Sandra Finley

2016-12-29 Reply to Gerald: the Election of Trump will help us. A sea-change into something rich and strange.

Change, Freedom of Speech. (Remove some wrong postings from category), Occupy Movement 1 Response »

Dec 292016

Continuing with reactions to 2016-12-24 I wouldn’t like to wish you peace if there was no hope for it.:

And related to the conditions for successful revolutions, Derek’s question . . ..

Gerald captured what others also expressed. His words:

Thank you so much my friend, I am still hunkered down in psychic fear of what happened south of the border so your message was especially welcomed. thank you

– – – – – – – – –

Sandra speaking.

I have looked at it this way, Gerald:

We are in dire straits on a number of fronts.

The election of Clinton might have been worse than the election of Trump because it would not have caused the upheaval by citizens that comes with Trump. We need the upheaval.

More of the status quo in the corrupted political, financial, educational and justice systems is a doomsday scenario.

To me Trump has exploded the walls that concealed the rot. Now that it’s laid out for all Americans to view, there is at least the potential for moral and creative leadership to rise to the challenge of using the varied talents of good people to re-build. We need replacements, not amendments. And urgently.

The election of Trump should focus the revolution on what it is that Trump represents. Which is a big part of the problem. Hollywood America deals in illusion. A citizenry steeped in propaganda; they do not know their own country, reality versus illusion (not any more than Canadians know the extent of and collusion with the intrusion of the American military-industrial-surveillance-Government complex into Canada and how that manifests itself in reality.)

I was thinking about the word “arrogance”. You would know much better than me the Eastern or First Nations understanding about the relationship between arrogance and knowledge. It is understood that the more you learn, the more knowledgeable you become, the more you become aware, the more humble you become. You understand how little you actually know, how much more there is to learn.

An arrogant person or society believes they, their intellect and their ways are superior to others. They wear blinders, seeing only the path directly in front of them. Their learning is inhibited. An older friend who has studied Buddhism told me that the definition of arrogant is to be ignorant of the fact that you are ignorant. That is valid (as I understand things), although not an understanding communicated by dictionaries of English.

Hopefully that is another trait that Americans can recognize through seeing themselves (a collective self) reflected in Trump. Once recognized, it can be addressed.

A nation built on propaganda and illusion produces ignorance. I don’t see how we can hope to collectively find solutions to climate change and other threats to our survival IF the citizenry is kept in a state of widespread ignorance (thank goodness for the internet).

I do not mean to say that Canada is much better. We are lacking. Our educational institutions falter – – it seems to me that most universities are clueless about their responsibility to ensure that the students they graduate, at a fundamental level MUST have the skills and knowledge to understand and actualize the role and responsibilities of a citizen.

And there is a bias which to me reflects a worrisome ignorance about the role of creativity in a society (University cuts to the Arts and Soft Sciences). The importance of impeccable role models; incestuous relationships; unchallenged systems; the use of “spin” – – all connive to mock critical thinking.

Keep talking Gerald! Create the sea change.

P.S. I have been curious about the origin of the phrase “sea change:. You may be interested. It identifies an element we need. I think it happened to Wesley Clark Jr at Standing Rock.

First, Sea-change from Wikipedia:

Sea-change or seachange, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, means “a change wrought by the sea.”[1] The term originally appears in William Shakespeare’s The Tempest in a song sung by a supernatural spirit, Ariel, to Ferdinand, a prince of Naples, after Ferdinand’s father’s apparent death by drowning:

Full fathom five thy father lies,

Of his bones are coral made,

Those are pearls that were his eyes,

Nothing of him that doth fade,

But doth suffer a sea-change,

into something rich and strange,

Sea-nymphs hourly ring his knell,

Ding-dong.

Hark! now I hear them, ding-dong, bell.

The term sea-change is therefore often used to mean a metamorphosis or alteration.[2][3] For example, a literary character may transform over time into a better person after undergoing various trials or tragedies (e.g. “There is a sea change in Scrooge’s personality towards the end of Charles Dickens’ A Christmas Carol.”) As with the term Potemkin village, sea-change has also been used in business culture. In the United States, sea-change is often used as a corporate buzzword. In this context, it need not refer to a substantial or significant transformation, but can indicate a far less impressive change.[4]

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Powerful words spoken by Wesley Clark Jr are recorded in Why I Kneeled Before Standing Rock Elders and Asked For Forgiveness, Yes! Magazine. (former Army Lt. Wesley Clark Jr., son of Gen. Wesley Clark, former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO.)

Near the end of the article Wesley Clark describes his experience at Standing Rock. He could have been a character in Shakespeare’s The Tempest, his lines: a sea-change, into something rich and strange.

You might like to read the article in Yes! Magazine at the above link.

2016-12-21 Why I Kneeled Before Standing Rock Elders and Asked For Forgiveness, Yes! Magazine. (former Army Lt. Wesley Clark Jr., son of Gen. Wesley Clark, former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO.)

