Sandra Finley

2020-06-23 This is serious. Censorship by enactment of revisions to Copyright Law (2019). Enabled by Google / technology.

Censorship, Copyright Law No Responses »

Jul 032020

This is serious enough to post and share.

I am okay running the risk that I might be wrong.

The cost of being right and keeping my mouth shut is too high.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Jun 24, 2020, Sandra wrote:

You may know this:

Last year, Copyright Laws in Canada, Germany, the EU and other places were amended. Maybe in the U.S., too. In Europe there were large protests.

Today, in problem-solving re difficulties in posting to my website – – trying to unravel what in hell was happening, I came across this:

Canadian Revised Copyright Laws – – anything that is deemed to maybe have a copyright connection can be blocked.

An attempt to post the link to the Canadian Govt page on Copyright Law uploads, but is not accessible to the public – – it goes to “Error, page not found”. Same as anything related to RFK. In the past, always, the posting of a link to a Govt website has not been a problem.

So, I can’t make public a posting for the Govt of Canada Copyright Laws. (Small irony?!)

The posting contains:

the URL (can’t put it here, or you won’t be able to access this posting – you’ll get an error message!)
the Title of the Act – Copyright Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-42)
Information – Act current to 2020-06-02 and last amended on 2019-06-17
links to the text of the Act (can’t put those here either!)

The above all copied from the Gov of Canada website. Nothing more in the posting.

Trying to figure things out, I found this in the discussions from Europe, about what was happening there:

Reference: One year of EU copyright reform: Is the Internet still working?, 20-04-2020

There is this in the Comments:

Stefan G says:

20/04/2020 at 17:30

I still have no idea how anyone could implement this (amended Copyright Law) into national law without building a massive surveillance structure. If every upload has to be checked for copyright BEFORE it becomes public then we need an automatic central service that checks everything that someone uploads or writes anywhere on the internet. And a structure like this will be abused for political reasons eventually. Just imagine what Orban could do with a system like this.

And who will offer the services to check the content? Until now only the big American companies have good content detection software, Google invested billions in this technology. . . .

Perhaps, we are experiencing the maturity of what is possible under the revised Copyright Legislation and with Google’s technology.

RFK expressed frustration over getting information onto mainstream media. Similar has been expressed by Barbara Lowe, one example. I experience a lot of difficulty on my blog, now, with information such as from you, or re Julian Assange, or re journalists in Latin America who challenge American hegemony. It uploads, but is not accessible for public viewing — “Error, page not found”. Blocked. By technology. (Not all URL’s are blocked; some upload just fine, as always.)

It is looking as though even the URL for a Government website is deemed to maybe have a copyright connection and can be blocked.

I think the censorship is serious. And probably legal under the Copyright “reforms” of 2019.

I wonder whether the Error, page not found capability that blocks access to postings related to Big Pharma, Julian Assange, Robert F Kennedy, Canada’s Copyright Law for Gods’ sake, and so on, is a consequence of Google’s billions of dollars?

Journalism in Latin America is much stronger today than it was. People like Glen Greenwald who came to the aid of Edward Snowden have partnered with other journalists for independent media in Central, South America, and the Caribbean. I used to distribute relevant and selected material from them, with full acknowledgement of source, as has always been my practice. Not a slam-dunk today.

It is as though – following the enactment of the Legislation in 2019, as Google moved forward with what was now legal, the problems were not obvious. It was early days.

/Sandra

Also, a new development. Email addresses that are @icloud.com (Apple, I think) – – I coded the person’s name so I know which of my distribution lists they are on. I’ve been doing that for 20 years. Today, done that way with @icloud email address, the person does not receive the email. The egregious part: I receive no notification that the email has NOT been delivered. I don’t find out that the person didn’t receive the email, and they have no way of knowing that there is information they should have received, but did not. Every single other person on the dis’n list receives the emails. And if not I get a message to inform me. There happened to be friends on the distribution list who look out for each other, the only way the difficulty came to light.

2016-11-30 StatsCan RE: Fruits & Vegetables Survey

Lockheed Martin, War Economy (includes Cdn Census & Trials) No Responses »

Jul 032020

NOTE:

This is 2016. I keep copy for my own purposes – – documentation of the b.s. from StatsCan and response.
Since then, as documented in another posting, the Statistics Act DID undergo some changes.

Hi again Christine,

I had the conversation with the knowledgeable person about whether the Statistics Act has been changed, as was told to you by StatsCan.

The conclusion is that it remains the same; no changes have been made.

Also, from the Govt website:

(Note: remove the XX’s and spaces, and then do copy and paste of the URL. If I leave a Govt URL in a posting, you will not be able to access this posting. It will go to “Error. Page not found.“)

http:// XX laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/ XXeng/acts/s-19/fulltext.html

Statistics Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. S-19)

Act current to 2016-11-09 and last amended on 2005-12-12

For my own purposes I double-checked (yet again!) wording in the Act, using the above Govt copy of the Act. Notes are appended. But it basically just reinforces: nothing has changed.

Best wishes,

Sandra

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

APPENDED

Section 8 is titled Voluntary Surveys. It says that the Minister may authorize the obtaining of information OTHER THAN information for censuses – – see the highlighted text – – – BUT Section 31 (the penalties) do not apply if there is a refusal to supply the info:

Voluntary surveys

8 The Minister may, by order, authorize the obtaining, for a particular purpose, of information, other than information for a census of population or agriculture, on a voluntary basis, but where such information is requested section 31 does not apply in respect of a refusal or neglect to furnish the information.

1980-81-82-83, c. 47, s. 41.

– – – – – – – – – – –

Then there is Section 22 which lists the information that StatsCan is authorized to collect in censuses and surveys – – it specifically says that Section 22 cannot affect the powers of StatsCan that may otherwise be authorized under the Act. Which is to say that Section 22 is not allowed to affect Section 8; and Section 8 effectively says that surveys are voluntary (Section 31 does not apply if people refuse):

General statistics
22 Without limiting the duties of Statistics Canada under section 3 or affecting any of its powers or duties in respect of any specific statistics that may otherwise be authorized or required under this Act, the Chief Statistician shall, under the direction of the Minister, collect, compile, analyse, abstract and publish statistics in relation to all or any of the following matters in Canada: . . . . – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

And here is Section 31 that sets out the penalties for refusal to comply. Section 8 says specifically that Section 31 does not apply to surveys:

False or unlawful information

31 Every person who, without lawful excuse,

(a) refuses or neglects to answer, or wilfully answers falsely, any question requisite for obtaining any information sought in respect of the objects of this Act or pertinent thereto that has been asked of him by any person employed or deemed to be employed under this Act, or
(b) refuses or neglects to furnish any information or to fill in to the best of his knowledge and belief any schedule or form that the person has been required to fill in, and to return the same when and as required of him pursuant to this Act, or knowingly gives false or misleading information or practises any other deception thereunder

is, for every refusal or neglect, or false answer or deception, guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to both.

