And Justice For All?

Originally published January 21, 2013

Just to be perfectly clear, I’m not a lawyer. My approach is to examine what I personally consider to be misconduct based on a layman’s interpretation of the existing legal standards and nothing more. Only a legal expert (lawyer, judge, etc.) would be qualified to determine whether an illegal act or one which constitutes misconduct has actually occurred.

That said, there have been several high profile cases in the news recently which are closely connected to demands for transparency and freedom of access to information and where corruption of our judicial system appears to be in the works.

1. Julian Assange of WikiLeaks, the site which leaks information provided by whistleblowers and/or hackers from around the world. Mr. Assange has not been charged with any crime;
2. Bradley Manning, charged with providing secret information to WikiLeaks;
3. Jeremy Hammond, charges related to the Stratfor hack; and
4. Aaron Swartz, charges related to the MIT/JSTOR hack; Mr. Swartz allegedly committed suicide and the charges against him have since been withdrawn.

 The specific charges don’t really matter in this context. What matters is how each of these cases are being/were handled by the Prosecution and/or Judge involved.

Julian Assange

In between WikiLeaks first major public release of data and their second major public release of data, Mr. Assange was investigated for alleged and very minor sex “crimes”. Acts so minor that they would not be considered crimes in most other countries and which rest almost entirely on personal testimony rather than objective, verifiable evidence. Mr. Assange was interviewed while in Sweden regarding those claims, no charges were laid and Mr. Assange’s freedom to leave Sweden was not restricted.

I could get into the sheer stupidity of these particular laws which allowed this situation to occur but I’m going to leave that alone for now. Anyone who knows the specifics knows how completely idiotic this entire thing is from start to finish. All I can say is that I strongly suggest that any male visiting Sweden not make the mistake of having sex there. Seriously.

Around the time of the second major leak, while Mr. Assange was in London, UK, the Prosecutor claimed that a second interview was required. Mr. Assange agreed to the interview but wanted to remain in the UK and either conduct it through a video feed or have the Prosecutor come to the UK to conduct it.

Mr. Assange was well within his rights to make such a request and the acceptance or denial of the request was a matter of Prosecutorial discretion. That is the prosecutor could have acceded to the request but wasn’t required to by law.

The Prosecutor exercised their discretion by insisting that the interview had to be conducted in Sweden but provided no explanation as to why this was necessary.

Meanwhile, it was discovered through the Stratfor hack that a Grand Jury had met in the US and had secretly indicted Mr. Assange.

The only reasonable conclusion one can come to which might explain the Prosecutor’s refusal to accede to the reasonable accommodations requested by Julian Assange, is that Sweden has agreed to extradite him to the US to face the charges laid against him there.

Is this Prosecutorial misconduct? And on what grounds?

“Prosecutorial misconduct is conduct which violates court rules or ethical standards of law practice.” (See detailed definitions at the end of the post).

In my opinion, if Sweden is using Prosecutorial discretion as their means of trying to get Julian Assange back to Sweden on false grounds (the allegations made against him for which he hasn’t been charged) and in order to act against him by extraditing him to the US it certainly would “violate …  the ethical standards of law practice”.

In order to restore the confidence in and perception of justice of the Swedish legal system all the Swedish Prosecutor has to do is interview Assange by video from the Ecuadorian Embassy and then either charge him or close the investigation.

The misconduct here and potential for further misconduct is patently obvious if they continue to refuse this reasonable and simple solution.

Bradley Manning
(Note: At the time I wrote this, Chelsea Manning was using her birth name, Bradley and birth gender. It wasn't until much later that she requested her gender transition be recognized).

Bradley Manning, a member of the US military, was arrested and charged with allegedly leaking secret information to WikiLeaks.

He was held in what can only be described as tortuous conditions for nine months between, July 2010 and April 2011. He continues to be held without bail and awaiting trial. He was arrested in May, 2010 and his trial will begin in June, 2013 after pre-trial hearings in February, 2013 are complete. (Trial Date Correction. 2013.01.23)

In this case Prosecutorial discretion was invoked in determining the charges which, according to the defense amounted to an attempt to intimidate Mr. Manning into testifying against Julian Assange by overcharging him based on overstating the alleged harm that occurred.

According to the Prosecution it’s perfectly acceptable to exaggerate charges and keep someone in prison without bail for approximately 2 years and 7 months. It will be over 3 years by the time the case is finally heard. A final ruling on whether the case will be dismissed on the grounds that it violates Manning's right to a speedy trial will be made at the end of February. (Correction based on new information)

Are these the “ethical standards of law practice” that the US commonly adheres to or are they simply acceptable depending on who the defendant is?

Jeremy Hammond

Jeremy Hammond’s case is perhaps the clearest of all.

Mr. Hammond was charged for the Stratfor hack.

Ironically, the Trial Judge was the spouse of a Stratfor client who has apparently and to date refused to recuse herself from the case. She insists it be dealt with in court.

If this Trial Judge does not recuse herself, in my opinion, it will be a clear and obvious case of Judicial Misconduct for which she should be removed from the bench.

“The recusal of a judge may be requested:

Where he himself or his spouse has a personal interest in the dispute;”

(See detailed definitions at the end of the post).

 Aaron Swartz

Aaron Swartz is the saddest of all.

Mr. Swartz was charged with the JSTOR/MIT hack.

According to his family, Mr. Swartz was pursued by the Prosecution to such a degree that he committed suicide. Apparently this is the second Hacker this particular Prosecutor has driven to suicide.

The fact that two of this Prosecutor’s defendants met the same fate says a lot about how he handles his cases and defendants in general. And while it’s possible that this isn’t technically considered misconduct one has to wonder why it's not acceptable to do the following to witnesses and is considered misconduct:

“Threatening, badgering or tampering with witnesses;”

But it’s apparently okay to do that to the defendant? How is one an “ethical standard of law practice.” and the other not?