Change, Culture and Ethics, Economy / Political Economy, Empowerment, Non-Violent Resistance, Solidarity with the Warriors, Water 1 Response »

Dec 292016

Yes! Magazine (David Korten). Excellent journalism. This article alone is worth a donation!

Excerpt:

Clark: If I could live every day of my life like I did that time out there, I’d die the happiest man on Earth. It felt like I lived 10 lifetimes in the week I was at Standing Rock, and I wish every person in the world could have that feeling. There’s nothing special about me. Anyone could do what I did. It was being flipped on like a light switch.

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.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

http://www.yesmagazine.org/people-power/why-i-kneeled-before-standing-rock-elders-and-asked-for-forgiveness-20161221

Sarah van Gelder

Everything seemed to be converging on Standing Rock on Dec. 4. Thousands of veterans were scheduled to arrive the next day at this remote, frozen outpost—along with a blizzard. The Army Corps of Engineers had recently ordered the eviction of Oceti Sakowin, the largest of the water protectors’ camps, saying the thousands camped there would have to vacate by Dec. 5. The governor ordered an emergency evacuation, and the county sheriff threatened to issue $1,000 fines to anyone caught delivering food, firewood, and other support needed to keep the camp alive.

And it was on the afternoon of Dec. 4 that word arrived: The Obama administration had refused the final permit for the Dakota Access pipeline. The Army Corps of Engineers said it would first consider other routes, require an environmental impact statement, and consult with the Sioux tribes. So, at least for the moment, there was celebration: dancing, singing, fireworks.

Reasons for the timing of that announcement are not clear. It might have been because tensions were too high. Perhaps 4,000 veterans joining thousands of Native water protectors and their allies was just too much.

Veterans in the blizzard. Photo by Michael Running Wolf.

The next day, some veterans participated in a formal “forgiveness ceremony,” which began with an emotional plea to the tribe for forgiveness by former Army Lt. Wesley Clark Jr., son of Gen. Wesley Clark, former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO.

“Many of us, me particularly, are from the units that have hurt you over the many years. We came. We fought you. We took your land. We signed treaties that we broke. We stole minerals from your sacred hills. We blasted the faces of our presidents onto your sacred mountain. Then we took still more land and then we took your children and … we tried to eliminate your language that God gave you, and the Creator gave you. We didn’t respect you, we polluted your Earth, we’ve hurt you in so many ways but we’ve come to say that we are sorry. We are at your service and we beg for your forgiveness.”

Clark made these remarks head bowed, kneeling before the elders. Chief Leonard Crow Dog put his hand on Clark’s head. A moment of forgiveness followed by tears and embraces.

Clark, along with Michael A. Wood Jr., a former Baltimore police officer and Marine Corps veteran, had organized the deployment that formed Veterans Stand for Standing Rock. YES! Editor at Large Sarah van Gelder interviewed Clark this week about why he called on veterans to come to Standing Rock and what moved him to apologize.

Sarah van Gelder: What made you decide to call on veterans to join with you?

Wesley Clark Jr.: I reached out to lawyers, I reached out to politicians, I reached out to members of the press. I got the Young Turks to send Jordan [Chariton] out there in October. I did everything I could to try to help this tribe. Nothing would happen. And so I was like, fuck it man, I have to go out there.

I called Michael Wood Jr., he was like, “Hell yeah, I’m down for it.” We put out an operations order, a call [to veterans] on Twitter and on Facebook. I don’t have any experience in any kind of activism or fundraising or anything. By around the middle of November I think we’d only raised $3,000 and had 50 people going. I thought maybe if we were lucky we might be able to get 500.

The concept that I had in my head was that we’d simply outmaneuver the police, get across the river and then surround the pipeline. That was always the concept of the operation in my head. But at the same time I always wanted to start it with what the tribe calls a “Wiping the Tears Ceremony.” First of all, I have PTSD and most of the guys out there with me do. So I thought it was very important to kind of spiritually cleanse us and prepare us for what I expected to be harsh tactics and beatings and jailing from the security forces.

van Gelder: You had made a very clear statement that this would be a nonviolent action. What made you decide to make that so clear?

Clark: If you want to effect change in the world, it has to come through nonviolence and forgiveness. It’s the only way.

You can look at history for examples. If somebody starts a violent revolution, they have less than a 5 percent chance of succeeding. And at the end of it, all they’ve inherited is a broken country full of death and bitterness and distrust. But through nonviolent action—the kind we saw in Czechoslovakia in 1989 and in the Philippines long ago—you actually have a greater than 50 percent chance of success. So it’s not just a moral imperative but a strategic one as well, that’s backed up by history.

van Gelder: So what was it like for you when you realized that instead of a few dozen, or a few hundred veterans joining you that you were going to have thousands?

Clark: Staggering. It was absolutely mind-blowing. Never expected it. That got us panicked on how quickly we could get supplies out there.

