Sandra Finley

Mar 272020


Do you remember when you sent me an e-mail that the Cdn Gov`t and the US Gov`t had signed an agreement that they would help each other by doing a troop exchange, if ever needed.  It was many years ago,  . . .  Anyway it could be what they are now considering… I would like to tell Trudeau to be careful re this past agreement . . .  


The Troop Exchange Agreement  (officially the “Civil Assistance Plan“) was signed on Valentine’s day, 2008:

  1. 2008-03-17 Troop Exchange Agreement: Information sent to the Government
  2. 2008-02-29 View from the USA,  Troop Exchange Agreement, Canada-USA:   (Newly posted, 2020-03-27)  Names the Canadian General at “NorthCom” – – “Northern Command”.  (South of the U.S. is “Southern Command”.  Southcom came up in reference to more recent U.S. displeasure with Ecuador.)
  3. 2008-02-27 Troop Exchange Agreement with U.S.: Brief History of Invasions + Letter-to-Editor
  4. 2008-03-03 Troop Exchange Agreement PLUS Naomi Wolf’s 10 Steps to Fascism
  5. 2008-06-19 “Canada First Defence Strategy” – serious.  The American military-industrial-government-university complex in Canada.

In 2008, my anxiety over the Troop Exchange Agreement (Feb) was heightened when the June ’08 Canada First Defence Strategy became known.

Mar 272020


“The agreement, defined as a Civil Assistance Plan…”

SOME AMERICANS ARE SAYING:  “New North American Army“.

From:  Pastor Chuck Baldwin



… It is modern moneychangers who bully and bribe our spineless and greedy politicians (from both parties) into passing so-called “free trade” deals such as NAFTA, CAFTA, and the FTAA, which have all but destroyed America’s manufacturing base and have put millions of American workers out of their jobs. It is the moneychangers who are the driving force behind the burgeoning North American Union, which sacrifices America’s national sovereignty and independence.

Over the weekend, Dr. Jerry Corsi reported that a new North American Army has been created, without the approval of Congress or any mention by the American media. In World Net Daily, Corsi reports,

“In a ceremony that received virtually no attention in the American media, the United States and Canada signed a military agreement Feb. 14 allowing the armed forces from one nation to support the armed forces of the other nation during a domestic civil emergency, even one that does not involve a cross-border crisis.

“The agreement, defined as a Civil Assistance Plan, was not submitted to Congress for approval, nor did Congress pass any law or treaty specifically authorizing this military agreement to combine the operations of the armed forces of the United States and Canada in the event of a wide range of domestic civil disturbances ranging from violent storms, to health epidemics, to civil riots or terrorist attacks.

“In Canada, the agreement paving the way for the militaries of the U.S. and Canada to cross each other’s borders to fight domestic emergencies was not announced either by the Harper government or the Canadian military, prompting sharp protest.”

Corsi further writes,

“The military Civil Assistance Plan can be seen as a further incremental step being taken toward creating a North American armed forces available to be deployed in domestic North American emergency situations.

“The agreement was signed at U.S. Army North headquarters, Fort Sam Houston, Texas, by U.S. Air Force Gen. Gene Renuart, commander of NORAD and U.S. Northern Command, or USNORTHCOM, and by Canadian Air Force Lt. Gen. Marc Dumais, commander of Canada Command.”

For the most part, the American media is blind, mute, and dumb regarding any of the issues relating to the merger of the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. The only notable media personality to give this matter any significant attention is CNN’s Lou Dobbs. Obviously, the same moneychangers who control Congress also largely control the mainstream media.

The last three American Presidents, too, have been willing pawns in the hands of the moneychangers. Remember, it was Bill Clinton and Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole who collaborated to shove NAFTA down our throats.

It was Bush 41 who first publicly promoted a “New World Order.” But it has been George W. Bush who has done more to appease the globalist plans of the moneychangers than any President since Woodrow Wilson.

G.W. Bush has used the rubric of “the war on terrorism” to dismantle not only the personal liberties of the American people (most notably with his Gestapo-like Patriot Act), but also the constitutional principles of national sovereignty and independence. For example, back in 2006, G.W. Bush eviscerated one of America’s most sacred doctrines protecting liberty and independence: the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which disallowed U.S. military troops from being used against U.S. citizens. (Of course, this did not stop Bill Clinton and Janet Reno from using U.S. troops against U.S. citizens at Waco, Texas. And thanks to G.W. Bush, the crime was permanently covered up.)