One of the most basic premises in law is supposed to be “presumed innocent until proven guilty” so how do we rationalize treating defendants like criminals before they’ve been convicted, or in the case of Julian Assange before he’s even been charged with anything?

“Any person charged with an offence has the right ... to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal.” --Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Definitions ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Presumption of Innocence

A legal presumption that benefits a defendant in a criminal case and which results in acquittal in the event that the prosecutor does not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Any person charged with an offence has the right ... to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal.

Rule of Law Definition:

That individuals, persons and government shall submit to, obey and be regulated by law, and not arbitrary action by an individual or a group of individuals.

Due Process Definition:

Fundamental procedural legal safeguards of which every citizen has an absolute right when a state or court purports to take a decision that could affect any right of that citizen.

Prosecutorial Discretion:

Discretionary powers exercised by the government's prosecution service such as whether to prosecute charge recommended by police, to stay an ongoing proceeding, plea bargaining, or the taking over of a private prosecution.

Prosecutorial Misconduct:

Prosecutorial misconduct is conduct which violates court rules or ethical standards of law practice. Examples, among others, may include:

Courtroom misconduct (making improper remarks or improperly introducing evidence designed to prejudice the jury: violating rules regarding selection of the jury; or making improper closing arguments);
Hiding, destroying or tampering with evidence, case files or court records;
Failing to disclose evidence that might tend to exonerate the defendant
Threatening, badgering or tampering with witnesses;
Presenting false or misleading evidence;
Selective or vindictive prosecution
Denial of a speedy trial rights
Use of unreliable and untruthful witnesses and snitches

Judicial Misconduct

Conduct on the part of a judge that is prohibited and which could lead to a form of discipline.

.... conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts, or (an inability) to discharge all the duties of office by reason of mental or physical disability.

(A) judge's conduct must be free from impropriety and the appearance of impropriety and that both his official and personal behavior be in accordance with the highest standard society can expect. The standard of conduct is higher than expected of lay people and also higher than that expected of attorneys. The ultimate standard must be conduct which constantly reaffirms fitness for the high responsibilities of judicial office, and judges must so comport themselves as to dignify the administration of justice and deserve the confidence and respect of the public.

Examples:

The use of a harsh and angry tone and demeanor,
Excessive arrogance,
Lack of impartiality,
Incompetence,
Improper political or even charitable or fund-raising activities,
Sexually harassing conduct,
Off-the-record, private communication with a litigant about a pending case,
Criminal conduct,
Conflict of interest,
An ethnic or racial slur,
Physical or mental disability,
Bankruptcy or insolvency,
Misuse of prestige of office,
Allowing cameras in the courtroom,
Receiving a bribe or gift from a litigant,
Making it public comment on a pending case or which shows prejudgment
Failure to recuse oneself in an appropriate case, and
Administrative mismanagement such as a failure to render a judgment in a reasonable amount of time.

Recusal

The recusal of a judge may be requested:

    Where he himself or his spouse has a personal interest in the dispute;

    Where he himself or his spouse is the creditor, debtor, presumed heir or donee of one of the parties;

    Where he himself or his spouse is related by blood or marriage with one of the parties or his or her spouse up to the fourth degree of kinship inclusive;

    Where there have been or have proceedings between himself or his spouse and with one of the parties or his or her spouse;

    Where he has, previously, had knowledge of the matter in the capacity of a judge or arbitrator or where the has counseled one of the parties;

    Where the judge or his spouse is entrusted of the administration of the property of one of the parties;

    Where there exists a link of subordination between the judge or his spouse and one of the parties or his or her spouse;

    Where there has been a notorious friendship or enmity between the judge and one of the parties....

"The party who wishes to recuse a judge shall have, on pain of inadmissibility, to do so as soon as he has knowledge of a ground of recusal.

"In no case may the request for recusal be made after the end of the oral arguments."

All of the above definitions are American. However, since American and Canadian law is somewhat based on British law I don’t expect the definitions to differ too greatly between countries nor have I bothered to check.

These definitions are intended to be nothing more than a general guide to this discussion.

Our New Canada #StopBillC51

In 1933, Hitler established various policies both before and after he took absolute power. Some were:
1. Censorship
2. Gun Control
3. A Bill virtually identical to C-51 (as per Rocco Galati, Constitutional Lawyer)
4. A Bill virtually identical to the Barbaric Practices Act called the Malicious Practices Act
5. The only people considered German were those the Nazis deemed 'genetically' pure germans and German Citizenship was restricted to them.

The REAL issues facing Canadians today are C-51, C-24, the Barbaric Practices Act, the Border Security Act, (just to name a FEW) not the manufactured issues fabricated by MSM, based on flawed logic and falsified statistics like gun control, anti-smoking bigotry, anti-male bigotry, ETC.

And note, that these Bills recently passed in Canada make most of the crimes committed in this book LEGAL!

From the Shadows: Persecution Games, a fictionalized memoir by Kitty Hundal

Books: From The Shadows : a fictionalized memoir by Kitty Hundal

From The Shadows : a fictionalized memoir by Kitty Hundal

Expected publication date June, 2015.

From The Shadows is a timely fictionalized memoir highlighting the damage that can be done when a rogue Intelligence Agent with wealth and connections is able to abuse their power and engage in malicious persecution with impunity.

It's a warning to the citizens of the world about the inherent dangers of placing our civil liberties in the hands of the state without appropriate regulations and controls. It's a warning that needs to be heeded before it's too late.

The abuses this next generation will be facing will be far worse than anything I have experienced and what I experienced was horrific.

Power doesn't corrupt. Power attracts the corrupt.

Warning From #Anonymous - We Are Awake

There are numerous reforms that can be made both in the US and France which are Republics and where the Constitution protects the rights of the people as inviolable. There are also numerous reforms that can be made in Parliamentary democracies which grant the people their rights.

