caledonia at the same time. These are men who watched the blood being spilled, again, barely 20 years after the end of the "first Great War". Ask those surviving veterans if the promises they heard emanating from that war were granted to them or if the racial suppression against them only escalated as it did against blacks in the good ol’ USA in the same era. Then save the poor even more money. Drive those school children short miles to Tecumseh’s memorial near Chatham, Ontario. Tell the children the story of how many "Indians" died there repelling American invaders so that Canada could grow "strong and free". And then tell them the story of how "Indians" across this nation were rewarded by segregation, humiliation and oppression.

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 Europe during World War I. My father crawled beneath barbed wire on muddy fields near Chatham, Ontario in fearful training to defend Canadian soil because Nazi subs had been spotted in Canadian waters during World War II. My uncle related stories of shells whistling overhead in Korea as a United Nations effort tried to stop the return of military aggression in short years after World War II was declared the "last Great War". But, it is events from the last 3.5 years that convince me that the significance of these collective stories should gain greater significance to every Canadian concerned about the promotion of democracy, more so than sending children to the killing fields of Europe. The stories at CNE, Caledonia and my town of Nipigon should be cause for Canadians to take pause and reflect on their duty in the case of "Apartheid Indians" and my own experiences with police, judges and lawyers.

So, why is this letter addressed first to the highest commissioners of police forces with responsibilities in the Province of Ontario and then to politicians and NGO’s and our media? Treaties for the peaceful sharing of Canada were signed over a century ago. By 1948, new rules of how people should be treated were set in international agreements Canada’s representatives signed. The agreement was re-signed by Canada with great fanfare in 1998. These legal words promised that the rights of individuals would be protected in a manner free of any bias or any hint of discrimination in any manner, including "social status" or "race" or "creed". In 1982, Canada’s own constitution came home, promising our equivalency of person. From it emanated new laws forbidding influencing in any manner to gain position in governance or systems of justice. Citizens of Canada were promised that "Never Again" would partisans gain powers that threatened the freedoms of anyone, regardless of "social status, race or creed".

So, what does this have to do with "the police" and this "judge of Caledonia"? Every November 11, I walk down to the cenotaph in Nipigon. Every 11 a.m., I pause to remember. On too many November 11ths, I have watched Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) officers, dressed in their "blues", stand watching Lawrence Martin, First Nation, veteran of World War II AND Korea place a wreath. Then I watch the designated, young OPP representative march briskly to the memorial structure, place their wreath and neatly salute in respect of Martin’s comrades and those from World War I. I have done that in Nipigon for 25 years now. I went, first as a civil servant who was told to mind my own business. That First Nations were the responsibility of the federal government and not my concern as an employee of the government. I then watched wreaths laid as a private business man starting in 1996. I had finally started to read written legal documents for Lawrence Martin’s ancestors and his descendants. And, I became appalled. Then I, the elected representative of my town, watched the OPP lay wreaths as I personally discovered more and more the self-serving nature of Canadian politicians in every level of government. On rare occasion, I have even watched a RCMP officer, in their "dress" red tunics, yes, even from Lawrence Martin’s community of "race", salute this symbol of sacrifice for our very freedoms. And, I even appeared in the year that these same OPP had arrested me in 2004, after their peaked hats had been changed to the same sombreros the Mounties wear.

So, what does this have to do with the police and this "judge of Caledonia"? I walk to these ceremonies and reflect on the hypocrites and hypocrisies that appear every November 11th.

By the invasion of Poland in 1939, the German regime became the epitome of what Canada promises its citizens will "never happen again". First, laws were passed that established policies which violated the basic human considerations given people. Those who did not ally themselves with the Nazi Party became defined as lesser people. They lost voice. Those who were deemed "unworthy", because their creed did not match the Nazi goals of Germanic purity, became expendable. Yes, first the primary target became "Jews". Yes, "Jews" were sent to ghettos. Yes, documentary movies of real living Jews, like Schindler’s List and The Piano, show the first stage of restricted economies. The Piano dramatically shows the trauma of a famous Polish Jew pianist having his source of income removed by a pig of a man who is favoured by the Nazis. First, the dignity of equality of voice was removed. Then the ability to make income was removed. Then systems of justice were corrupted by Nazi leaning judges or Nazi oppressed judges. Then, first "Jews" and other "worthless", including those too poor to defend themselves, were sent to gas chambers. And, every November 11, our police and soldiers appear at cenotaphs along with politicians and elected lawyers promising us that "Never Again". Such hypocrisy!