1970-71-72, c. 15, s. 29.

So once again, the answer is the same. Surveys are not mandatory.

From: Christine

Sent: November 24, 2016

Subject: RE: Fruits & Vegetables Survey

No problem Sandra,

I’m leaving tomorrow to go on holidays for 2 weeks. I’d be interested to find out what the person will find. I’m also interested to hear what will happen, what affect, or what can be done, with stats Canada wanting more power.

Christine

From: Sandra

Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2016

To: Christine

Subject: RE: Fruits & Vegetables Survey

Your input is very helpful Christine.

I will be seeing a person on Monday coming up (Nov 28) who will research and confirm whether what you have been told is true – – that the Statistics Act has been changed.

I am skeptical that Parliament has amended the Act without it attracting any public attention. But you never know, so it warrants being checked out by someone who knows the system very thoroughly and how to confirm whether there has actually been a change..

I will get back to you, but it won’t be until Wed or Thur next week.

Thanks again.

And thanks to good old George Orwell for writing that little book “Animal Farm”! I would not see how it happens (your observation: then sometimes it’s too late) if I had not read it. His characters are the different creatures in the barnyard, a better way of telling the tale than using human characters.

Talk with you later,

Sandra

On Thu, 24 Nov 2016, Christine wrote:

Thanks Sandra.

> It all gets so confusing. She kept telling me that the Labour Force Survey and agricultural surveys were made mandatory. After I told her that the Statistics Act says that surveys were voluntary and I’m not participating, she finally said that she was going to write me up. After hanging up the phone I looked up their site and read that they had made them mandatory, so it gets confusing. I’m beginning to understand the difference between the Statistics Act and Statistics Canada. Where does one check to see where government changes the acts?

> Thanks again for all your help. We really need to stand up for our rights. Unfortunately, not until we are faced with a situation do we address the problem, and then sometimes it’s too late.

> Christine

> —–Original Message—–

> From: Sandra

> Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2016

> To: Christine

> Subject: Fruits & Vegetables Survey

> Hi Christine,

> You did not receive a Census of Agriculture.

> You received a Fruits & Vegetables Survey.>

> A Survey is not the same thing as a Census.>

> A Survey is a Survey and is not mandatory.>

> You have explained your position adequately.

> If they continue to contact you, it becomes harassment.>

> You are on secure ground.>

> Keep your cool; don’t get angry. Do as you wish. If you don’t have call display you can hang up when you know it’s them, or select a mantra: “Please do not call me again” “I do not wish to participate” and hang up. Or “I have an appointment with my lawyer to discuss bringing charges against StatsCan. Please do not call me again.” Do not stay on the line to hear their response. You have already done that. I trust you received my previous email: the Law is on your side.>

> Good luck with it!

>> /Sandra

2020-06-14 Julian Assange indictment fails to mention WikiLeaks video that exposed US ‘war crimes’ in Iraq, The Guardian

Julian Assange, Wikileaks, Chelsea (Bradley) Manning, Arjen Kamphuis No Responses »

Jun 142020

‘Shameful’ Collateral Murder footage shows Apache helicopter mowing down 11 civilians – including two Reuters journalists – in Baghdad

by Paul Daley, @ppdaley

(Photo) A still from Collateral Murder, the WikiLeaks video showing an Apache helicopter gunning down a group of Iraqi civilians. US prosecutors have failed to mention the shocking footage in their indictment against Julian Assange.

US prosecutors have failed to include one of WikiLeaks’ most shocking video revelations in the indictment against Julian Assange, a move that has brought accusations the US doesn’t want its “war crimes” exposed in public.

Assange, an Australian citizen, is remanded and in ill health in London’s Belmarsh prison while the US tries to extradite him to face 18 charges – 17 under its Espionage Act – for conspiracy to receive, obtain and disclose classified information.

The charges relate largely to the US conduct of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, including Assange’s publication of the US rules of engagement in Iraq.

The prosecution case alleges Assange risked American lives by releasing hundreds of thousands of US intelligence documents.

One of the most famous of the WikiLeaks releases was a video – filmed from a US Apache helicopter, Crazy Horse 1-8, as it mowed down 11 people on 12 July 2007 in Iraq. The video starkly highlights the lax rules of engagement that allowed the killing of men who were neither engaged with nor threatening US forces.

Two of those Crazy Horse 1-8 killed in east Baghdad that day were the Reuters photographer Namir Noor-Eldeen, 22, and a driver/fixer, Saeed Chmagh, 40.

Their Baghdad bureau chief at the time, Dean Yates, said the US military had repeatedly lied to him – and the world – about what happened, and it was only when Assange released the video (which WikiLeaks posted with the title Collateral Murder) in April 2010 that the full brutal truth of the killings was exposed.

“What he did was 100% an act of truth-telling, exposing to the world what the war in Iraq looks like and how the US military lied … The US knows how embarrassing Collateral Murder is, how shameful it is to the military – they know that there’s potential war crimes on that tape,” Yates said.

The Australian barrister Greg Barns is legal adviser to the Australian Assange Campaign, which works closely with Assange’s UK representatives, including his legal team. The campaign lobbies Australia’s federal government to both press its closest ally, the US, to withdraw the charges and to push Britain to ensure Assange’s safety.

He said while the US indictment against Assange did not “explicitly mention Collateral Murder … it is very much part of the broader prosecution case [because of what it illustrates about the US rules of engagement] and it is one of the many reasons to oppose what is happening to Assange”.

“Collateral Murder shows unlawful killing by Australia’s closest ally,” Barns said. “It is something we deserve to know about. Its publication was, and remains, clearly in the public interest.”

The Tasmanian Greens senator Peter Whish Wilson, a founding member of the multi-party Parliamentary Friends of the Bring Julian Assange Home Group, said: “The omission of the leaked Collateral Murder footage from the indictment surprised me, but on reflection of course it’s not in the US Government’s interests to highlight their own injustices, deceit and war crimes.

“The US prosecution’s case is focused on indicting and extraditing Julian for putting US or Coalition lives at risk, but what about the many lives they put at risk through their supposed rules of engagement?

“Collateral Murder exposed the loss of innocent lives at the hands of the US military, and the coverups, lies and deceit that refused to acknowledge this fact.”

2020-06-11 For your selection June 11

For your selection (summary list recent postings) 1 Response »

Jun 102020

“Normal” got us to where we are today. What sane person would want to return to normal?