I didn’t even believe it when I saw it. A close friend of mine is a human resources person. She said listen, if people say they’re coming online, expect maybe two-thirds of them to show up. Four thousand showed up!

van Gelder: Once you were there, a lot of unexpected things happened: the weather, the announcement that the Army Corps of Engineers was not immediately going to give the permit. How did that affect what actually happened with your group.

Clark: It changed everything. I expected to be either in the hospital or in jail by the end of the day on the 5th. But on the 4th, once they made the announcement, the elders said, Listen we know you have all this stuff planned but we want just peace and prayer. I saw they 100 percent had the right idea. I simply followed their lead.

van Gelder: What else did folks do once they were there. Were there also some actions taking place?

Clark: Very few. The directives from the elders were pretty clear. There were paid infiltrators, we believe, both in the camp and that had come into our own group that were managed by the private security firms that work for DAPL. The view I got from the elders was that what [the infiltrators] wanted was violence at the bridge and on the front line, which they could then call a riot. We believe they had a financial incentive to make it violent, so the best thing to do was peace and prayer and keep distance from the security forces. And don’t forget, by causing problems up there—and violence—and then leaving shortly after, we would have left the tribe to deal with all the ugly fallout from it.

van Gelder: Can you describe what it was like for you to conduct that forgiveness ceremony. What was going through your mind and heart?

Clark: We had initially thought we’d divide everyone up into platoons and companies and have it be super organized. But then once you got on the ground, the whole thing was kind of a self-organizing entity. People simply took charge. It was great to see. I never considered myself to be the ultimate leader of this thing. I wanted to build something where everyone could be a leader and backing off to a large extent to let people do their thing.

When we got there that morning. We didn’t know where we were going to stand, we didn’t know how the ceremony was going to go, we didn’t know how long it was going to last, we didn’t know who was going to speak.

At the last minute, the tribe told us to form everyone up in a horseshoe around us. Literally, on the spot, figuring stuff out with no idea what the ceremony was going to be or what I was going to say. And then I just stood there at attention for two hours as speaker after speaker … The only thing running through my mind was please God don’t let there be another speaker because I hadn’t had anything to eat, I hadn’t had anything to drink. I was going off an hour of sleep, maybe, standing there for what felt like two hours, I was afraid I was going to pass out.

And then when it started I just stepped forward and opened my mouth.

Everybody who’s non-Native and is willing to apologize for what the U.S. government has done to these people, raise your hand. And some people just got up and joined on their own.

van Gelder: It’s interesting to hear that you didn’t know what you were going to say because you listed very specific, very powerful sources of trauma and deep hardship. You listed them so eloquently and succinctly. What were you drawing from?

Clark: How could I not? On Saturday night, we had a gathering out at Sitting Bull College with about 400-500 of the vets, and tribal elders spoke. And whenever they get up to speak, they name off what’s happened. They let people know, this is what happened.

It was the same thing during the ceremony. Each elder who got up and spoke did it. The past is very fresh because it affects their day-to-day lives today. They are still trying to recover culturally and economically in every way.

You have to understand the history of this tribe. They originally had a bunch of rich, fertile bottom land on this reservation up until post-World War II. When the Army Corps of Engineers using the power of eminent domain came in and seized hundreds of thousands of acres from three separate reservations. It was all that rich, fertile bottom land. And they moved people up onto this clay rocky soil that they couldn’t make a living off of, that they couldn’t feed themselves off of. This happened between 1948 and 1963 when the dam opened. Since the dam opened, it’s made over $9.6 billion in electrical revenues and is listed by the Army Corps of Engineers as providing $150 million in economic benefit to the surrounding region, and the tribes don’t get any of that money even though it’s their farmland that’s flooded beneath it.

van Gelder: You spoke some very powerful truths during the ceremony. You kneeled in front of the elders. Describe what that experience was like.

Clark: I had no idea what was going to happen. I knew I should probably take my hat off. I didn’t know Crow Dog was going to lay his hand on my head. I’m glad he did. It felt wonderful. It felt healing. It felt good, in the truest sense of the word.

van Gelder: Afterward, there people were shaking hands and embracing throughout the venue.

Clark: Yeah, I loved it. That was one of my favorite parts of the day. It was just the most wonderful feeling in the world to feel so much love and acceptance between so many people in one place. To really feel that it was healing people, spiritually, emotionally.

van Gelder: Did any of the other veterans who came with you talk about what the experience was like for them?

Clark: They were all pulled there by a real strong spiritual force. We all felt it. We felt it on the drive out there. We felt it while we were there. We felt it during that ceremony.

van Gelder: In terms of the decision on the pipeline, what difference do you think it made that so many veterans had been on their way already?

Clark: I think they aided it. I think the real sacrifice was laid down by all the people from the tribes and civilians and White allies and Brown allies and Black allies and everyone else who went out there before we got there. They’re the ones who really paid the price. They were the ones who were beaten, hosed down, maced, attacked, and in many instances charged by a law enforcement organization working against the interests of the American people and for private corporations

I hope, first of all, that it never gets built. I hope the need to get an environmental impact statement will slow the process long enough that it never gets built.

van Gelder: Would the veterans come back if it looked like drilling was going to begin?