1. First and foremost we need to redefine what constitutes Treason. Treason, in reality is, and in law should be:

a. any act which undermines the democratic processes of a country such as election fraud, excessive payments to politicians who in turn advocate policies favorable to those who financed their campaigns, etc.

b. any act which undermines the local economy in favor of external or international interests,

c. any act such as lobbying which benefits a foreign power at the expense of the country.

2. The next critical change has to be establishing restrictions on Investment Capitalism and Banking as a system while allowing Productive Capitalism to flourish. Investment Capitalism and Banking is what's destroying our economy not Capitalism per se.

3. Then we need to evaluate our entire Justice system and establish laws that guarantee One Law For All including the wealthy elite and establish punishments for those who refuse to implement the law fairly and even handedly applying it to all.

4. Abuse of power and Corruption by any elected official or employee of the state, particularly when innocent citizens are the victims.

Those are just a few suggestions. I'm sure that given some thought others could come up with more.

Police Corruption and the State Machine

Disclaimer:

Please note that I am not ‘anti-police’, ‘anti-medicine’ or ‘anti-government’.

This article is not intended to malign these institutions as a whole. It is intended to explore the issue of individual police officers, medical and psychiatric personnel, and government bureaucrats who are corrupt and abuse their power to further career, personal or other agendas.

I don’t doubt that the vast majority of police officers, medical and psychiatric personnel, and government bureaucrats are honest, decent, hard-working people with difficult jobs to do and do them ethically and exceedingly well.

The few that are corrupt, especially those in high places can do a great deal of damage not only to the targets of their corruption but to the institutions of policing, medicine, psychiatry and government as well. So this is a matter that should be of concern to those institutions as well as every individual member of those institutions.

I’ve been writing a lot about corruption lately. Probably because it really does permeate every aspect of our society.

Here in Canada, in my opinion, it’s gone to such extremes that we are now moving in line with the third world where it’s simply accepted and a given.

The only exception to this appears to be Quebec where some standards apparently do exist and recent attempts to engage in bribery and corruption have been exposed.

Montreal doctors accused of taking bribes

Ex-Laval mayor charged with gangsterism; 36 others arrested in sweep

Abuses uncovered at Montreal 'asylum' (1999)

Whether anything substantive comes out of these exposures in Quebec or whether they will simply fizzle out, allowing the corrupt to return to business as usual, remains to be seen but at least something is happening there.

Ontario, on the other hand ….

No probe into police corruption allegations

The reality is that much of this activity is already illegal. The problem isn’t that these acts aren’t recognized as illegal and often criminal acts.

The problem is that the processes in place are abused by those that society has provided with special trust like certain individual police officers, doctors, psychiatrists, psychologists, government bureaucrats, politicians, intelligence agents, etc. And they are abused to further corporate, political and even personal agendas of the members of the wealthy elite and their associates, agents of influence, et al.

You and I can’t abuse these processes. We’d get caught and go to jail. But the right people with the right connections and enough money, resources to back up their demands, certainly can and have done as evidenced by the articles provided.

We are also moving in line with some of the most fascist and authoritarian states in history and the strategies they used to keep the populace from rebelling against the injustices heaped on them with impunity. Note that these strategies were also used by members of the elite to target individuals for personal reasons.

Punitive psychiatry—some debate in USA about who is and who isn't sane Or Even a paranoid has some real enemies

Concerns of Punitive Psychiatry as Government Tactic in Russia

For example, one well known and respected social activist in Toronto, has been explicitly told by a member   of the TPS that they are mentally ill. Why? Because they’re engaging in legitimate dissent. Although I’m sure the individual officer making that vile claim won’t give that as the explanation. Irrespective how they rationalize it, such claims effectively take the position that it’s ‘delusional’ to think that we have some serious problems in the political and social system we live in that are crying out to be resolved.

I don’t doubt that those particular members of the TPS who advocate this fascist and rather authoritarian position would love to do the following and we may yet see that happen in Canada, if it hasn’t happened already without our knowledge:

Kazakhstan Journalist at Risk of Forcible Psychiatric Treatment

A new psychiatric disorder has even been invented to deal with the ‘problem’ of social activists engaging in legitimate dissent, called Oppositional Defiant Disorder.

No doubt that anyone who disputes a police officer’s testimony in a court room must be delusional or mentally ill because a police officer would never perjure themselves on the stand or provide unreliable testimony for any reason now would they? And if they did we would hold them accountable for that criminal act and for betraying the special trust we’ve provided to them wouldn’t we?

Peel officers who ‘lied under oath’ won’t face criminal charges

According to this article, yes some police officers do lie under oath and no we don't always hold them accountable.

A police officer would never threaten citizens with frame-ups and false arrests now would they?

Police officer threatens to beat up man and plant cocaine on him, video shows

Apparently they would and no doubt this has actually happened to others by police officers who were lucky enough not to have been exposed on video.

Despite this reality, our Justice System, when dealing with anything from the most serious crimes to the most minor traffic infractions takes the police officer’s word as gospel when there’s a direct conflict between what the police officer says and what the defendant says.

Just like the Medical and Psychiatric system takes the word of it’s professionals as gospel when there’s a direct conflict.

Or, the government bureaucracy takes word of it’s civil servants as gospel when there’s a direct conflict.

One can argue that the defendant should have evidence to support their claims. This is true.

However, how does one defend themselves (by getting that evidence) when the police officer lies in court and the defendant is unaware that they are going to do this? Or, when Medical/Psychiatric professionals and government bureaucrats lie in Hearings and the defendant is unaware that they are going to do this?

Even if the defendant is aware that lies will be told, unless the defendant knows what lies will be told how are they to get the evidence and be properly prepared to defend themselves?

Under those circumstances, they can’t. The other side, the side that’s lying, has the unfair advantage in this system no matter which bureaucracy one is dealing with.

And since one is dealing with professionals who are lying and know the system far better than their victims, one can be sure they’ve done what they think they need to do to cover their tracks. Or, at least try to cover their tracks.