The expunging of Posse Comitatus becomes even more jeopardous when one considers the current merger of U.S. and Canadian military forces. Dr. Corsi explains:

“In an exclusive interview with WND during Vigilant Shield 2008, Gen. Renuart affirmed USNORTHCOM would deploy U.S. troops on U.S. soil should the president declare a domestic emergency in which the Department of Defense ordered US NORTHCOM involvement.

“In May 2007, WND reported President Bush, on his own authority, signed National Security Presidential Directive 51, also known as Homeland Security Presidential Directive 20, authorizing the president to declare a national emergency and take over all functions of federal, state, local, territorial and tribal governments, without necessarily obtaining the approval of Congress to do so.”

See Jerry Corsi’s complete report.

Are readers getting this? George W. Bush, on his own signature, with no approval from Congress and no input from the American people, has seized unlimited power for the Presidency; he has dismantled the constitutional protections of the American people; he has ignored the courts; he has begun creating the merger of the U.S., Canada, and Mexico, including the merger of the U.S. and Canadian militaries; and he has refused to enforce U.S. immigration laws, thus facilitating a borderless North America. And all of this has been done at the behest of David Rockefeller and his cabal of moneychangers at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

When Jesus saw the moneychangers in the Temple, He drove them off with violence. Yet, today’s pastors and Christians cannot even seem to see what these same moneychangers are doing to America. They support candidates simply because they have an “R” behind their names, vainly imagining that these candidates are somehow better than the ones with a “D” behind their names. The truth is, however, John McCain and Mike Huckabee are as beholden to the moneychangers as are Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Why can’t Christians see this? Why are they so blind?

The one man who made it through the Republican Presidential primaries who was not only not beholden to the moneychangers, but who was vehemently opposed to them, was Congressman Ron Paul. But most pastors and leaders of the Religious Right, not seeing or understanding the evil being done by the moneychangers, not only did not support Ron Paul, but they actively supported (and continue to support) the moneychangers’ puppet candidates.

I’m sure if Jesus had taken time to sit down and dialogue with those First Century moneychangers, they could have come up with very nice, flowery speeches as to how they were doing the Jewish people a service; how they were patriotic Romans and/or pious Hebrews. But Jesus did not need to dialogue with them: He knew what they were. And He knew what He needed to do; and He did it.

What Jesus did is exactly what every pastor, Christian, conservative, and every other real American should do: rise up against these moneychangers and drive them out of power! But we cannot accomplish this until we see them for what they really are: power-mad extortionists who seek to enrich themselves at the expense of America’s freedom and independence. Do you think our fellow pastors and Christians will ever see it?

Mar 142020

by Paul Gregoire

Lawyer-Journalist Mark Davis

The line up of renowned Australian journalists on the stage at the Martin Place Amphitheatre on 24 February was impressive. Gathered for a rally, they included John Pilger, Mary Kostakidis, Quentin Dempster, Wendy Bacon, Andrew Fowler and Mark Davis.

They were there to speak in support of fellow journalist Julian Assange, on the first day of his appearance at London’s Woolwich Court, in proceedings that will decide whether the Australian citizen will be extradited to the United States to face espionage charges adding up to 175 years.

Not only is the Trump administration fixing to lock Assange up for the rest of his life, but it has recently revealed that it plans to do so under “special administrative measures”, which means he’ll be completely shut off from the outside world.

As each of the rally speakers addressed the crowd, there was a common sentiment expressed. And this was that there’s a grave injustice being perpetrated upon an Australian journalist of stature and there should be much greater public outcry so as to wake the government into action.

“He did redact”

Mark Davis described the publishing of over 700,000 classified US government documents leaked to Wikileaks by Chelsea Manning as “a great act”. And he ought to know, as he was present at the Bunker in London in 2010 as the first major release – the Afghan War Logs – was going to press.

Indeed, Mr Davis gave a speech at a Sydney Politics in the Pub last year, where he used his insider knowledge to refute many of the assertions that had been made about Assange’s level of professionalism during a recent Four Corners documentary.