Clark: I hope so.

van Gelder: This comes at a time when this country is going through a massive shift from an Obama administration to a Trump administration and in many other respects as well. How do you see your role at Standing Rock intersecting with these other big shifts that are happening in the country?

Clark: I think we’re all going to be needed in a lot of ways. We’re all going to be called upon to make sure that we maintain a civil lawful society that’s moving toward a goal of greater good instead of the personal profit of a few who already have way more than they need in life.

van Gelder: I also heard after you all were at Standing Rock that there was talk of doing other kinds of actions, including in Flint, Michigan.

Clark: Yes, Michael [former U.S. Marine Michael Wood Jr.] will be leading that one with Veterans Stand. That will be a different kind of thing. My concept of that operation is that they will replace plumbing in individual houses there just using the manpower. I don’t know when that will happen. I will help him any way he needs it. I don’t have the money to go there, I don’t know how I’ll get there or when it will happen, but I’ll somehow find a way.

van Gelder: Do you have views on other things Veterans Stand might do?

Clark: That’s up to all these individual veterans groups. What I hope that we would do is that we would protect the Constitution. That we would ensure that people would have freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, religious liberty, and that we’d respect our treaty obligations, that we would respect the individual rights of every American regardless of their background or political affiliations.

van Gelder: Do you think there’s a danger of having a group of people who are militarily trained and who have an autonomous vision of what they should do that’s not part of the civilian power structure?

Clark: As long as people are practicing nonviolence, I don’t think there’s a problem at all.

van Gelder: You had mentioned that you had been not very religious or spiritual for some time and that this was sort of a wake-up call spiritually as well.

2016-12-24 I wouldn’t like to wish you peace if there was no hope for it.

Health, Lockheed Martin, War Economy (includes Cdn Census & Trials), March Against Bayer-Monsanto, Sustainability, Water 14 Responses »

Dec 242016

I can wish you peace because we have contributed to its happening!

Thank-you for the joy I feel. Sometimes our condition seems tragic, but when you take an overview, maybe it’s not-so-bad, and against the odds of money and organized white-collar death crimes.

The invisible bonds between us are exercised – – wow! look at those biceps!

Notes on a small sample of recent developments, the seeds for which were planted a long time ago, the roots for which have been growing steadily underground, before emerging into today’s healthy and fast growth watered by electronic communications. The death corporations had better watch out. Santa Claus is watching who has been naughty and who has been nice!

You probably heard Washington state sues Monsanto over PCB pollution (Dec 9).

Spokane, Washington, . . . Portland, Oregon, and Oakland, Berkeley, San Jose, Long Beach and San Diego, California – have also sued Monsanto over PCB pollution,. . .those cases are ongoing.

Monsanto’s PCB and Agent Orange stories are “old”. They should never have happened. I always remember the 2002 Washington Post article – a “company town” in Alabama – – it is so incomprehensible that Monsanto would do to their own employees what they did. The haunting words, “No one was ever told”. In spite of what Monsanto’s top gunners knew,

Nevertheless, Monsanto told officials around the country the contrary. In a letter to New Jersey’s Department of Conservation that year, Monsanto wrote, “Based on available data, manufacturing and use experience, we do not believe PCBs to be seriously toxic.”

2002-01-01 Monsanto Hid Decades Of Pollution, Washington Post (PCB’s, Anniston, Alabama. “No one was ever told”)

(Who would have ever thought that the Washington Post would have published the story?!)

I associate Monsanto with violence against people and the planet through

their known poisons,
knowingly used in chemical warfare by the U.S. (VietNam),
knowingly applied in larger and larger quantities on agricultural lands and food crops
with the concomitant poisoning of water.

As with the PCB’s, Monsanto knows.

It took decades of work by Veterans, activists, people who live adjacent to areas of aerial spraying, and Moms, sharing information and Marches to get to the point where a State in the U.S. is suing Monsanto.

After years of fighting them on numerous fronts, electronic communications collapsed the time it takes:

2013-05-11 Amazing mobilizations! The Whole World against Monsanto (GMO’s).

You probably know that Bayer (as in Bayer Crop Science and Bayer aspirin) WAS GOING TO purchase Monsanto for US$ 66 billion.

What a hoot! There is now a “social disclaimer” on the celebrated “Advancing Together” as one company. There is no date on the disclaimer; it would be Fall 2016 given this statement in the Disclaimer:

factors detailed in Monsanto’s Annual Report … filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) for the fiscal year ended August 31, 2016 . . .

THE DISCLAIMER is at: https://www.advancingtogether.com/en/social-disclaimer-b/

I had to laugh when I read it. Sounds more like going down the toilet together.