One can also argue that those professionals should also have evidence to support their claims but our system doesn’t require that they do and if they do provide evidence our system doesn’t require that it be vetted in circumstances where the word of the professional contradicts the word of the defendant.

One can hire a lawyer to ensure that evidence is provided and is vetted but even that doesn’t protect the defendant if the lawyer also doesn’t know what lies will be told and what evidence will be fabricated. The lawyer has the same disadvantage the defendant has.

As a result, it’s rare for any kind of corruption to be exposed in Canada because the state machine itself is corrupt. When it is exposed, I suspect that it’s probably because some member of the wealthy elite is ticked off at another member of the wealthy elite so out of pure spite or revenge they reveal the other’s dirty laundry. They are the only one’s who could do this and get away with it without any repercussions. Whichever one has the better connections wins. Or, a deal is negotiated behind the scenes and the scandal conveniently disappears from the air waves while the state machine looks for a way to rationalize it’s way of the situation.

Seriously. How many Canadian scandals have just disappeared into the woodwork suddenly and nothing more is heard about them? There is no follow up on how the issues were resolved assuming they were or not. This occurs no matter how irrefutable the evidence is or how strong the case is.

The solution to this sort of systemic corruption is quite simple. The professional's word should not be accepted as gospel under any circumstances. When there is a conflict in testimony there should be an automatic investigation into both the claims made by the professional and the claims made by the defendant. 

A process like this would protect everyone's rights because it would deter liars who would then also have to fabricate evidence and it would protect those telling the truth who can back up their claims. 

That won't stop evidence and witness tampering, etc. but those things would harder to set up and it would be easier for the liars to get caught in their lies when the evidence is being vetted rather than just accepted as automatically true because a police officer, doctor, mental health professional, government bureaucrat, etc. says so.

A process like this would give the ordinary citizen a fighting chance at standing up to corrupt professionals who abuse their power.

I have recently run into a personal situation where precisely the above has occurred and the entire drama is circulating around a minor traffic ticket I was issued for an offence I didn’t commit.

Details about that story in tomorrows blog.

“There's a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious—makes you so sick at heart—that you can't take part. You can't even passively take part. And you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop. And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all.” ― Mario Savio

I'm not advocating that we shut the machine down. I still think it can be fixed. I hope I'm right.

Abuse of Power and the Corruption of Justice

There's a saying that 'power corrupts'. I don't believe that is the case. 

History has shown that people do exist who are not only not corrupt but when they attain power they respect the populace and exercise the power entrusted in them judiciously. 

This honorable aspect of human history is best enshrined by our Whistleblowers. The people who often are in positions of power, attempts are made to corrupt them or they are pressured to 'go along to get along' and they resist by exposing the corruption.

The corrupt and morally bankrupt consider those who expose their wrongdoings 'rats'.

However, the difference between the 'rat' and the whistleblower is fundamental.

A Rat is a person who is corrupt and morally bankrupt and who abuses his/her position to inflict harm where no wrongdoing has occurred. Their 'exposures' are most often lies intended to blackmail or bully others into silence or submission or create smokescreens that divert attention from the real issue.

A Whistleblower is a person who has ethical standards and will expose wrongdoing often at their own expense because the Rats are then called on to attack the Whistleblower and create a smokescreen to cover up and divert attention from the wrongdoing.

The reality is that the corrupt and morally bankrupt are attracted to positions of power because their intent from the start is to abuse their power.

The only way this can succeed is if the other halls of power like the Justice system has also been corrupted and allows them to engage in these abuses of power with impunity.

We've seen this partnership of the corrupt with the corrupted justice system and how it operates first hand in the way that the legal cases involving Julian Assange, Aaron Schwartz, Jeremy Hammond, and Bradley Manning are playing out and the impact that these abuses have had on their personal lives.

We've also seen the silence of the traditional media in the face of the outrageous violations of the civil rights of each and every one of these people.

The only way that these injustices can be stopped is by those who are ethical taking our power back.

This can be done in various ways.

Assange is running for election in Australia. Make sure he gets elected.

Don't vote for parties or politicians with a lot of money backing them who have obviously been corrupted. No the deals aren't written down. That would be illegal. The agreements are implicit and acknowledged by both sides.

Pay attention to the courts and judiciary and what they are doing. Require that all proceedings be televised and monitored so that back door injustices are reduced.

There are unethical members of the Psychiatric and Psychology communities who are starting to promote fabricated mental illnesses like 'oppositional defiance disorder' or intentionally misdiagnosing social activists as 'mentally ill'. Pay attention to this development. 

To be continued ....

Corruption and the Corrupt Among Us

NOTE: This blog post is based on a lesson learned in a recent experience with corruption and where I was morally culpable and effectively complicit by remaining silent about it. In the end, the corrupt exposed themselves while falsely accusing me of exposing them and falsely accusing me of harassing them. Neither of which I did. While the impact of this was small in the scheme of things, I believe it was an important lesson for me to learn and to share with others.

We have a serious problem today with corruption that permeates every single part of our society. The only real difference between the corruption engaged in by the “little” guy and the corruption engaged in by the wealthy elite is the impact it has on numbers of people.

The “little” guy who engages in corruption will have a negative impact on a small group of individuals or a social group. Many social activist and charitable groups are targeted by elements like this. They think they can take advantage of the good intentions of the group to further personal agendas often involving fraud not only against the targets of the fraud but against participants of the social group who make the mistake of participating, based on misrepresented good intentions . The personal financial gain of the corrupt individual instigating such campaigns is usually the ultimate goal.

How many charitable agencies have been defrauded out of their incomes in recent years? Many in Canada. The British Columbia SPCA were robbed in precisely this way by one of their own, their accountant.

How many well known social activists are targeted by smear campaigns and lies by those in their own circles? Many as well. Kevin Annett is one such example.