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

A link inside the UN Security Council posting below, related to the integration of the Canadian and U.S. military, and therefore Canada’s attractiveness as a candidate for the UN Security Council, has registered 17,000 hits without being circulated.

The more recent posting Mixing up Effect and Cause has had more than 1,900 hits without being circulated.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

RE: This posting, June 11th, For your selection

Be clear: I am not opposed to vaccinations. I am adamant and clear that people should have choice.

A mix-up of cause and effect? Bingo for corruption! http://sandrafinley.ca/blog/?p=24998

People who can’t distinguish effect from cause should not be in the credentialed community advising Governments, teaching children and young people, on such topics as whether we are all going to receive mandatory vaccinations, under coercion and threat of law. With no choice in the matter.

I use an arbitrary article from the covid context. To illustrate a general point, one I seize on in whatever context – – a common mistake, our inability to get at ROOT causes because we so often identify EFFECT as CAUSE.

Canadians will still remember what happened last year (April 2019). It’s perfect for illustrating the high cost of thinking that effect is cause.

UPDATE: Derek’s “Comment”:

Cause and effect are an endless chain. Any one cause creates a result which is the cause of the next result.. Difficult to say which comes first.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

2. Why would other countries vote for Norway or Ireland, NOT Canada? (Seat on UN Security Council) (http://sandrafinley.ca/blog/?p=25023)

The media do not ask the question. They should.

Current upheavals in the U.S. focus on the internal, as well as external, brutality of the American Empire.

What if Canada is seen by many other countries as merely a puppet? What if the facts of the Canada-U.S. Troop Exchange Agreement are known? (the 17,000 hits without being circulated.)

Mainstream Canadian media never remind us of the large presence of American military and corporate interests in Canada. Nor of the killing done to ensure the profits of Canadian Mining companies in other countries, for example.

The surprise of Canadians should be that countries would vote for us. The U.S. has one vote on the Security Council. Why should they have ours, too? The history of Norway, for example, would give me a lot more confidence that my interests, which are the interests of the planet, would be better represented by Norway than Canada.

We have (1) people who often enough can’t distinguish between effect and cause doing the advising, and (2) military and corporates who operate outside the Rule of law, in secrecy (read the posting) PLUS . . . read on.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

3. If I put the link to an Interview in May of RFK – – in a posting, the posting gets hi-jacked — “Error: page cannot be found”.

If you copy and paste the following into a browser, then remove the 4 “XYZs”, you can get to the Interview. (I can send the link to you by email, the way I received it, but that doesn’t help people who use the blog.)

ht XYZtps://www.facebook XYZ.com/ Patrick XYZ BetDavid.Valuetainment/videos/67 XYZ 46836 XYZ 39773378/

The interview is documentary-length, recent and wide-ranging. It takes a minute for the interviewer and Kennedy to get into the flow of things. (It’s unfortunate that Kennedy has a dystonia that affects only the voice box. He was diagnosed more than 10 years ago.)

Now we have (1) people who don’t always distinguish between effect and cause doing the advising, and (2) military and corporates who operate outside the Rule of law, in secrecy PLUS (3) (censorship of anything that questions the conventional wisdom on vaccinations.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

4. If I am making a choice about a vaccine, I want to know this.

About Attenuation and Adjuvants.

To my way of thinking, if you don’t have an elementary understanding of attenuation and adjuvants, there is no way you are qualified to make a decision about vaccines.

The equation is now

(advisors who often don’t distinguish effect from cause) +
(military/corporates who are above the Rule of law, in secrecy) +
(censorship of anything that questions the conventional wisdom on vaccinations.) +
Doctors proclaim that the only way we will be safe from covid is after a vaccine is developed and we are all vaccinated, with no choice in the matter. THEY don’t know how the vaccines are made. Nor do they acknowledge the widespread corruption in the systems. . . .

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

5. 2020-04-23 Collection of personal data: to Canadian Civil Liberties (CCLA) and the CBC http://sandrafinley.ca/blog/?p=25046

Can a public advocacy group like the CCLA be effective if they will never raise the question of Canadians’ Charter Right to Privacy of Personal Information? I ask that they tell me the error in the logic I present to them. I mailed the letter, hoping to improve the chance of reply. Didn’t work. I sometimes send money to the BC Civil Liberties Assoc. The BC group does not answer the question either.

Is it an unimportant question? The doctor advisors proclaim that we can only be safe after the vaccine is developed and we are all vaccinated. Mandatory means by law. You have no choice.

The equation:

(advisors who often don’t distinguish effect from cause) +
(corporates/military who are above the Rule of law, in secrecy) +
(censorship of anything that questions the conventional wisdom on vaccinations.) +
(Doctors with imperfect understanding proclaim that the only way we will be safe from covid is after a vaccine is developed and we are all vaccinated, with no choice in the matter. They do not acknowledge the widespread corruption in the systems.
Canadians learned what happens to democracy under corporate/military globalization at the 2012 G20 Summit in Toronto. Brutal. Not to mention that Canadians got hosed: we paid close to a billion dollars to host the Summits. The graft was not investigated and prosecuted. No one said sorry about any of what happened.)

(Ref. 2012-06-10 G-20 Summit, Toronto. And kettling, a tactic of police; http://sandrafinley.ca/blog/?p=5811)

Consider the shaky ground we are on, the surveillance state we are in. Statistics Canada is now under one-person rule, and under the “steerage” of Lockheed Martin Corp.

What defences do Canadians have? Thank goodness we’re in the streets and protesting. We also have Charter Rights, even if the Government and Courts do not uphold them. The Charter Right to Privacy of Personal Information is extremely important. You can understand that when doctors start proclaiming that THE ONLY WAY to beat this virus is through mandated vaccination of everyone.

Stated with eloquence in the case law associated with Section 8 of the Charter (protection against undue “search and seizure”) R. v. Plant, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 281:

“In fostering the underlying values of dignity, integrity and autonomy, it is fitting that s. 8 of the Charter should seek to protect a biographical core of personal information which individuals in a free and democratic society would wish to maintain and control from dissemination to the state.”

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

TO GENERATE A LIST OF THE 10 MOST RECENT POSTINGS ON THE BLOG:

Click on www.sandrafinley.ca. You get a list of the 10 recent postings with the opening lines. If you want to read further, click on the title of the posting.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

THE LAST EMAIL I SENT INTO NETWORK: May 20, 2019 http://sandrafinley.ca/blog/?p=24460 (hope that the California court cases decided against Monsanto would start a reversal in the poisoning of the planet.)

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

I am happy that we are resourceful, resilient, thinking and strong as we can be!

Cheers,

Sandra

2020-06-10 If I am making a choice about a vaccine, I want to know this.