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

You probably heard that the Federal Government (Canada) has banned asbestos. It took decades. Hundreds of thousands of deaths, too. Our network didn’t focus on it; others certainly put in their time in the trenches battling to keep it in the ground.

I am greatly encouraged by actions that address CAUSES – – even if they are in ways too late (the asbestos mines in Canada stopped producing in 2011).

Address the cause . . . address the cause . . .

lead in gasoline, smoking, PCBs, asbestos (more coming and faster because of our participation)

mental health, a culture that lacks meaning, has no raison d’etre, that destroys life

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

You probably heard that the Standing Rock Sioux were joined by multitudes; it became impossible for the police/military forces to use the assembled violence against them.

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

Here is a little victory I think we scored. IF I am right, it means there is a level of awareness: what is happening to Monsanto will happen to Lockheed Martin.

Monsanto is not, of course, the whole of its industry, anymore than Lockheed is the whole of its industry. The point is that we know how to give the boot to the corruptors.

Let me start here, from 2002-11-21:

. . . Gandhi taught us non-violent resistance. Bill Gates gave us “business at the speed of thought” – rapid communications to thousands. Oprah Winfrey on her television show is teaching empowerment to millions of people, women in particular.

Look at the history of war. War, “a contest or conflict”. Hand-to-hand combat. Mounted on horses. Bows and arrows. Guns. Cannons. Poison gas. Atomic bombs. Nuclear devices. Chemical warfare. Napoleonic wars, World War 1, World War 2, Kuwait, Afghanistan …

Aaah, but how one-sided the view is! That history comes from the vested powers. Seldom are we reminded of the triumphant history of wars won by empowered ordinary citizens who prevailed over the vested powers:

– Gandhi and his march of defiance which asserted that India would be run for the benefit of Indians, not the colonial power. That was a war as great as any. What was the ammunition and the weapon?

– the people in East Germany who gathered on Sunday mornings in village squares, all wearing a white shirt. They formed a circle and held hands. The movement spread quickly from town-to-town and bamboozled the guns of the East German military, who understood it was an act of defiance, but were powerless: how would they be able to explain the gunning down of people for standing in a circle and holding hands?!

We are seldom reminded that the “Iron Curtain”, the Berlin Wall came down through non-violent resistance. That was a feat as great as Gandhi’s. There was no massive loss of life. What was the ammunition and the weapon?

– it took a war inside America to get the United States out of the Vietnam war. It was a long and hard battle, but once again, victory was achieved without large-scale bloodshed in that internal conflict (civil war). It was ordinary people in the communities of America that stopped the Pentagon. Have we forgotten that? What was the ammunition and the weapon?

– Martin Luther King Junior, a general who led masses to over-power a culture that was killing.

It’s all war – – but the weaponry is different.

Today, the internet, information and e-communications compress time. It no longer takes decades to accomplish what needs to be done.

Enough for today – – I will tell you the little victory I think we scored, later.

May you and your family find joy in the struggle for more peace.

/Sandra

2016-12-07 The Government announces Amendments to the Statistics Act (Census Lockheed Martin)

2016-12-07 The Government announces Amendments to the Statistics Act (Census Lockheed Martin) Lockheed Martin, War Economy (includes Cdn Census & Trials) No Responses »

Dec 212016

This Act to Amend the Stats Act has been in the works:

2016-09-26 Statistics Canada eyes end to short-form census, CBC
2016-07-26 StatsCan looking for powers to make all surveys mandatory, compel data from companies
Statistics Canada makes a shrewd power grab – while it can. National Post, Kevin Libin (copy and paste the title into your browser to obtain the article – I can’t copy it)

The official announcement from StatsCan Media Relations is below. For details, go to the above; the article by Kevin Libin provides critique.

As I understand at this point, roughly, the intention is: there will be a file on everyone, constructed from existing Government documents. So, a merger of existing data from all and various departments. Supplemented by information from mandatory long form censuses t0 fill in the gaps in the data they want, but don’t have. (In a past decade in Canada, a Privacy Commissioner ordered the destruction of such a data base – – I need to find the record of that.)

The theme repeated for your benefit is that StatsCan will be “independent” of political interference. Umm . . . maybe it’s not political interference but “Five Eye” interference that I’m concerned about? 2016-03-18 Does Lockheed Martin Corp have a role in the 2016 Census? (or in StatsCan Surveys and future Censuses?)

There is no mention of the Charter Right to Privacy of personal information. I think the sanctions for non-compliance would still have to be the work of the Justice Department; this very independent body (StatsCan) would not be that independent.

A no-brainer, the indefensible use of the threat of jail-time will be removed. BUT: how large will the fines for non-compliance be? I don’t know.

Frankly speaking, “the plan” for StatsCan seems naïve. I cannot imagine that business interests, let alone citizens, are going to go along with the heightened powers.

I am curious – – what do you think? (“Comments” below.)