And he debunked the myth that Julian didn’t redact any of the names that were detailed in the leaked files prior to release, which is “the slur” that Davis asserts is underpinning much of the reasons why Assange now finds himself in such a dangerous position.

The legal trade

Of course, Davis, a multi-award winning journalist, has been known to draw the ire of foreign politicians himself. Indeed, the former SBS Dateline presenter picked up a Gold Walkley for Blood Money, an investigation into Indonesian ministers funding militias in East Timor.

While today, Mr Davis works within the legal profession, where he has a focus on international matters and criminal law. And he’s about to represent long-term refugee and East Timor activist Stephen Langford in court.

Sydney Criminal Lawyers spoke to Mr Davis about the great Australian silence around the current injustices being perpetrated upon a fellow citizen who made one of the greatest contributions to journalism in recent decades, and the myth that’s underpinning his plight.

The first days of Julian’s extradition trial took place last week. His legal team made some of the same points that you made at your Politics in the Pub session last year around leaked passwords.

The US countered this by asserting that proceedings should stick to the laws around extradition. And meanwhile, Julian was made to sit by himself away from his lawyers, behind a glass-enclosed dock. Mr Davis, what do you think about this extradition trial?

It’s pretty chilling. It’s the nature of the charges. I’m surprised it got this far. These charges are patently absurd. If these charges can be applied to Julian, it’s not being too dramatic to say, they can be applied to anyone.

These sorts of espionage laws in America have never been used. But, they’ve been dusted off to be applied to a man who did a great act of journalism, and made a great contribution to world knowledge.

He may have expected some impact – perhaps a travel ban on going to America. He would not have expected a whole new phase of legal precedent, where an intelligence agency of one country can reach into another and pluck someone out of it for a breach of their laws. It’s unparalleled.

If Julian had been arrested at JFK airport, okay, he might have come within American jurisdiction. But, now they can do it across jurisdictions for crimes that they themselves define. This is not murder. It is not paedophilia. It is not someone running from a bank heist.

There has never been anything like it. It is quite literally without precedent. And that’s what surprises me, that people have given it some air of normality, as if it’s a normal thing that this sort of procedure happened.

It is a radically dangerous action – clearly a radically dangerous action for Julian Assange. But, it’s a very dangerous action for all of us.

Israel may wish to reach into Belgium to pull someone out. Indonesia would love to reach into Melbourne or Sydney and pluck people out who they regard as having offended state law in some way.

As a precedent, it’s horrific. And it surprises me that there hasn’t been more reaction on that level, beyond the discomfort or mistreatment of Julian in this current hearing.

Last August, you gave a Politics in the Pub session, where you poked holes in some of the ideas in a recent Four Corners report on Assange. Broadly speaking, what do you think about the way he was portrayed?

When you make an effective slur against somebody – and it’s one that is compounded for many years until it builds – it starts setting into concrete. And the most effective slur against Julian has been that he failed to redact the documents.

In fact, it’s in the indictment. Of the 17 espionage charges against him, probably four or five of them refer to him failing to redact the documents. And essentially, they’re referring to the Afghan documents.

Now, I can say as a matter of fact – as an eyewitness observation – Julian did redact. He’s never been given credit for it. And it absolutely astounds me.

This casual slur is being repeated by journalists ad nauseum around the world, as well as by American officials. And no one has ever bothered to establish whether it’s true or not.

Here’s the force of a lie that a thousand journalists have just casually said. It’s not with any venom. They just google it, and there it is. It says he didn’t redact the documents, and they repeat it. It gets repeated on the ABC Australia, very casually.

Now, that casual lie is then accepted by American prosecutors. They’ve put that in the actual indictment. This is how dangerous it is to get something wrong in a case like this – and to repeat it.

It has been repeated so often, it leaves me speechless. I don’t know what else to say. That is absolutely wrong that he didn’t redact. He did redact.

And he did it alone. It wasn’t any of the journalists that were starting to gravitate around him on the eve of releasing that material.

So, that slur – which is the most common slur that journalists apply to say that he isn’t a journalist – is simply wrong.

At the recent Sydney Assange solidarity rally, you spoke in his support, alongside John Pilger, Mary Kostakidis and Quentin Dempster. Phillip Adams sent a message of support because he couldn’t be there.

So, we’re talking about some of the most respected Australian journalists standing in solidarity with Julian. However, this same level of support is not coming from most of the mainstream media. So, what’s happening here?