Vaccinations (incl corruption of science & govt) No Responses »

Jun 102020

EMAIL CONVERSATION:

. . . You checked into thimerosal – – is it still used in vaccines?

I recommend that you consult a more reliable source than the FDA! “Regulatory capture” by corporations is a huge problem. Especially by Big Pharma.

Further, the ingredients in vaccines shift and change; thimerosal is not the only mind-bending ingredient – – by far! More on that below.

Regardless of the Industry, steps will be taken to undermine public discourse if it’s negative. It is remarkable how mere Reassurances work for them, even in the face of glaring inconsistencies. “safe”, “most highly regulated”, . . . Tobacco. Lead. Mercury. A long list of chemicals and pharmaceuticals. It takes decades to get the poisons addressed because businesses and investors and governments are making money on them. Jobs are associated. Costs are “externalized”. The public picks up the associated health bills, costs of environmental de-contamination, restoration – – if it ever happens.

Moving past reassurance, Undermine, confuse the dialogue: mercury becomes something different, something “not mercury”. Ethyl mercury. Methylmercury. We get mercury from fish, even if you don’t eat it. We can outlaw some mercury (UN) as long as there isn’t a large vested financial interest in its continuance among the wealthy. It goes unregulated, unenforced.

My optometrist recently suggested eye drops and quickly pointed out that the ones on offer are without mercury. For a very long time not only eye drops, but the wetting solution for contact lenses contained mercury. Not labeled. Methylmercury is known to accumulate in retinal photoreceptors with serious consequences for vision. Ah but, we only get mercury from eating those damn fish. UNTIL today – – too many people share information. If you are aware, you will not use eye products that contain mercury. The last time I checked, the use of mercury in vaccines has been discontinued in most vaccines, but not the flu vaccine. Maybe it has been – – they never make a statement saying “The industry stopped using mercury in flu vaccines” because that would be an admission of guilt.

BUT OTHER MIND-BENDING INGREDIENTS IN VACCINES – – ATTENUATION:

RE the Lysol injection. Did you deliberately bait me?! (your statement Not so sure the Lysol injection would be funny? YIKES!)

I assumed it was related to the adjuvants/attenuants used in vaccines, one of which is borax. I didn’t know about Trump’s statement related to using Lysol to fight covid.

To remind people, So how are the vaccines made?

(I remember from 2017 when I was curious about the ingredients in vaccines. Coincidentally, at the time there was a Health Canada warning to parents to avoid using borax . . . can cause “developmental and reproductive health effects” in children and pregnant women. . . . (a short while later) in an update posted to Health Canada’s website this week, the agency says it is concerned about Canadians’ exposure to all forms of boric acid.

I had just looked at an Appendix 3: Components of vaccines used in the National Immunisation Program (Australian Govt website) – – borax is an ingredient in all influenza vaccines. And in a Hep A paediatric/adolescent vaccine.

MORE THAN THAT?

https://thewirecutter.com/blog/green-cleaning-truth-about-diy-cleaners/ (from 2016)

Borax is not harmless

A lot of DIY cleaner recipes, from toilet bowl cleaners to laundry detergent, call for Borax. This compound is one of many sodium borate compounds. 20 Mule Team Borax, which most of these DIY recipes call for, is sodium tetraborate decahydrate (PDF). It’s used for a lot of things, such as killing cockroaches, moth-proofing wool, and making cellulose materials (such as cotton) flame-resistant. You can buy it at most grocery and/or big box stores.

Borax is naturally occurring—it comes from mines, the largest of which is in Boron, California. Because of this, people tend to think it’s not so dangerous, but it only takes an oral dose of about 5 to 6 grams to kill a child – – – – (based on the density of 20 Mule Team Borax)

(Sandra speaking: in an update posted to Health Canada’s website this week, the agency says it is concerned about Canadians’ exposure to all forms of boric acid. . . . Why would you be giving the flu vaccination (contains boric acid) to infants, starting at 6 months of age? Their immune systems take years and years to reach maturity.)

= = = = = = = = = = = = =

EXCERPT FROM 2017 BLOG POSTING (mine)

THAT IS THE QUESTION I HAVE LONG WONDERED ABOUT:

How could vaccine enough for a million babies ALL get contaminated with a pig virus? I thought maybe the story was a hoax, so went to the manufacturer’s website. They had posted a response. The story is not a hoax: http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=1115

I was pretty incensed, for not least reason: the head doctor for the pediatricians’ organization in Canada was pushing the stuff. The diarrhea symptom is a call to boost the baby’s immune system through clean water, good food, love, care and protection from the pharma predators. (Who happen to be the same people who killed those kids in Nigeria through surreptitious and illegal human-testing of their drug Travon: Patients became unwitting guinea pigs for a new, untested antibiotic and many of them either died or were left with permanent disabilities. It’s the story told in John le Carré’s The Constant Gardener and a movie by the same name. The book pre-dated broad public knowledge. A Lawsuit brought by the Government of Nigeria against Pfizer, was eventually settled out-of-court with confidentiality clauses … of course. http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=4415.

So how are the vaccines made? Besides the info in one of the presentations (Vaccines Revealed), a book The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks by Rebecca Skloot is excellent in the way of a story and contributes to understanding. Henrietta, long dead, became immortal because cells from her body are still multiplying in labs and production plants around the world.

Roughly speaking (I do not claim to have more than a little understanding) – and with CLARIFICATION: Henrietta Lacks is a cancer story not a vaccines story) – – vaccines are a combination of genetic and other material. Invisible organisms. Grown and multiplying (as cells do) but under tightly-controlled laboratory conditions.

There are millions/trillions of airborne microscopic organisms everywhere that can contaminate the stew – so development of some pharmaceuticals is done inside sealed vacuums. Anyone who enters premises has to be de-contaminated. If contamination does happen, the unwanted organisms just grow and multiply along with the intended ingredients.

A pig virus can infect a million doses of vaccine because they become inseparable from the stew. Don’t even know they’re there. If you don’t know there’s a contaminant in the stew why, and for what, would you test?

A process in the production of vaccines is ATTENUATION. Understand it, in order to understand the risk factors. Attenuation is:

A dilution, thinning, or weakening of a substance, especially a reduction in the virulence of a pathogen through REPEATED INOCULATION, growth in a different culture medium, or exposure to heat, light, air OR OTHER WEAKENING AGENTS.

Vaccines often contain the pathogen, in one form or another, that causes the symptoms. You cannot do “repeated inoculation” on human beings starting with the fully virulent pathogen. So how is the attenuation done?

As I understand from Vaccines Revealed, one way is to do the repeated inoculations to a series of monkeys, in which case the blood with the weakened pathogen in it, carries organisms found in animals, into the human being.