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

CREDIBILITY ISSUES:

From: Statistics Canada makes a shrewd power grab — while it can, by Kevin Libin, National Post, July 26

Plus, it (StatsCan) apparently lies. When StatsCan tweeted on May 3 that Canadians were responding to the census in “such high numbers” that its website was “overwhelmed by the enthusiasm” and crashed — making headlines across Canada — it wasn’t true. The CBC later found out through access to information documents that computer traffic was lower than expected, and the crash was due to design flaws. . . .

– – – – – – – – – – – – – –

RE: Navdeep Bains, Minister Responsible, from the promo below: Earlier this year, Canadians demonstrated their commitment to the Census Program by enabling Statistics Canada to carry out the most successful census in Canadian history.

Maybe there was a time when people would believe such assertions?

For newcomers, the track record of StatsCan’s credibility on compliance rates (lying under oath) is included in the posting:

2016-03-18 Does Lockheed Martin Corp have a role in the 2016 Census?

It was more than ten years ago, through public consultations on the “Government Directive on Regulating” (the GDR) that I, for one, told the Government: you have to stop doing these things that undermine public trust.

Has anything ever been achieved by people who don’t trust each other?

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

ANNOUNCEMENT: An Act to Amend the Statistics Act

http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?mthd=index&crtr.page=2&nid=1166769

Ottawa, December 7, 2016—The Honourable Navdeep Bains, Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, today made the following statement:

“Our government believes that for a national statistical agency to be credible, there must be a high degree of professional independence.

“That is why I am pleased to announce that I have introduced a bill that proposes to reinforce Statistics Canada’s independence through legislative amendments to the Statistics Act.

“The proposed amendments would strengthen Statistics Canada’s independence by clearly defining the responsibilities of the Minister and those of the Chief Statistician; increasing transparency around decisions and directives about Statistics Canada made by the government; appointing the Chief Statistician to a renewable term of not more than five years; creating the Canadian Statistics Advisory Council to reinforce the independence, relevance and transparency of the national statistical system; and removing the threat of imprisonment for those who refuse to respond to mandatory surveys.

“This bill, once passed, will ensure that there will be no political interference in the collection of statistics in general, and the census in particular.

“This bill will entrench Statistics Canada’s independence into law, ensuring that Canadians can continue to rely on the integrity and accuracy of the data produced by their national statistical agency.

“Canadians understand that high-quality and impartial data are necessary for planning critical services that all Canadians rely on, including housing, schooling, public transportation and skills training for employment.

“Earlier this year, Canadians demonstrated their commitment to the Census Program by enabling Statistics Canada to carry out the most successful census in Canadian history.

“I am proud of our government’s decisions to reinstate the mandatory long-form census and to introduce this bill. These actions will ensure that Canada’s national statistical system remains strong.

“More than ever, the government is committed to evidence-based decision making and to making available the data that organizations and governments need in order to make informed decisions.”

Follow Minister Bains on social media.
Twitter: @MinisterISED

For further information (media only), please contact:

Philip Proulx
Press Secretary
Office of the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development
343-291-2500

Media Relations
Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada
343-291-1777
ic.mediarelations-mediasrelations.ic@canada.ca

Related products (from the Government website)

= = = = = = = == = =

(Note to self: look at SUSPECT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY, A PROBLEMATIZATION OF STATE DOSSIER SYSTEMS VIA TWO CASE STUDIES: THE UNITED STATES AND CHINA Kenneth N. Farrall University of Pennsylvania, kfarrall@asc.upenn.edu Fall 12-22-2009)

2016-09-26 Statistics Canada eyes end to short-form census, CBC

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

Dec 212016

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/statistics-canada-census-1.3778820

NOTE: Wayne Smith “resigned in protest” as Canada’s Chief Statistician on September 16th.

Digital register of population could replace manual survey by 2026

By Jordan Press, The Canadian Press

The mandatory long-form census returned this year, a decade after it was last seen.

If things go as planned, a decade from now the short-form census won’t be seen again.

Statistics Canada is working on a plan for the 2026 census that would eliminate the mandatory short-form census that goes to every household and instead use existing government databases to conduct a virtual count of the population.

The plan would save taxpayers millions of dollars and provide the same information used by governments to plan roads, hospitals, schools and other public services.

Register to update every 5 years

Documents obtained by The Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act paint a detailed picture of what officials hope to have in place by 2026: a digital register of every Canadian that could be updated every five years, if not annually, and a smaller long-form questionnaire.

“This approach to replace the short-form questionnaire will require a complete redesign of the long-form questionnaire,” reads the April report provided to former chief statistician Wayne Smith.

The agency said in a statement that it hasn’t yet determined its approach for the 2021 census, but made no direct reference to the 2026 count. The statement said the agency “conducts ongoing research activities to determine the most efficient way of collecting census information.”

For decades, Statistics Canada has mobilized a small army of workers — 1,400 this year — to mail questionnaires to households, go door-to-door and phone for follow-ups and read through the millions of returned forms that contain detailed information about the population.