Peter Greste said he doesn’t see him as a journalist. It was a very cruel thing to say. And a very dangerous thing to say. But, a lot of journalists agreed with it.


The reason why they agree is the idea that he doesn’t redact – he just dumps material. That’s the essence of the journalistic snootiness towards Julian.

Now, he was inclined to publish large amounts of material, undoubtedly. But, it’s not true that he didn’t redact it.

In fact, he went through it. And this is how Wikileaks continues to do it. And I don’t know that from direct observation, but I do know from direct observation that he took out 10,000 names from the Afghan War Logs.

I know from second hand information that all subsequent releases were redacted, when it appeared that naming an individual might endanger their life. They did it, and yet they’re being criticised for it.

In that Four Corners piece, I remember Alan Rusbridger saying the difference between Assange and the other journalists was that Julian was extremely cavalier in his attitude to sources, whereas the Guardian journalists had a far more nuanced approach.

It was that single comment that probably popped my cork more than anything. It’s simply not true.

I think journalists hide behind that distinction: what distinguishes them from Julian Assange is that single difference, that he merely dumped material, while they showed nuance and craft in their work.

What can I say? I and many other journalists – many excellent journalists – disagree with that view. But, it would seem that we are not in the majority.

Mr Davis, you were there with Julian in the Bunker, when the Afghan War Logs were being released. There are those that assert he had no business in releasing them. But, you’ve described it as “a great act”. Why’s that?

It’s one of the most remarkable releases of information in a couple of generations – perhaps more. Between Afghanistan and Iraq, these were murderous – and in the case of Iraq essentially illegal – actions. And to reveal the full scale in its complete detail was an enormous service to the world.

It is what journalists do. We reveal that sort of information. We go looking for that sort of information. We hope to get a snippet or two, in order to gaze behind the curtain and show what’s really happening, especially in wars.

Well, Julian tore the curtain right off. And I certainly appreciate it.

You’ve spoken about the wider implications of Assange’s plight for us all. But, what will it mean for journalism specifically if Assange is sent away for the rest of his life?

Unquestionably, this is the single most ominous threat to journalism that we’ve seen. Much more so than any legislation that’s been passed in Australia that’s been a threat to journalism.

If you don’t want to see Julian as a journalist, you must see him as a publisher. And the fact that another country can now reach across borders and grab a journalist or a publisher and extradite them to their country to face their local intelligence agencies for whatever infringements they’ve dreamt up is frankly terrifying.

I worked almost entirely as a foreign correspondent. If I was breaking a big story, it was always nice to get back to Australia and think that I was okay.

If this becomes an international norm, then any number of those regimes that I reported on, could seek to extradite me, either from Australia, or if I was passing through London. Why not?

It’s a complete gamechanger.

And lastly, if Assange ends up in the US, he’ll appear in court on what you’ve described as “cooked charges”. Pilger said last week that there’s a chance for him to be brought back. But, the Australian government is silent on the matter. Mr Davis, what would you like to see happen here?

I’ve got a bit sympathy for the Australian government, to the degree that to have political bravery you need a bit of a groundswell or a bit of wind in your sails. And there’s not a lot of wind in their sails. It’s strangely quiet on all levels.

Of course, if the media is not pushing for it, I wouldn’t have great confidence in the local members starting to push for it. They will eventually. The sad truth is it will be when the decision is made, and he’s about to be shipped off. Then there will be a hue and cry.

But, I am more disappointed in Australian media and the commentariat, than I am in the Australian government at the moment.

There’s nothing in it for the Australian government. It’s just silence from their electorates. So, there is a lot of work to be done before we start getting too snarky about the Australian government.

But, clearly, they should be demanding that he not face these charges. They are against the spirit of Australian law, which is pro free speech and pro media.

I don’t think there’s any particular animosity from any government minister. No one cheering this on.

It’s more silence from both sides of politics, including the conservative side. No one is wanting this to happen. There is no great hatred for Julian, or being glad to support the Americans.

There’s actually silence, because they’re not too sure yet of what the Australian people think about it. I just think they’re biding their time.