(I thought the lesson from the transmission of mad cow disease to humans in the form of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease was: you do not even feed cooked beef to humans, if the cattle received any kind of ground-up animal in their diets.)

But more to the point: (from PDF, U.S. National Institute of Health website):

From 1955 through early 1963, millions of people were inadvertently exposed to simian virus 40 (SV40) as a contaminant of poliovirus vaccines; the virus had been present in the monkey kidney cultures used to prepare the vaccines and had escaped detection.

(The simian (macaque) monkey virus is associated with cancer.)

Another method of attenuation is to add a weakening agent like borax.

I was curious about borax. Mr. Google helped me: Cripes.

(CTV News, July 26, 2016 ):

Health Canada is advising Canadians to avoid using borax to make kids’ arts and crafts, such as homemade “slime,” over concerns that too much exposure to all forms of boric acid can cause “developmental and reproductive health effects” in children and pregnant women.

. . . in an update posted to Health Canada’s website this week, the agency says it is concerned about Canadians’ exposure to all forms of boric acid.

A recent draft risk assessment completed by Health Canada scientists found that too much exposure to boric acid has the potential to cause developmental and reproductive health effects.

“Since Canadians are already exposed to boric acid naturally through their diets and water, Health Canada is advising that exposure from other sources should be reduced as much as possible, especially for children and pregnant women,” the agency said in the update.

“The concern is not with any one product, but rather multiple exposures from a variety of sources.”

(and might we add that some vaccines contain borax? Did they order that any and all vaccines containing borax must be thrown out?)

April 15, 2017: I did a quick look for a government website that documents the use of borax in vaccines. This from Australia, an alphabetical listing by component, with the vaccine name brand and the associated pathogen.

You see the different forms of aluminum (neurotoxic), formaldehyde (no thanks!) – – but in a wide arrange of vaccines, MSG (another surprise), polysorbate … and this for Borax:

Appendix 3: Components of vaccines used in the National Immunisation Program

Page last updated: 06 March 2017

Borax/sodium borate:

Vaqta Hepatitis A (HAV) paediatric/adolescent

All influenza vaccines

Agrippal Influenza

http://www.immunise.health.gov.au/internet/immunise/publishing.nsf/Content/Handbook10-home~handbook10-tools~handbook10-appendices~handbook10-appendix3

The end point is this:

knowing that the pathogens MUST be attenuated in the vaccine, what do you choose to have injected into your body or your child’s body?
Injection of the vaccine directly into your blood, bypasses the body’s immune systems. (Th1 and Th2 arms of the immune system are explained in layperson terms in Episode 7, I think it was.)

Episode 6 had the story of the ANTHRAX VACCINATION. U.S. Military. Tragedy and heartbreak on a colossal scale. (I had investigated the ANTHRAX story prior to seeing it in the docu-series.)

. . . Our soldiers facing an order that they determined was illegal and immoral. (Mandatory anthrax vaccination) Witness the horror of human experimentation, all the while repeating, “This Vaccine is Safe”

I vented my emotional response by writing in the Comments:

You assembled and coordinated a large team of whistleblowers. Bless you all. Dig out the corruption.

News: 12 people killed by terrorists. The American military leaders did several thousand times better than that. I still wonder if the number can be right – – 35,000 killed by the anthrax vaccination? It is so incomprehensible. The military leaders are dangerous — the sometimes quick, sometimes long, strung-out deaths suffered by their victims are cruel. Slow torture.

If it’s terrorists – send some drones, drop some bombs, knock ’em out. There’ll be some terrorists in the neighborhood. Helps keep everyone employed, paying taxes and saving the world for democracy.

I remember the footage of Hillary Clinton’s gleeful reaction to the news that the bombs had started falling on Libya. Frankly, I think there are more than a few badly-corrupted souls in high places.

But we don’t have to bomb them, just vaccinate them (and their neighbors) for “safety and security”.

The anthrax vaccination helps explain something else.

Episode 6 of Vaccines Revealed included the Worldwide Premier of the movie VACCINE SYNDROME.

After watching it, I believe there is more to the arrival of the Veterans (4,000 of them) at Standing Rock.

The Gulf War Syndrome was more accurately the Vaccine Syndrome caused by the vaccine for Anthrax. A million military and other first responders were forced to receive a number of injections of the vaccine, with disastrous consequences for thousands and thousands.

When you know what happened, the deaths and the slow deaths – – lives, people and families totally ruined – – those people then ignored, discarded in the gutter – – you know that thousands upon thousands of people who would, under normal circumstances, be proud and patriotic supporters of their military buddies, were no longer. They went to Standing Rock with the original intention of taking up arms against the very forces they were once part of (“conversion”), on behalf of the Indians who were now their brothers. (The Sioux Elders took the Veterans from violent means to non-violent resistance, which is the route to success – – people are “converted” to the view that the injustices inflicted by the Empire are shared and widespread. They join forces against the regime.)

We have “conversion”, big time.

I posted an update on:

2016-12-29 Role of Conversion in revolution. Four thousand veterans come to fight for the Indians against the U.S. Military at Standing Rock. Wesley Clark Jr., Chris Hedges.

Is it a sequence we know?

they did it to the Indians. But we were not Indians.
they did it to the Soldiers. The Soldiers recognized they were the Indians and went to help.
But we were not Soldiers OR Indians.

Guess what? In the U.S. there are currently huge fights against mandatory vaccination. Some States have passed laws: unvaccinated children are not allowed to attend schools. Healthcare workers lose their jobs if they don’t get vaccinated. Flu vaccinations from age 6 months on upward (borax). . . . (as I say, in some States).

Simultaneously there are serious questions about vaccine efficacy raised by science and the historical record (epidemics that have come and gone without any vaccines, the role of clean water and good food – – disease trends that were on the decline prior to introduction of the vaccine, but the vaccine is credited with the decline, and so on).

Vaccines Revealed reported that vaccines are not mandatory in named countries including Australia and Canada. I notice in the Comments, several Australians corrected the information: it used to be the case. It is no longer true in Australia.

The situation in Canada? you can get a sense by doing an internet search on the phrase “vaccinations in Canada”. The Provinces are divided on the issue. There is a 2015 report of doctors lobbying to make them mandatory.

Especially with Big Pharma allowed to do “pull-through” advertising (which wasn’t allowed in the past) it is not a good idea to have those who make money from the vaccinations allowed anywhere near such decisions.

Officials “float” ideas, testing the water. The best way to sink orthodoxy is with science that is not undermined by fraud, or obsolete in a rapidly-evolving world.

Learn about vaccinations and have conversations with fellow citizens, regardless of where they sit. Officials will back off, OR a campaign to discredit the particular scientists will be mounted, OR there will be a large new propaganda campaign to promote vaccinations.