The atheistic communities have also been targeted by corrupt elements like this in recent years. Elements whose only agenda is to fabricate false dramas upon which they can build personal careers on the backs of and financially exploit the generosity of these communities. To accomplish this much disruption and numerous smear campaigns have occurred at their hands against individuals who have merit and have won the respect of these communities through both their actions and their words.

Then there are those who are less well known and where the corrupt individuals engaging in their disruptions are less experienced but using the same bullying and harassment strategies in an effort to destroy the reputations of innocent people.

Note I have no problem with these strategies being used to destroy the corrupt who have demonstrated their corruption and it’s provable. The issue here is that they’re being used against those who are fighting corruption and are innocent. A tangled web of deceit is weaved to cover up these corrupt activities and others are drawn in to conceal making them complicit.

On a larger scale, but with the same psychology of corruption at play, are the bankers who manipulate our global economies and governments to further their personal financial gain. This is done while demanding the implementation of policies which are ensuring the destruction of our economy and social and financial oppression of the populace who are effectively being robbed to further this end. They also use the same strategies to destroy the reputations of those who stand up to them or threaten their profit driven projects in any way.

Corruption is corruption and it’s end is always the same no matter what the means. There is personal gain for someone, somewhere in the mix at the expense of others. And this corruption is firmly founded on the morally bankrupt principle that the “ends justifies the means.”

Our world has become so corrupt that not even our governments, police and other state institutions that are supposed to be there to protect the citizen and work on our behalf can be trusted to do their jobs.

That’s not to say that everyone is corrupt amongst the rich and the poor (and everyone in between) nor would it be right to say that entire governments and their agencies are corrupt. Not in my opinion anyway.

I don’t believe that’s the case. In my opinion, there are those amongst the wealthy elite who do operate on ethical values and principles much like many of us “little” people and there are those both in government and state agencies like police and intelligence agencies who take their jobs seriously; operate on ethical values and principles and are genuinely attempting to serve and protect the citizens who pay their salaries.

We just don’t hear about these people and it’s often these people who are the one’s that get targeted, bullied and harassed out of their jobs and communities by the corrupt who are being lauded to the skies and receiving merit badges, awards and other honours for the privilege of having been bought or influenced by the right corrupt side.

On top of it all, when it comes to corruption, many of us remain silent in the face of it. Why do we do that? There are a lot of reasons for that, some personal, some social. Whatever our reasons the end result is that we become complicit in the corruption and enable it to continue if we don’t take a stand against it.

The Blue Code of police officers ensured that Christopher Dorner, a whistleblower, was persecuted out of his job and ultimately murdered by his own colleagues. At least I consider it murder. No doubt that some will find that debatable. I do not.

The numerous government cover ups of unethical and often illegal criminal activity that have been exposed after years and years are also testimony to this fact that even those innocent of any actual crime are not coming forward to expose these crimes.

It’s not surprising that Whistleblowers are finding that they are not receiving any protections when they blow the whistle on corruption because it’s the corrupt who have the power, money, and resources to ensure that they are persecuted irrespective of any legal rights they may or may not have.

Even at the lowest levels of corruption like that which occurs in the small groups in society, the benefit of doubt appears to go to the liars who continuously revise their stories, misrepresent and mischaracterize events/evidence in a self-serving manner, smear using demagogic propaganda techniques like guilt by association, recruiting “enemies” as well as bullying and harassment techniques like threats and intimidations.

So, how do we, the regular “little” people who have ethical standards and values break this cycle of corruption?

We have to take a stand everywhere we see it. At the lowest levels, in our personal interactions and at the highest levels in the corporations and institutions that are supposed to serve us.

That’s the only way we’ll put an end to it. It’s too pervasive and integrated into our culture for us to do it any other way.

We also have to start demanding valid evidence, evaluate it critically and not accept anyone’s word just based on reputation or friendship or age or whatever. We can always come up with rationalizations and excuses for remaining complicit in corruption. This will expose the liars who are attempting to cover up their corruption.

And we really need to stop putting ourselves in situations where we are complicit.

Julian Fantino A Fascist in Sheep’s Clothing

Please note that the following comments should not be generalized to apply to all Liberals or NDPers or even Conservatives. I am talking about specific elements in the Liberal, NDP and Conservative parties only.

Our world isn’t straightforward anymore. We have a phenomenon occurring where political stripe has actually become a meaningless label.

Look at Mulcair and Fantino, for example. Both have strong Liberal connections and many policies are Liberal oriented. Today’s Liberal policies are also very conservative compared to the policies of past decades. Mulcair represents a more left Liberal type faction while leading the NDP and Fantino represents a more right Liberal type faction while being a Conservative politician.

That said, we would do well to remember that it has consistently been the Liberals and faux Liberals of the Mulcair/Fantino ilk that have thought nothing of violating and even removing the civil rights of Canadians on a whim. Has anyone forgotten the havoc Bob Rae wreaked in Ontario as leader of the NDP?  Bob Rae is now interim and likely to become leader of the Federal Liberals.

Any excuse will apparently do and these Liberal fascists, who, in most cases, have also been bought by some segment or other of the corporatocracy, have not been above fabricating those excuses and then acting on their own deceptions.

For example, in the 1960s, the FLQ was accused by the Liberal government of the day led by Pierre Elliott Trudeau of burning down barns, bombings, etc. and it was those alleged terrorist acts which led to kidnappings and at least one murder and culminated in the War Measures Act being invoked.

The War Measures Act completely suspended the civil liberties of Canadians from one end of the country to the other allowing the state to arrest and hold anyone on any grounds for any length of time without any legal recourse or protections under the law.

In Canada in October of 1970 we had outright fascism for a period of one month and it was all legally done. To this day our alleged Charter of Rights does not protect us from this treasonous (in my opinion) act of the Liberal Party of undermining our Democracy.