Mar 142020
I have huge respect for Chelsea Manning.  Withstanding the pressure.  Read her words.  … Hats off to Chelsea.  /Sandra
Today, March 12, prosecutors in the Eastern District of Virginia ended the grand jury of Julian Assange and Wikileaks in which Chelsea Manning refused to testify. As a result, US District Court Judge Anthony Trenga ordered the immediate release of Chelsea Manning.

A hearing was scheduled this Friday on a motion for release filed in February 2020 by her attorneys. Manning was arguing that her long time in jail had shown she could not be coerced to testify and that her incarceration was a punishment, which is illegal under US law. On Wednesday, her lawyers and Alexandria Sheriff Dana Lawhorne reported she attempted suicide in jail. With the end of the grand jury and Manning’s release, the Friday hearing was canceled.

In May 2019, Manning wrote a letter to Judge Anthony Trenga, the presiding judge regarding her incarceration. The letter examined the history of grand juries and how they no longer serve their original purpose. Manning wrote:

“I am certainly not alone in thinking that the grand jury process, which at one time acted as an independent body of citizens along the lines of a civilian police review board, slowly transitioned into the unbridled arm of the police and prosecution in ways that run contrary to the grand jury’s originally intended purposes.”

She pointed out how grand juries were originally independent of the police and were investigations by citizens without a prosecutor. In fact, grand juries were originally a check on government as Manning wrote, they “nullified unjust laws or their unjust application.” She told the judge that only the US and Liberia continue to use grand juries as many western and developed nations have abandoned the process.

After providing the judge with a “nuanced understanding of my conscientious objection to the grand jury” she wrote:

“Each person must make the world we want to live in around us where we stand… I object to the use of grand juries as tools to tear apart vulnerable communities. I object to this grand jury in particular as an effort to frighten journalists and publishers, who serve a crucial public good. I have had these values since I was a child, and I’ve had years of confinement to reflect on them. For much of that time, I depended for survival on my values, my decisions, and my conscience. I will not abandon them now.

Manning has once again shown courageous political leadership, standing up to an abusive criminal justice system and exposing the corrupt grand jury process that has often been used for political purposes — from indicting anti-slavery activists to members of the Black Panther Party — and now against the political prisoner, Julian Assange for being an editor and publisher who told the truth about US war crimes, violations of international law and how US foreign policy dominated by corporate interests.

Manning has also shown great bravery in advancing trans rights. While imprisoned in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, she fought for her right to treatment. She also struggled for her right to be held in the women’s prison in Alexandria. Her openness about being trans has been an inspiration to others. As Lexi McMenamin wrote: “One in six trans Americans — and one in two black trans Americans — have been to prison, according to Lambda Legal. Incarcerated trans people face higher levels of violence, and experience higher rates of rape and sexual assault. According to the National Center for Transgender Equality, trans people are ‘ten times as likely to be sexually assaulted by their fellow inmates and five times as likely to be sexually assaulted by staff.’”

The injustice against Manning continues. Manning’s attorneys sought to have the fines imposed by Judge Trenga vacated. Manning is facing more than $256,000 in fines, which have been accumulating at a rate of $1,000 a day. The court left those fines in place.

The incarceration of Manning was a violation of US law as the authority to incarcerate a recalcitrant witness was abused by Judge Trenga. Nils Melzer the UN Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment wrote that Manning’s incarceration violated international law focusing on the prohibition against torture.  While we are pleased Manning has been released, she should have not served anytime in jail and the fines against her should be vacated.

Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers

Mar 132020

Sent to CBC re interview, Kevin Donovan, investigation into Sherman murders, Apotex

TO: The Current and to author Kevin Donovan,


The interview of Kevin Donovan has a blind spot, one commonly accorded to people/institutions of wealth and power.

I learned the blind spot through some episodes of The Current over the last months.

There is INACTION, if action MIGHT bring the REPUTATION of the VENERABLE into question.
Our society venerates power and wealth.
Institutions ruthlessly protect their ability to raise money and to save face.
Reputation is critical. Anything to save reputation, to protect wealth.

You laid out that UNDENIABLE PATTERN. . . . Stick with me a minute to see the pattern repeated in the interview related to the Sherman murders.

Questions that must be asked and answers demanded got short shrift in the following three examples, out of many.
Some kind of silent conditioning creates a blind spot that shields the wrong people.