Big Pharma is transnational. What gets rolled out in one country gets rolled out in others, given time. IF they can get away with it. Rest assured they are trying.

If the Americans are fighting hard against mandatory vaccination (have been for a few years now), if Australians are realizing they have a problem on their hands, my best advice: get talking!

= = = = = = = = =

(skip) WHO TODAY OWNS 20 Mule Team Borax?

Without going into the permutations, with thanks to Wikipedia – –

In July 2017, Dial relocated its headquarters . . to Stamford, Connecticut in order to consolidate its operations with Sun Products and be closer to parent Henkel’s North American headquarters (Henkel Corporation) in Rocky Hill, Connecticut. After consolidation, the business was renamed Henkel North American Consumer Goods.

Brands

Henkel’s Consumer Goods brands include: (a long list, excerpts:)

All (laundry detergent)
Boraxo (cleaning products)
20 Mule Team Borax (cleaning products)

2020-04-23 Collection of personal data, Canadian Civil Liberties and the CBC

Charter Right, Privacy of Personal Information; Surveillance; StatsCan Censuses & Surveys No Responses »

Jun 052020

April 23, 2020

TO: Michael Bryant, Executive Director and General Counsel, CCLA (Canadian Civil Liberties Assoc)

CC: Brenda McPhail

It was good to hear Michael Enright’s interview of CCLA’s Brenda McPhail, Sunday Edition, April 19^th (CCLA, Director, Privacy, Technology & Surveillance Project).

Brenda did a fine job of addressing the implications of Personal Data Collection.

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thesundayedition/the-sunday-edition-for-april-19-2020-1.5532100/contact-tracing-for-covid-19-risks-erasing-civil-liberties-says-expert-1.5532117

ONE QUESTION —- WHY is the Canadian Charter Right to Privacy of Personal Information not rolled out in full force? I just don’t get it.

It is stated with eloquence in the case law associated with Section 8 of the Charter (protection against undue “search and seizure”) R. v. Plant, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 281:

It is as though those words were never written. WHY? To me they are phenomenally important. Every citizen in Canada should know they exist in that form and context.

2017-06-13 on The Sunday Edition, host Michael Enright stated “Canadians do not have a Charter Right to Privacy . . . ”.

I believe the statement to be demonstrably not true. Michael was not so blunt this time around, on 2020-04-19. But in the interview with Brenda, the Charter Right was, as usual, not articulated.

I deliberately used passion in my input to the CBC in 2017 because I do not know how otherwise to engage in an informed and serious discussion on this topic. It was not the first time I tried to get “the goods” on the Charter Right, Privacy of Personal Info, to the CBC for their use. Maybe passion would work? I happened to have just read another atrocity from World War 2 that was enabled by state collection of detailed information on citizens. The letter to the Sunday Edition in 2017 is at http://sandrafinley.ca/blog/?p=19458.

If I am wrong in my understanding of the Charter Right, for the love of God please tell me. The Charter Right, the criteria required to satisfy a Court that a Section 1 override is warranted, how Prosecutors get around the “Oakes Test” in the case of the Charter Right, are well documented on my website. The information base has been developed by working with a group of like-minded Canadians. Since 2003. And from experience, 5 years in and out of Court, working with a young lawyer who had a passion for Privacy Law.

I just do not understand WHY, if I am wrong, someone will not at least have the courtesy to point out the error in argument.

2011-01-21 Are StatsCan surveys mandatory? Interpretation of the Law. http://sandrafinley.ca/blog/?p=1046

Lockheed Martin, StatsCan, Charter Right Privacy, Trial http://sandrafinley.ca/blog/?page_id=70

The highest volume postings on my website are the ones related to state collection of data on citizens and surveillance. For almost a year, I have been pretty well absent from “my work”. Surprising to me, the hits on those postings never stop. The numbers just keep rising.

Thank-you for your efforts to defend democracy in Canada. Please just tell me why the Canadian Charter Right to Privacy of Personal Information is not even worthy of mention (at minimum).

Best wishes,

Sandra Finley

2020-06-05 Seat on UN Security Council: Why would other countries vote for Norway or Ireland, not Canada?

Lockheed Martin, War Economy (includes Cdn Census & Trials) 2 Responses »

Jun 052020

I do not expect Canadian Media to air discussion on this issue. Yet I believe it to be central to understanding.

Sent to CBC Radio, The Current, June 6th.

The seat on the UN Security Council:

Why would a majority of other countries vote for Norway or Ireland, not Canada?

Put yourself in their shoes, look through their eyes. Realistically.

A vote for Canada is a vote for the U.S. But the U.S. already has a permanent seat on the UN Security Council.

U.S. military might in the world is dangerous.

The American and Canadian military are integrated and “compatible”:

the Canada First Defence Strategy in 2008
the “Troop Exchange Agreement” (“Civil Assistance Plan”) also in 2008

(ref. http://sandrafinley.ca/blog/?p=24968)

The media hardly recognizes that Canadians do not have sovereignty over our military or corporate sectors. They do finally acknowledge the existence of FVEY, perhaps that is a first step.

It is easier for people from outside the self to see the self more objectively. A majority of other countries may not vote for Canada because they understand that a vote for Canada is a vote that supports the United States and its foreign policies.

Sandra Finley

2020-05-14 A mix-up of cause and effect? Bingo for corruption!

Corruption 2 Responses »

May 152020

If our decisions are to be based on science and logic

we had better be able to recognize sound versus unsound argument.

An article from Concordia University.

I think there is a mix-up of cause-and-effect. You serve democracy – – tell me if I’m wrong.

Why does Sandra waste my time? this is inconsequential – – until you consider the consequence.

The inability to distinguish between cause and effect

ENABLES the Canadian status quo.

Very Serious Matters perennially receive lip service

In this illustration – – corruption.

I use the example of former Canadian Attorney-General, Jody Wilson-Raybould (I am not talking about racism.)

EXCERPT FROM THE ARTICLE

In those countries, power is enhanced by the complementary nature of two genders contributing. The added value of this complementary factor in business management, for example, has been the subject of several studies. One of them, entitled “Delivering through Diversity,” by American consulting firm McKinsey, suggests that businesses with a more equitable gender balance perform better financially. (Why women leaders are excelling during the coronavirus pandemic from Concordia University.)

ASIDE: re McKinsey as reference. Corporate material has self-interest. Who typically climbs ladders in corporatocracy? The sex (male/female) of the climbers is irrelevant. There is abundant documentation of sociopathic, corrupt, propagandist behavior in large numbers of corporations. There is minimal basis for Trust. Researchers undermine their work by quoting self-interested sources. Put “McKinsey” into “search”, top right corner of this blog. )

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Back to

IS there an error in argument, failure to distinguish between cause and effect?