So, what does this have to do with "the police" and an arrogant "judge of Caledonia"? For those sent this document by mail or fax, attached is copy of letter from local Nipigon detachment commander of the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP). It is becoming clearer that our police forces care not about the law as it is written and even less for the laws written to protect every citizen, including those made poor, even by the criminal promotion into positions of governance and our systems of justice of those who first deny voice and then economy. Jews and Nazis. Just what have we learned? Marked Indians, required to carry "status cards" on their own lands and denied basic rights because they were bothersomely from the wrong colour and "in the way" of advancement of the "new nationals", "the whites". The sad lesson I have learned is that our collective silence in the sadder conduct of "systems of justice", who add to the suppression instead of resolving the oppression, leads to our own detriment.

In the same year a grieving father chastises our government for respecting the freedoms his daughter died for, another grand commission ends in Saskatchewan. Eating up tax dollars, it is to report on "the wrongs" of our justice system. Milgaard. Klassen. Marshall. The list goes on and on of Canadian citizens incarcerated because our police did not fully investigate the matters put before them.

From the Nipigon OPP Officer’s letter of May 17, 2006: "... please be advised that I have again reviewed your dilemma. Collection Agencies have a right to act on behalf of their clients in pursuing the collection of outstanding accounts. ... The details provided do not constitute Criminal Harassment as defined in Section 372(3) of the Criminal Code. ... I trust that expediting the Court process may also help alleviate your concerns. ...".

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 Canada is to our constitution and international agreements and laws. I began to point out to "judge" Smith that the partisan biases I was uncovering in Pierce’s case were not only unconstitutional, they were Criminal conduct of influencing to entrench those with narrowed partisan parameters into our courts. And, I suggested to Judge Smith that, because of these partisan biases I was encountering, the only "just process" that could occur would be a civil trial in front of a jury consisting of 12 of my peers.

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 Canada guaranteeing this but I had heard this promise over and over before every November 11 ceremony. I begged that my right to retain and gain income to advance my case in courts be recognized. Instead of taking these letters in their full and assessing what my rights were, OPP from Nipigon appeared on February 24, 2004 and threw me in jail for one sentence I wrote asking if I must become criminal to gain justice in my own country. I became forced to review the Criminal Code in its full. I became forced to undertake more research work and more laws only to discover more and more partisan nonsense into Canada’s courts and legal systems. I discovered more and more laws which promised, in writing, that these courts and their processes were to be free of even a hint of bias of any nature and to be dedicated to the principle of justice for all Canadians, regardless of social status, race or creed.

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 Canada in 1948 and re-affirmed in 1998. Now, biassed, partisan lawyers and judges make rules in Canada’s courts that declare that more forms must be filled before an application will be heard before our courts. I refuse to fill out these forms on the principle that it is I, an individual and a citizen of Canada, who declares in writing that I am unable to pay. The forms demand that my "household income" applies. The form supposedly removes the judge reviewing the situation from the legal requirement to full consideration of the circumstances I have endured since 2002. But, the last time I looked, Canada had not struck down its constitution. Canada had not declared retraction of its 1948 commitments. But, Canadian police, "legal professionals" and politicians appear in their hypocrisies at cenotaphs telling Canadians that the scenario of Warsaw Jews being silenced, segregated and forced into restricted housing and then denied the very instruments of income for not only survival BUT also for just process will "never happen again".

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. Marshall. Klassen ... . Nonsense where full deliberation did not occur by police. Nonsense with recurring history where lawyers and police selectively choose what part of the law they will protect. And who they will protect or pursue. Nonsense where too often it is the privileged and the partisan who are protected while the law in its full is ignored or denied.

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. Warsaw. The record shows Jews silenced being led away on trains. The record, which shows the pianist, upon whose life The Piano was based, deliberating with a brother on whether to rush the few armed guards corralling them for delivery to Auschwitz, is forgotten. Forgotten is the repeated propagandized promotion and heroization of the few resistors from that ghetto who dared to take up arms to fight Nazi oppression even from within those walls of Warsaw ghetto oppression.