  • the Ottawa High School that countenanced decades of sexual molestation of students
  • what happened to “Cleo” in the Sixties Scoop
  • Harvey Weinstein’s violations with impunity

The interview with Kevin Donahue was about investigations into murder.
The investigations should be without prejudice, just as the 3 examples above should have been investigated without prejudice.

What about enemies that Barry Sherman might have, people who might have motivation to destroy Sherman and his wife? There was SILENCE on the ethical record of Sherman’s company, Apotex.

It seemed there is an ordained conclusion: a family member is the murderer, no need for hard questions that even MIGHT have repercussions for the WEALTH.

Maybe a family member IS the prime suspect. But silence about other possibilities is a shield that provides unwarranted protection. Unwarranted protection enabled decades of great harm to numerous people, in the above 3 examples.

Elaboration on one example:
The Catholic High School and Board in Ottawa that countenance teachers who are sexual predators – – for decades the teachers are allowed to inflict great harm on children. Unconscionable and unfathomable.

My take-away from the CBC radio documentary – – WHY it does not get stopped? . . . in the particular case, the Catholic High School had a very successful music programme that attracted accolades, supporters and students. The head of the Music Programme was no doubt talented, but simultaneously a lead and longtime perpetrator of sexual molestation. Unfortunately for the students he was a célèbre, the acknowledged BENEFACTOR of the School. Without him, the source of the praise for the School and its Administration would not exist. If he is challenged or exposed, the School’s reputation will take a big hit. So the Administration won’t touch the teacher. The first time that they are told about unacceptable behavior by a teacher, they become “knowers”. If they do not act, they entangle themselves with the perpetrator. They join the keepers of secrets.

Students in the Ottawa High School were thereby molested and seriously harmed with impunity. Some of the offenders were shipped “away” where they infected other communities.

The Shermans were multi-billionaires. Apotex was a significant benefactor of the University of Toronto, and other universities.

If I am aware of ONE publicized case of Apotex’s attempt to shut-down a scientist whose research documented the harm done to children who received their new drug, Mr. Sherman’s fortune might have been aided by unethical behavior? Unethical behavior usually creates a few enemies.

Scenarios to make a point: what if a child died because of a drug that got registered for use, through the bribery of officials? Large financial donations are a form of bribery. Could not heart-break and ultimately anger drive a parent to murder, when they know perpetrators get away with murder? Or, what if someone hated the corruption of the institution that comes with “he who funds the piper calls the tune”? Anger begets hate begets hateful actions.

The Blind Spot I learned from The Current: rarely will we ask hard questions and demand answers when reputations of perceived influential people MIGHT be tarnished. It’s not a written or spoken rule; it is the way things are. Once in a while a thinking person of courage takes a stand and puts forth the often thankless effort to put things right.

A terrible legacy all because we have fear of asking the hard questions of people who have power, wealth or celebrity status.

Shield the reputation of the benefactor; simultaneously shield the reputation of the recipient of the largesse. The same lesson over and over again.

Did Sherman have enemies because of the actions of his company Apotex? It is a necessary question in a murder investigation.


For your consideration,

Sandra Finley

Feb 202020

Two items relevant to the situation in northern BC with the RCMP and Wet’suwet’en.

Sent to CBC radio, The Current,  in response to the Feb 20th programme.

  1. Correspondence with the RCMP when their anti-terrorist squad was deployed to Dawson Creek:

2008-11-09  Encana Dawson Creek: Reply from Supt Lloyde Plante, head of RCMP Anti-Terrorist Squad, BC.  Rule of law?

2.   Canadians forget their history too quickly.

I have heard NO MENTION of the IPPERWASH blockade – – the DUDLEY GEORGE affair and the LINDEN INQUIRY into it (“was also asked to make recommendations that would avoid violence in similar circumstances in the future.”).

Who outside Ipperwash remembers the lesson from Dudley George?  50 years from today will Canadians still be paying for failure to respect rightful claim (sovereignty) over territory?

I skimmed the wikipedia account of Ipperwash.  I don’t see it said that the Stony Plain people had been trying to get their land returned (sovereignty) FOR FIFTY YEARS.  The blockade at Ipperwash was after 50 years of lawyers and mediators and Government officials getting big salaries and perks to resolve the problem. With ZERO accomplishment. An unarmed Dudley George was shot dead by police, with provocation from Ontario Premier Mike Harris.  (Judge Linden believed the racist quote attributed to Harris had been uttered by Harris.)