Is it A: “businesses with a more equitable gender balance perform better“? (which is used to support the argument that nations led by women are doing better at managing covid)

Could it be B: businesses – – entities, even families – – that are MORE EQUITABLE (impartial, fair, just) perform better?

If B is more accurate, one CAUSE of inferior performance in general in Canada, one that dodges sustained efforts to correct is corruption – – read on.

The status quo is enabled by incorrectly identifying equitable gender balance as causal.

IS IT an effect?

Women (not only women) can advance to achieve parity of opportunity where there is EQUITY and DIVERSITY.

Research shows that the decisions of a monoculture group will usually be inferior. That makes sense to me – – primarily one view, one sensibility reaches the table; people at the table largely agree with each other. Decisions are thereby shielded, whether the group is aware of their bias or not.

Introduce a different view and sensibility. What happens? Not always but likely, no matter how wrong “the gang” is and how right the interloper is, the interloper will be marginalized or edged out of the group. Others around the table don’t really process/hear the different view, or if they do, they rationalize it away. Some will go along to get along. Some will go along with the hope of future reward.

To me, the experience of former Attorney-General Jody Wilson-Raybould, familiar to Canadians, is an instructive example. There was no way for her to do her job in the Canadian political – commercial arena. The consequence was inferior performance of the – – Governing Body in this case. In spite of superior performance by Wilson-Raybould.

SNC-Lavalin is only one of the seriously corrupting influences in Canada. A critical mass of the persons at the table, regardless whether Liberal or Conservative, business person or politician, does not allow new entrants with different views to stray outside the limits. BUT WHAT WAS THE DIFFERENT VIEW DEFENDED BY WILSON-RAYBOULD?

The “diversity” that Wilson-Raybould brought to the table was perpendicular – – straight up – – insistence on the Rule of Law. She was the Attorney-General. A few others around the Cabinet table supported her. They are gone now.

The political-commercial power networks in Canada rationalize wrong behaviour. They are “loyal”; they “have each others’ backs”. The monoculture can make very bad decisions.

Impartiality, fairness, and justice, are impossible without the Rule of Law. Enforcement of laws is a critical component. They cannot be rationalized away.

HOWEVER, the necessary attributes are anathema to those around the table, who like their power and their club members. Solidarity fortifies the status quo. Maybe it’s a survival tactic. A critical mass do not want to be ruled by the Laws, all things considered. The Laws are for the commoners, not them. They do not lead by example. In that circumstance the leadership has to come from the ground up, seems to me. There comes a time to say “enough is enough. You’ve gone too far.” Serious corruption, in all its various forms, takes us all down. Look around the planet if you have doubt.

It’s about two-tiered justice and people with money trying to receive a better deal from the political-economic system for their power group. The top guys at SNC Lavalin are not subject to the Rule of Law. Nor are the people to whom they make large contributions.

So, do “Businesses with a more equitable gender balance perform better ?”

NO. It is an EFFECT observed in groups with a strong ethic of

impartiality

fairness

justice, and

the rule of law.

Or, of a targeted program, for example.

If our decisions are to be based on science and logic

we had better be able to recognize sound versus unsound argument,

most especially amongst those who are custodians of our knowledge base. They have a sacred trust.

We cannot afford to confuse effect with cause, if we are to progress as we must.

When an EFFECT is paraded as CAUSE we reward the power structure. They receive another free pass.

We refuse to address the ROOT of the problem: CORRUPTION in its many forms.

Thank-you Derek for your Comment: Cause and effect are an endless chain. Any one cause creates a result which is the cause of the next result.. Difficult to say which comes first.

2020-05 Why women leaders are excelling during the coronavirus pandemic (Flawed argument), Concordia University

Corruption No Responses »

May 152020

In my view, cause-and-effect have been confused in this article.

Explained at: http://sandrafinley.ca/blog/?p=24998

– – – – – – – – –

Why women leaders are excelling during the coronavirus pandemic

Since the beginning of the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, there’s been a lot of media attention paid to the relationship between female leaders at the helm of various nations and the effectiveness of their handling of the COVID-19 crisis.

The actions of female leaders in Denmark, Finland, Germany, Iceland, New Zealand, Norway, Iceland, Finland, Germany, Taiwan and New Zealand are cited as supporting evidence that women are managing the crisis better than their male counterparts. Resilience, pragmatism, benevolence, trust in collective common sense, mutual aid and humility are mentioned as common features of the success of these women leaders.

It would be easy to conclude outright that women make better leaders than men. Our academic education and experience as certified corporate directors, however, tell us that would be an overly simplistic verdict, and it’s actually more complicated than that.

Let’s broaden our perspective. What if countries led by women are managing the pandemic more effectively not because they are women, but because the election of women is a reflection of societies where there is a greater presence of women in many positions of power, in all sectors?

Greater involvement of women results in a broader perspective on the crisis, and paves the way for the deployment of richer and more complete solutions than if they had been imagined by a homogeneous group.

Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen celebrates victory with her supporters in Taipei. Taiwan has managed to curb the coronavirus pandemic despite its proximity to China. (AP Photo/Chiang Ying-ying)

Equitable countries managing pandemic better

Let’s see how this hypothesis holds up, based on the World Economic Forum’s annual study on gender parity among countries that are members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

Gender parity is measured in terms of the participation of men and women in society and the opportunities available to each gender in terms of access to health, education and employment, among others. The forum’s Global Gender Gap Report 2020 ranks countries in terms of their gender equality performance. Those that have fought the pandemic most effectively and are led by women rank high on the list.

The report also shows those same countries rank high when it comes to having women on corporate boards. It therefore leads us to conclude that more egalitarian societies are better managed.

In those countries, power is enhanced by the complementary nature of two genders contributing. The added value of this complementary factor in business management, for example, has been the subject of several studies. One of them, entitled “Delivering through Diversity,” by American consulting firm McKinsey, suggests that businesses with a more equitable gender balance perform better financially.

Are countries with greater gender parity managed differently? We observe that in these ecosystems, leadership is driven by supposed “feminine qualities” — empathy, compassion, listening and collaboration. These are distinct from the characteristics associated with the exercise of traditional managerial, supervisory and controlling power.

It should be noted, however, that these different gender-based attributes are more reflective of the perceptions, stereotypes and biases that characterize our societies. Women can display supposedly male management traits and vice versa.

Female-type leadership required

That means gender-balanced environments produce more robust decisions. These environments also represent leadership where female-like values dominate.

The challenges of the 21st century call for a new type of leadership, different from that based on command and control. These challenges include climate change, health, the environment, the depletion of the Earth’s resources, the aging population and the shortage of talent, the virtual management of production and employee contributions and the development of new technologies.