In 1976, we had the McDonald Commission of RCMP Wrongdoing Hearings which finally exposed the fact that the barn burnings and bombings were not only RCMP Red Squad inspired but RCMP Red Squad implemented.

Operation CheckMate, one of the operations which was under investigation at the time, is still secret and this portion of the Hearing has not been declassified despite the fact that declassification is supposed to occur after 20 years (1996).

Now, in the new Millenium, skanks like Fantino, through the Conservatives have reintroduced these types of operations and are trying to make them legal again by removing the few protections (like the requirement for warrants) that exist to protect us from these criminal (in my opinion) violations of the civil rights of Canadians.

In criminal (in my opinion) collusion with the Ontario Liberals draconian and fascist legislation was dusted off and applied during the G8/G20 summit where over 1000 protestors were arrested or detained illegally (in my opinion) over a period of two days. This occurred while Fantino was OPP Commissioner and also on JIG, the group that was responsible for G8/G20 security and each and every policy that was implemented at the time.

Odd how during all of the violence which occurred by a group which had been infiltrated by the OPP (by their own admission) there wasn't a single cop around.

It made for a great reason to walk in and arrest lots of people though.

And as usual, Fantino had someone else to hide behind, Chief Blair took the heat for this one.

Fantino also contributed to the draconian Omnibus Crime Bill and sat in the background while Toews took the heat for it and I don’t doubt for one moment that it was Fantino who advised Toews to pull the “we’re doing it to get the pedophiles” bullshit out of his ass.

This is and has been Fantinos MO all the way down the line.

1. Fabricate an alleged “greater good” reason that people will get behind

2. Use that alleged “greater good” reason to violate everyone’s civil rights.

3. Repeat the lie over and over again through every outlet possible including the traditional media until people start to believe it.

This is the psychology of fascism.

It’s what Hitler did to rationalize many of his fascist laws and ironically it’s being used in democracies today around the world to undermine those very democracies and bring fascism in through the back door.

We can also give due credit to the German Stasi who also developed, introduced and used many of the techniques employed by those who wish to undermine our democratic processes and buy our governments.

Julian Assange: A Hero and an Inspiration

Official Statement by Julian Assange from the Ecuadorian Embassy

Source of this full text: WikiLeaks

Sunday August 19th, 14:30 BST

(This version has been proofed)

I am here because I cannot be closer to you.

Thank you for being here.

Thank you for your resolve and your generosity of spirit.

On Wednesday night after a threat was sent to this embassy and the police descended on the building, you came out in the middle of the night to watch over it and you brought the world’s eyes with you.

Inside the embassy, after dark, I could hear teams of police swarming into the building through the internal fire escape.

But I knew that there would be witnesses.

And that is because of you.

If the UK did not throw away the Vienna Conventions the other night, it is because the world was watching.

And the world was watching because you were watching.

The next time somebody tells you that it is pointless to defend the rights we hold dear, remind them of your vigil in the dark outside the Embassy of Ecuador, and how, in the morning, the sun came up on a different world, and a courageous Latin American nation took a stand for justice.

And so, to those brave people:

I thank President Correa for the courage he has shown in considering and granting me political asylum.

And so I thank the government and the Foreign Minister, Ricardo Patiño, who have upheld the Ecuadorian constitution and its notion of universal rights in their consideration of my case.

And to the Ecuadorian people for supporting and defending their constitution.

And I have a debt of gratitude to the staff of this embassy whose families live in London and who have shown me hospitality and kindness despite the threats that they have received.

This Friday there will be an emergency meeting of the foreign ministers of Latin America in Washington D.C. to address this situation.

And so I am grateful to the people and governments of Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, El Salvador, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua, Peru, Venezuela and to all other Latin American countries who have come to the defence of the right to asylum.

To the people of the United States, the United Kingdom, Sweden and Australia who have supported me in strength while their governments have not. And to those wiser heads in government who are still fighting for justice. Your day will come.

To the staff, supporters and sources of WikiLeaks whose courage, commitment and loyalty have seen no equal.

To my family and to my children who have been denied their father: forgive me. We will be reunited soon.

As WikiLeaks stands under threat, so does the freedom of expression and the health of our societies.

We must use this moment to articulate the choice that is before the government of the United States of America.

Will it return to and reaffirm the values it was founded on?

Or will it lurch off the precipice dragging us all into a dangerous and oppressive world in which journalists fall silent under the fear of prosecution and citizens must whisper in the dark?

I say that it must turn back.

I ask President Obama to do the right thing.

The United States must renounce its witch-hunt against WikiLeaks.

The United States must dissolve its FBI investigation.

The United States must vow that it will not seek to prosecute our staff or our supporters.

The United States must pledge before the world that it will not pursue journalists for shining a light on the secret crimes of the powerful.

There must be no more foolish talk about prosecuting any media organization, be it WikiLeaks or the New York Times.

The US administration’s war on whistle-blowers must end.

Thomas Drake, William Binney, John Kirakou and the other heroic US whistle-blowers must - they must - be pardoned and compensated for the hardships they have endured as servants of the public record.

And the Army Private who remains in a military prison in Fort Leavenworth Kansas, who was found by the UN to have endured months of torturous detention in Quantico Virginia and who has yet - after two years in prison - to see a trial, must be released.

And if Bradley Manning really did as he is accused, he is a hero, an example to us all and one of the world’s foremost political prisoners.

Bradley Manning must be released.

On Wednesday, Bradley Manning spent his 815th day in detention without trial. The legal maximum is 120 days.

On Thursday, my friend, Nabeel Rajab, was sentenced to 3 years for a tweet.

On Friday, a Russian band was sentenced to 2 years in jail for a political performance.

There is unity in the oppression.

There must be absolute unity and determination in the response.

Hactivist Byron Sonne: Comment by a friend

Kevin Brown, posted the following response to my previous blog, Hactivist Byron Sonne: Justice Delayed, on the Facebook page set up by friends of Byron Sonne: Free Byron Sonne. 