High costs for taxpayers

That tradition is costly for taxpayers and burdensome for workers.

Statistics Canada estimates the 2016 census will cost upwards of $700 million, which covers a seven-year period that includes time to prepare, collect, analyze and distribute results.

Administrative data like tax and income information held by the Canada Revenue Agency, or vehicle registration data from provinces, could provide details faster and cheaper than sending out millions of questionnaires every five years. It would also help the agency combat declining response rates that threaten accuracy (although the short-form census this year had a 98 per cent response rate).

This year, Statistics Canada mailed out 16 million short-form questionnaires, with one quarter also receiving the long-form survey.

“Why would you spend $750 million to go and collect information from Canadians and bothering at the home and using up their time when the government already holds that information, if we just put it together?” Smith said. “We can save a very substantial amount of money and avoid disrupting the lives of a lot of Canadians.”

Statistics Canada officials have experimented over the last three years with a virtual population register that links tax, death, birth, immigration and aboriginal data sources.

Early results showed the results were almost equal to the population estimates the agency regularly produces, easing concerns about data quality. Officials wrote that the agency needed to find a way to get key demographic information like ages and private dwellings in some rural parts of the country and in some aboriginal communities.

Census test run

Census staff tested out their plans on a small scale this year when forest fires forced the evacuation of Fort McMurray and Wood Buffalo in Alberta, displacing thousands of area residents. The agency used administrative data to do a head count and followed up with residents last month.

“That information will be included in the census and we learned quite a bit from that experience about what the weaknesses are and how to fix them,” Smith said.

Smith said there will still be a need for a long-form survey because there is some data that can’t be captured from administrative sources, such as ethnic origins, visible minority status, religion and language spoken at home.

2013-03-29 4 Things the Movie “No” left out about real life Chile, the Atlantic Magazine. Pinochet election defeat.

Freedom of Speech. (Remove some wrong postings from category) No Responses »

Dec 162016

(I thought I had posted about this Movie “No” after I watched it. If so, I can’t find the posting. I am interested in how governments are changed. This article from “The Atlantic” is good, re Chile and Pinochet.)

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

Pablo Larraín’s recent film borrowed from the actual effort to depose Pinochet, but reality was far messier than a catchy ad campaign.

by Olga Khazan

Actor Gael Garcia Bernal of Chile’s Oscar entry “No” answers questions during the Foreign Language Film photo opportunity for the 85th Academy Awards in Hollywood, California, on February 22, 2013. (Reuters)

It’s been quite the year for historical half-truths in movies: First Argo inflamed debate about the actual Iranian hostage crisis. Then, Zero Dark Thirty was accused of glorifying torture’s role in capturing terrorists. And now, some Chileans are wondering why a new arthouse film makes it seem as though their country was liberated thanks to a modified soda-pop jingle.

In the new film NO, the rule of Augusto Pinochet ends after Chile’s voters get inspired by a peppy ad campaign designed by a skateboarding, politically agnostic ad executive named Rene, played by Mexican actor Gael Garcia Bernal.

To the tune of a catchy theme song, Rene’s ads promise Chileans a brighter, happier future without Pinochet (and apparently one filled with horse-riding couples and sexy dancers). Voters take him up on it, showing up at the polls in droves and deposing the dictator with a 56 percent “No” vote in the 1988 plebiscite.

The movie was shot with a retro camera to give the appearance of authenticity and even included period footage of Pinochet and the ads themselves.

But in reality, the struggle to depose Pinochet and return Chile to democratic governance was a decades-long slog in which dozens of opposition leaders toiled to register voters, hammered out a platform, and persuaded bitter enemies to work together.

Of course, NO is just realistic fiction. The film is loosely based on a play called The Plebiscite, by Chilean writer Antonio Skármeta. NO’s director, Pablo Larraín, described the film in aNew York Times interview as “a strange balance between documentary and fiction,” and said that “the way things happen in the movie is not exactly the way they were, but the facts are the same.”

The movie is something of a love letter to democracy — it’s produced in part by Participant Media, the same movie house behind other social-action flicks like Waiting for Superman and Food, Inc. And the movie plot does adhere to a few realities. Chile’s landmark 1988 plebiscite was a referendum in which citizens were given a choice over whether to end the dictatorship for the first time since the 1973 coup.

Vote “Yes,” and Pinochet would stay in power for another eight-year term; vote “No,” and the country would hold free elections.

Pinochet was one of the continent’s most brutal rulers: His government “disappeared” about 3,000 of his political opponents, arrested more than 30,000, and cast away more than 200,000 others to live in exile.

But after 16 years of living without democracy, it was surprisingly hard to convince Chileans to pick another alternative. Rival anti-Pinochet parties had been feuding for years about whether a potential future new government would be pro-Western or Marxist. Many citizens were afraid to vote altogether, thinking it might cause them to be targeted, and some doubted the idea that Pinochet would honor the results of the vote.