New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern holds up a map showing a new warning system for COVID-19 in Wellington. New Zealand has set an ambitious goal to not only contain the coronavirus, but to eliminate it completely. (AP Photo/Nick Perry)

This new type of leadership primarily involves resilience, courage, flexibility, listening, empathy, collaboration, caring and recognition of collective contribution. The participation of everyone’s intelligence becomes the key to success. These are all characteristics of traditionally feminine management.

In order to overcome the obstacles of the 21st century and to be successful, organizations and countries must therefore diversify their sources of talent as much as possible, giving priority to gender.

Let’s look at the Canadian business world as an example.

Work-family balance

The various difficulties encountered by women due to bias, stereotypes, work-family balance, absences due to maternity and corporate policies that are not adapted to the unique challenges faced by women result in few of them reaching the highest levels of Canadian organizations. Only four per cent of the positions of president and chief executive officer are held by women, and none of them are among the 60 largest companies listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange.

Another area where there is a need for action is STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics). In its report, “Cracking the Code: Education of Girls and Women in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM),” UNESCO makes this disturbing observation:

“Only 35 per cent of girls worldwide study STEM subjects … only three per cent of female students in higher education choose to study information and communication technologies (ICT). This gender disparity is all the more alarming as STEM careers are often referred to as the jobs of the future, the engine of innovation, social well-being, inclusive growth and sustainable development.

There is an urgent need to increase the representation of women in all positions of influence. Our female students, among others,need female role models to encourage them to go for it.

In this regard, the John Molson School of Business at Concordia University in Montréal is increasing its efforts to hire female teachers and researchers to make women’s presence in the classroom a norm, not an exception. Only this balance will pave the way for new leadership, creating a better world.

2020-04-29 Roger Stone Was in Contact With Julian Assange in 2017, Documents Show, NY Times

Julian Assange, Wikileaks, Chelsea (Bradley) Manning, Arjen Kamphuis No Responses »

May 142020

Mr. Stone, a longtime friend of President Trump, had denied such a relationship,

but newly revealed court documents unveiled private exchanges.

By Sharon LaFraniere

WASHINGTON — One of the enduring mysteries left unsolved by the Mueller inquiry was whether Roger J. Stone Jr., President Trump’s longtime friend and political adviser, ever communicated during the 2016 presidential campaign with Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks.

Federal investigators chased the question for months to figure out who, if anyone, in Mr. Trump’s world knew that WikiLeaks was going to release a trove of damaging Democratic emails in an effort to bolster his chances of winning.

Now hundreds of pages of court documents from the federal investigation of Mr. Stone, released late Monday, show that at least after the election, the two men had maintained a personal relationship. Mr. Stone had repeatedly denied that fact after federal and congressional inquiries got underway.

Records show he exchanged messages with Mr. Assange in June 2017, seven months after Mr. Trump’s election victory. The men discussed a different federal inquiry into the release by WikiLeaks in 2010 of classified American documents, a decade-long saga that resulted in criminal charges against Mr. Assange.

“If the US government moves on you I will bring down the entire house of cards,” Mr. Stone wrote in a private Twitter message to Mr. Assange. In another message, Mr. Stone said that he was trying to intercede “at the highest level of government” on Mr. Assange’s behalf. “Fed treatment of you and WikiLeaks is an outrage,” he wrote.

Mr. Assange is now in a London prison, fighting extradition to the United States.

The records shed no new light on whether Mr. Stone, 67, directly communicated with Mr. Assange before the election. Investigators for the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, failed to resolve that question at least in part because both Mr. Stone and Mr. Assange refused to cooperate. The team found insufficient evidence to charge anyone associated with the Trump campaign of conspiring with Russia to influence the results of the election.

Questioned by a congressional committee about his contacts with WikiLeaks in September 2017, Mr. Stone lied repeatedly under oath. He was convicted last year of obstructing a congressional inquiry, lying to federal authorities and witness tampering and was later sentenced to 40 months in prison. He has yet to begin serving his prison term, and has repeatedly and publicly implored Mr. Trump to pardon him.

In a statement, Mr. Stone reiterated his protests that he was wrongly prosecuted and said that the documents showed “the baseless overreach of the Mueller witch hunt and exonerate me from the crazed left-wing media charges of Russian collusion, WikiLeaks collaboration and the receipt and dissemination of stolen emails, false narratives that ruined my life for the last three years.”

The hundreds of pages of search warrants and affidavits were released in response to a lawsuit filed by The New York Times and other news media organizations.

Prosecutors said that Mr. Stone lied to the House Intelligence Committee about his efforts to contact WikiLeaks before the 2016 election because the truth would have embarrassed Mr. Trump and his campaign.

Earlier this month, Judge Amy Berman Jackson of United States District Court for the District of Columbia, who oversaw Mr. Stone’s case, rejected his request for a new trial. Federal authorities are expected to order him to begin serving his sentence soon.

Mr. Stone’s explanations of his relationship with Mr. Assange have varied widely. Before the 2016 election, he first said he was in direct touch with Mr. Assange, then said he was communicating with him through an intermediary. Later, when those claims became a political liability for Mr. Trump, he said he was only bluffing.

“I have never met with, nor spoken to Julian Assange, either in person, by telephone or email or any other means,” he said on his website in April 2018. “Assange himself has repeatedly and publicly said the same thing.”

The June 2017 exchange of messages shows that Mr. Stone tried to reassure Mr. Assange that he would escape criminal prosecution. “With the trumped-up sexual assault charges dropped, I don’t know of any crime you need to be pardoned for,” he wrote. He was apparently referring to a decision by Swedish authorities to drop a sexual assault investigation that focused on Mr. Assange.

Mr. Assange replied: “Between CIA and DoJ they’re doing quite a lot. On the DoJ side that’s coming most strongly from those obsessed with taking down Trump trying to squeeze us into a deal.”

Six days later, Mr. Stone wrote: “I am doing everything possible to address the issues at the highest level of Government,” adding that he had to be circumspect because his communications were monitored.

The records also reveal that before the 2016 election, Mr. Stone created hundreds of fake Facebook accounts. One of his assistants told investigators that he created “a couple hundred” Facebook accounts for Mr. Stone and that aides helped Mr. Stone shape them to appear real.

Mr. Stone apparently wanted fake accounts so he could call greater attention to stolen emails, released by WikiLeaks, that proved damaging to Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Facebook requires users to provide their real names and information, but it is not a crime to create fake accounts

Kitty Bennett contributed research.

Sharon LaFraniere is an investigative reporter. She was part of a team that won a Pulitzer Prize in 2018 for national reporting on Donald Trump’s connections with Russia. @SharonLNYT

Older Entries