It was so good that I asked and received permission to copy and publish it to my blog. 

Thanks Kevin for your very insightful comments.

Kevin Brown:

"Regarding the incredible issue of bail being denied for 330 days, I would add, as an example of just how unprecedented this is, the case of Vakhtang Makhniashvili (Mariam's father).

Vakhtang stabbed his neighbor with a kitchen knife (came very close to killing him) on a Friday and was released on bail the following Monday! Bail amount for the attempted murderer was $50,000 (compare that to the $250,000 Bail Byron had to post ! for his crime of uploading video's of the convention centre to YouTube!)

There can be absolutely no justification or basis in law for a judge to deny Byron bail within day's of his arrest. The judge who denied bail request was corrupt - plain and simple! She was just doing favors for the police and crown without any regard for the rule of law. The judge has no integrity and she should not be sitting on the bench but she doesn't have to worry, judges are never held to account in Canada. Unlike the U.S. where the media are not afraid to criticize judges, in Canada the media consider judges to be above reproach.

In the attempted murder case above where the suspect received bail within days - his Lawyer was the former top crown prosecutor - Calvin Berry. Berry has many friends on the police force, the crown and the bench and you can see how his cozy connections ensured that his client was given as smooth a ride as possible! (he would go on to stab two more people while out on bail awaiting trial!).

If the judges involved were doing their jobs why wasn't the entire case thrown out after the preliminary hearing? Most of the charges were thrown out but the judge left in a few bogus charges , again doing a favor to the police and prosecutors, a face-saving measure so that they are not left with egg in on their face.

As for the latest charade, where the police made a huge spectacle out of recovering a harmless chemical buried in a back yard - if the judge was doing her job she would have cited the participants for contempt of court. This was not only a harmless chemical (used in high school chemistry labs) we have PROOF that the Police KNEW it was harmless because we can see (in videos) that the officers that lowered the canister into their special "hopper" wore NO protective equipment whatsoever (save for Oakley sunglasses).

Despite the FACT that police KNEW this material was completely harmless they went to great lengths to stage this elaborate theater in an effort to influence the decision of a judge.

If this happened in the U.S. , where they take the law more seriously, I have no doubt that senior police officials (Tam Bui?) would be facing contempt of court charges!

Cases like this remind me why we need to get camera's in our courtrooms. Somehow I think that if the actions of the players inside our courtrooms were to be held up to scrutiny we would see far less corrupt conduct.

Hopefully in making her decision this judge will follow the rule of the law and will not be swayed to find some wrongdoing (however minor) just so the police and crown are not left with egg on their face."

Hactivist, Byron Sonne: Justice Delayed

Will it also be Justice Denied? We won't know until sometime in May. The trial ended in March.

The entire case of Byron Sonne has been an injustice from start to finish.

However, that’s not what I find shocking. We know injustices like this occur. What shocks me is that there is very little moral outrage that it occurred.

Have we become so desensitized to corruption, abuse of process and abuse of power that we either no longer recognize it or simply don’t care? Is it really okay with our government, the media and the public at large to have our Justice system undermined in this way?

Let’s look at the facts:

1. Byron Sonne was the only person arrested during the G8/G20 Summit who was held without bail for over 300 days despite the fact that he committed no violent crime.

This includes people who actually committed violent acts like the fire-bombings of the Royal Bank of Canada and the vandalism in downtown Toronto.

Clement, one of the firebombers, and the only one of the three arrested who was held without bail, went to trial in December, 2010, less than 6 months after his June arrest. Pflug-Back was alleged to have committed thousands of dollars worth of vandalism and was released on bail.

Why was Byron treated in this discriminatory manner? What exactly did he do to deserve this “special” treatment?

2. The case against Sonne consisted of:

a. “guilt by association” claims based on his reading material and email lists he was following;

b. speculation about legal chemicals and other materials he had on his property, some of which were for geek experiments that he was able to demonstrate he was working on;

c. his open and public admission of blackbox testing G8/G20 security.

None of which are criminal acts as far as I know.

In contrast. The cases against Clement, Pflug-Back and some others included video evidence of what appeared to be them actually committing the crimes. 

And yet they weren't held without bail for over 300 days.

Where is the actual evidence against Sonne to support the charges? If there was none, why were the charges not dropped in their entirety? What is the standard required to legitimately arrest and charge someone? Was this standard actually met here or was it ignored by both the Detective Tam Bui, the lead investigator, and the Crown?

3. An appearance of extreme bias on the part of Detective Tam Bui occurred both in the interview tapes and with the dramatic street theatre associated with the potassium chlorate recently dug up in Byron's yard. The dig occurred based on information that wasn't a secret and the police presumably should have known long before this. Although they claim that they found out from the Defense Closing remarks. Whether that is true or not doesn't really matter. 

What matters is that the drama was quite unnecessary.

Perhaps I'm wrong but it seems patently obvious to me that the police and the HazMat team knew the compound wasn’t explosive otherwise why would they have burned it in an open fire? They did this immediately after they created a huge drama by stopping traffic all over the city as the truck took the compound to the dump to be disposed of. 

In other words, publicly treating it as though it was an explosive even though they had determined that it wasn't and didn't treat it as an explosive when they disposed of it.

The Judge was initially writing her decision based on the fact that Sonne didn’t make a bomb. Now, with what appear to be deceptive tactics, the Judge has presumably been left with the false impression that he did. An impression which could have an impact on the outcome of the case if the Judge doesn’t research this new issue carefully or register the nuances.

Whether Mr. Sonne is declared Guilty or not when this Judgement is handed in, I certainly hope that not just for his sake but for the sake of all Torontonians he will sue everyone involved in meting out this injustice.

There is no Justice without Accountability and those who engage in corruption, abuse of process or abuse of power to further agendas of personal bias must be held accountable. Especially those in positions of special trust like civil servants.