Linden did not take long to determine that “Ipperwash” belonged to the Chippewa. Something that all those lawyers and politicians and “officials” and mediators could not accomplish in 50 years.  It took a dead man.

/Sandra Finley

Feb 202020

NOTE:  I have not watched the video (link at bottom) – – am trusting that it’s a balanced presentation.

I know the story well because I could not believe it happened in Canada.  It was an outrageous injustice to First Nations people.  The matter dragged out over 50 years during which an abundance of government officials, lawyers, and mediators were paid handsome money to resolve the problem.   With zero results.

Ipperwash.  Stony Plain Chippewa.  50 years of trying to regain their land bore no results.

White guys were happy to continue occupation of  land that was not theirs.

Finally a blockade – peaceful, unarmed protest.  Who could blame the Indians?

Premier Mike Harris ordered get the fucking Indians out of Ipperwash.

Dudley George, unarmed protestor was shot dead by police.

Then, another 20 years of petitioning to get an inquiry.  Finally an inquiry.

Judge Linden found that Premier Mike Harris likely said get the fucking Indians out of Ipperwash.

He also found that the land clearly belonged to the Stony Plain people.

After all and all, sovereignty was re-established.  Ipperwash was returned to rightful owners, the Chippewa.  Sovereignty cost Dudley George his life.   It cost Canadians a lot of money; some white guys are still mad because they were evicted from land that was never theirs.

An hour-and-a-half video by CTV

17,751 views  as of 2020-02-20


Feb 032020

Feb 3, 2020

TO:  Bernadette Jordan

South Shore—St. Margarets

Minister of Fisheries, Oceans, and the Canadian Coast Guard

FROM:  Sandra Finley  (contact info)


Dear Minister Jordan,


RE:  Herring Fishery, BC


I lived in Nova Scotia from 1974 to 1990.

During that time the cod fishery collapsed.

I now live on Vancouver Island.

The herring fishery is going the way of the cod fishery.


You were born in 1963.  I was born in 1970.   You were a Girl Guide;  I was a Canada Cord Guide and continued into Rangers.  You were educated at St Francis Xavier U, for which I have respect, a major in Pol-Sci.  I was educated at the U of Sask, a Bachelor of Commerce.


It is beyond my comprehension how anyone who has lived through the collapse of the East Coast cod fishery could preside over the collapse of the West Coast herring fishery.


In utter amazement,

Sandra Finley

Dec 192019

Canadian Press (CP) Report on first step in the extradition hearings against Julian Assange, appears below.

A few comments first.

The case has the potential to become a broader argument about the extraterritorial reach of the US. 

Citizens in the FVEY “developed” countries are equally in the extraterritorial reach  of the US, along with nations in Latin America and elsewhere on the planet.


International publications originally collaborated with Assange in the publication of material from the Iraq war logs – – New York Times, Guardian, Der Spiegel, Le Monde and El Pais. Newspapers in his native Australia published extensively from the leaked documents. Disclosure embarrassed the US government.

In its reporting of Assange, the New York Times has been assiduous in its defence of journalistic inquiry.  For example:

2019-05-23 ‘Frightening’: Charges Against Julian Assange Alarm Press Advocates, from NY Times

Another NYT headline, same day (I didn’t post it): Assange Indicted Under Espionage Act, Raising First Amendment Issues 

WASHINGTON — Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks leader, has been indicted on 17 counts of violating the Espionage Act for his role in obtaining and publishing secret military and diplomatic documents in 2010, the Justice Department announced on Thursday — a novel case that raises profound First Amendment issues. . . .

. . .  he (Assange) has become the target for a case that could open the door to criminalizing activities that are crucial to American investigative journalists who write about national security matters.

. . .   Though he is not a conventional journalist, much of what Mr Assange does at WikiLeaks is difficult to distinguish in a legally meaningful way from what traditional news organizations like the Times do: seek and publish information that officials want to be secret, including classified national security matters, and take steps to protect the confidentiality of sources.

The Obama administration considered and then balked at seeking Assange’s extradition, after concluding it would be perilous to charge him under the Espionage Act.  This act does not make a distinction between journalists and non-journalists.

Alan Rusbridger, former editor of The Guardian, quoted Joel Simon of the Committee to Protect Journalists who observed:

Under this rubric anyone anywhere in the world who publishes information that the US government deems to be classified could be prosecuted for espionage.


CLARIFICATION, coverage in Canada:

The CP coverage is repeated in papers across Canada.  Assange is described as having been “holed up” in the Ecuadorian Embassy.  he was granted asylum by former President Rafael Correa of Ecuador, who has remained steadfast in his support of Assange, speaking out again in the last few days.


  • Clair Dobbin, representing the U.S. authorities, asked for the case to be delayed until April, saying the lawyer earmarked for the case would not be available for the extended hearing.

“My impression was the (U.S.) government was anxious for this case to remain on track and not to be derailed,” said Baraister (Judge), who said the next hearing would take place on Jan. 23 and the timetable would go ahead as planned.

(CP:  The full extradition hearing is scheduled to begin Feb. 24)

– – – – –

Lawyer in UK Court:
US charges against WikiLeaks’ Assange are ‘political’

By Canadian Press

Dec 19, 2019

LONDON — Lawyers for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange told a London court (London’s Westminster Magistrates’ Court) Thursday that he should not be extradited to the United States to face spying charges because the offences he is accused of are political in nature.

U.S. authorities accuse Assange of scheming with former Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning to break a password for a government computer and leak hundreds of thousands of classified documents.

Assange’s attorney, Edward Fitzgerald, said the 48-year-old Australian is protected by a 2007 extradition treaty between Britain and the U.S.

“We say that there is in the treaty a ban on being extradited for a political offence and that these offences as framed, and indeed in substance, are political offences,” Fitzgerald said at a court hearing.

Assange spent almost seven years holed up in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London to avoid a rape investigation in Sweden. He was arrested by British police in April after Ecuador withdrew his asylum status and jailed for jumping bail when he sought shelter inside the embassy in 2012.

Assange remains in custody at London’s Belmarsh Prison while he fights extradition. Fitzgerald said Assange’s defence team would call up to 21 witnesses at the full extradition hearing next year.

He said the evidence being submitted would cover the case of Manning, medical evidence, Assange’s prison conditions and ongoing Spanish legal proceedings relating to the alleged “bugging of the conversations with his lawyers in the Ecuadorian Embassy.”

Fitzgerald reiterated complaints that Assange’s lawyers were having “great problems” seeing him in prison.

Last month more than 60 doctors wrote to the British government expressing concerns about Assange’s health and his fitness to stand trial.

Assange appeared at Thursday’s case management hearing by video link from prison. He spoke to confirm his name and date of birth, then sat with his head bowed, occasionally closing his eyes during the 45-minute proceedings.

The full extradition hearing is scheduled to begin Feb. 24 and could take four weeks.

Swedish authorities dropped the rape probe last month, citing the many years that have elapsed since the accusation was made over nine years ago.

The Associated Press


Dec 052019

What are you?    Are you a Reason a Season or a Lifetime?


Pay attention to what you read. After you read this, you will know the reason it was sent to you!


People come into your life for a reason, a season, or a lifetime. When you figure out which one it is, you will know what to do for each person.


When someone is in your life for a REASON. . . It is usually to meet a need you have expressed. They have come to assist you through a difficulty, to provide you with guidance and support, to aid you physically, emotionally, or spiritually. They may seem like a godsend, and they are! They are there for the reason you need them to be. Then, without any wrong doing on your part, or at an inconvenient time, this person will say or do something to bring the relationship to an end. Sometimes they die. Sometimes they walk away. Sometimes they act up and force you to take a stand. What we must realize is that our need has been met, our desire fulfilled, their work is done. The prayer you sent up has been answered.

And now it is time to move on.


Then people come into your life for a SEASON. Because your turn has come to share, grow, or learn. They bring you an experience of peace, or make you laugh. They may teach you something you have never done. They usually give you an unbelievable amount of joy. Believe it! It is real! But, only for a season.


LIFETIME relationships teach you lifetime lessons; things you must build upon in order to have a solid emotional foundation. Your job is to accept the lesson, love the person, and put what you have learned to use in all other relationships and areas of your life. It is said that love is blind but friendship is clairvoyant.


THANK YOU for being a part of my life.

– – – – – – – – –

Work like you don’t need the money

Love like you’ve never been hurt, and

dance like no one is watching.