If they're not held accountable, they'll do it over and over again and every citizen will be placed at risk of becoming vulnerable to this abuse.

And I'm not assuming that this kind of abuse hasn't already occurred to others.

It has.

Happy New Year 2012

2011 ended on an exciting note.

The Occupy Movement was discovering it’s wings. WikiLeaks and Anonymous were maturing and coming into their own as critical components of this new, dynamic social movement that was inspired by the Arab Spring.

While everyone is still working on finding their way and their focus there’s a sense of excitement and hope in the air from those of us who have tired of the rank corruption, abuse of power, and culture of impunity that has been allowed free reign in our respective countries.

What we need is focus.

What we need is Transparency, Accountability and Justice with an end to the “reconciliation” approach that permeates our system in Canada and which allows criminals to walk freely among us without being held accountable for their crimes.

My hopes?

I hope the move by Americans to recall the politicians who voted for the NDAA picks up even more steam in the US. The ball has started to roll and this is an important one for Canadians and Americans alike. It’s important for Canadians because what happens in the US impacts us. The NDAA could certainly have an impact on the current Border Security Agreement being negotiated by the US and Canada.

The fact that these negotiations are secret when they should be transparent is another serious concern. Our governments should not be allowed to arbitrarily determine what can be kept a secret from the citizens who elected them. And we citizens should have input into a process that could have such a deep. long-lasting impact on our relationship with the US and our ability to travel freely between countries.

Ironically, no-one should know this better than the Conservatives whose roots were in the Reform movement in the 1980s and whose movement grew out of an opposition to corruption, greed and abuse of power. It was the Reformers who were demanding transparency and the ability to recall politicians. And now, we are seeing them return to the same corrupt politics that has permeated Canada’s political system historically.

This is precisely why Canadians also need the right to recall politicians, that is, the right to representative recall. The only place in Canada that allows this currently is BC. We cannot do this in any other province or federally.

Calling for the right to representative recall is something the federal Conservatives would be hard pressed to refuse or ignore given that it was the Reform Party, their root organization, that initiated this demand. And if they did so, their hypocrisy would be exposed.

In addition, the right of recall should be established as a Constitutional change so that it cannot be arbitrarily denied on a whim.

In fact, we should consider a complete rewrite of the Charter of Rights and the elimination of the “notwithstanding clauses” which effectively limit our rights to the whim of the government or state at any given time.

Rights are and should be legally established as inviolable. Only a few should be allowed to be restricted and only under exceptional or extreme circumstances limited in the most minimal way. Personally, I would like to see a republican style Constitution.

The Canadian Medical and Psychiatric system is wide open to corruption and abuse and the only reason that the corrupt haven’t been caught is because it is so wide open. Medical and Psychiatric Doctors and other personnel are given a free pass on the unwarranted and baseless assumption that they have the best interests of the patient at heart.

This is demonstrably not true and our experience in Ontario under the current Liberal regime is evidence of this sad fact. We need Patients Rights legislation and tighter Psychiatric Patients Rights legislation to protect patients from this rank systemic corruption which includes but is not limited to extreme and gross medical neglect potentially resulting in medical murder as well as incompetent mental health evaluations by GPs which can have a huge and seriously negative impact on an individual’s life.

In the sick and twisted minds of some medical “professionals” in Ontario, objecting to negligent medical care is an indication of mental illness. Sure it is, when the medical “professionals” are corrupt and want to cover up their gross and sometimes intentional negligence inflicted on a patient under who knows what bizarre rationale.

Our police services should not available for hire by private corporations and private individuals. Allowing this removes the fine line between who is acting on whose behalf and enables corruption.

On a personal note, I would like to see serious criminal legislation in place to deal with the crime of Stalking. The Criminal Harassment legislation does not even come close to describing and dealing with this crime. January is National Stalking Awareness month. Keep an eye on my blog. There will be lots of information on this topic this year, including an analysis of employer, community and organizational participation in this crime and the serious impact it has on a victims life.

And last but not least we need ideas to build a stronger participatory Democracy whether that means changing our parliamentary system to a republic or something else.

Just some thoughts to start out the new year.

Happy New Year!

Democracy by Leonard Cohen.

Occupy Toronto: RCMP: Integrity or Corruption

RCMP officers and employees have slowly been coming forward in greater numbers in recent days to talk about some of the abuse that they are subjected to and corruption that they see, on the job and from senior officers and/or co-workers.

I have to say that it takes a huge amount of courage for a member of the RCMP or any other Police, Intelligence and Military agency to do this and these officers should be commended and supported by Canadians. They certainly have my personal respect and admiration.

I’m referring to both the women who were sexually harassed in a way that can only be described as both vicious and malicious and to the men who were bullied and abused likely for no other reason than they disagreed with the wrong person or objected to some unethical behaviour.

The fact is that it is these members of the RCMP who are coming forward to bring these issues out in the open that are the ones who actually care about the integrity of the RCMP.

Those who cover up the abuse, enable and promote the abusers and enforce silence on those who object, are the ones who are undermining the integrity of Canada’s largest police force and destroying it’s professional reputation.

Why should the treatment of Police, Intelligence and Military employees matter to Canadians outside of those agencies?

For two reasons:

1. First and foremost, Charter Rights apply to every Canadian. There should be no exceptions under any circumstances. 
2. The same employees that are corrupt and abusing their power against their co-workers are also going to be abusing their power against Canadians outside of those agencies. The only way to end the Culture of Impunity and Secrecy that protects the abusers is to support the abused as well as demand a Culture of Transparency. The abused are the ones courageously standing up to defend the integrity of their agency and they are the ones that can ensure that integrity is maintained for all Canadians as well as themselves and their co-workers.

And hopefully members of other agencies like other Police Departments (Provincial and Municipal) and CSIS as well as our Military complex will also come forward so that we can deal with the entire problem and resolve it for everyone, not just one segment at a time.

This particular issue impacts all of us.