Augusto Pinochet. (Reuters)

In the weeks leading up to the vote, each side — Yes” and “No” — was given 15 minutes of TV advertising time each night. The pro-Pinochet side alternated between cloying propaganda and foreboding images warning of an apocalyptic post-Pinochet future. Meanwhile, the campaign led by a coalition of opposition parties — the “No” — did in fact concoct a positive, joyful ad campaign, and Chileans did, for a number of reasons, overwhelmingly vote down Pinochet.

“But what led up to that last 30 days was only the last snapshot of a very long struggle,” said Ken Wollack, head of the National Democratic Institute, which helped to set up election monitoring during the plebiscite.

Genaro Arriagada, right, director of Chile’s “No” campaign, speaks with Chilean opposition leader Sergio Bitar during a panel on March 26, 2013 in Washington. (Joy Asico)

I sat down with the director of the real “No” campaign, Genaro Arriagada, to talk about what life was actually like leading up to the plebiscite. Here are four surprising elements of that were left out or glossed over in the film version:

The guy who came up with the No campaign wasn’t an outsider:

In the movie, the slogan the No campaign dreamt up — La alegría ya viene (“Joy is coming”) — is ripped straight from the actual commercials the campaign ran. But the heads of the campaign didn’t bring in a random local ad man to do it. Instead, American consultants helped the Chileans run focus groups, and they found a happy message resonated better than one centered on Pinochet’s human rights violations.

Frank Greer, head of the political communications firm GMMB, traveled to Chile at least six times in 1987 and 1988.

“We received assistance from the Soros Foundation to hire a group of people who went to Chile to make focus groups. They proved that if you want to win, it’s necessary to have a moderate message. And of course, we have some people to the far left who say, well, I don’t agree with this, so they were put out of the coalition,” Arriagada said.

The opposition parties were arch-rivals that had to learn to agree:

Arriagada and his colleagues worked for years to bridge differences between 17 different groups who all had visions for what Chile should be after Pinochet. Some wanted Pinochet supporters punished, but the No campaign organizers knew they could never win unless they assured regime backers of their safety after Pinochet’s fall.

“Pinochet had the support of the upper class and business community. Our conviction was that if we … put in jail or in exile the people of Pinochet, that will be the end of the country. It was necessary to have room for everybody,” he said.

“This was a matter of creating tolerance between former enemies. About building a country in which you can have a place. Even if you are coming from Pinochet or other parties, we are trying to build a fatherland for all. But that moderation was not discovered in the last 30 days, or even the last year. It was a long, long road that took at least 10 years.”

Some parties even suggested abstaining from the plebiscite entirely, thinking that would be the best way to signal their belief that Pinochet’s government was illegitimate.

“But my recommendation in any place is that you should go to an election, even if you are defeated, you must participate,” Arriagada said.

The ad wasn’t the most important part:

Before voting day on Oct. 5, 1988, the No coalition led a massive grassroots effort to register 92 percent of the electorate — a registration drive that both Wollack and Arriagada said was a turning point.

“Pinochet who had the support of all of the army and the support of the business community. We had the students, we had human rights, we had a very well-structured political parties, and we had the people in the streets in order,” Arriagada said.

Chileans didn’t know right away who won:

Pinochet’s camp had plans to incite rioting and disorder should the “No” camp win, according to a Defense Intelligence Agency document, and President Reagan had tried to prevent that possibility, warning Chilean police to uphold the results.

“President Pinochet should also be informed that nothing could so permanently destroy his reputation in Chile and the world than for him to authorize or permit extreme violent and illicit steps which make a mockery of his solemn promise to conduct a free and fair plebiscite,” the American talking points read.

The plebiscite was monitored extremely closely, with vote counters at each of the more than 10,000 polling stations. When it became obvious to Pinochet’s supporters that the opposition had won, at around 7:30 that evening, the government hesitated to release the results and instead began airing cartoons on the state broadcast channels. At first, there were fears that Pinochet would not honor the results.

“And in that moment, there was a very deep split in the regime – some who wanted to recognize the defeat, and some who wanted not to recognize it,” Arriagada said. Pinochet tried forcing the military to give him “extraordinary powers” to cancel the vote, but top generals refused

“At midnight, the military generals appeared on TV, and they said, they are defeated,” Arriagada said. “I will say that of course we were extremely happy with this, but at the same time, it was the beginning of something that was completely unknown.”

2016-12 following aborted Mediation 2016-11, Ashu Solo v Sandra Finley

Uncategorized No Responses »

Dec 152016

Hi Tyler,

In follow-up to your email of November 29^th (We hope to have the Plaintiff’s Affidavit ready for you before the new year.)

My documents are pretty much ready to go.

I had time today to satisfy my curiosity regarding process.

You may wish to know: I googled “Canada Law Extortion Abuse Justice System”. The first thing that came up and the only link I looked at is a Government of Canada, Department of Justice website: A Handbook for Police and Crown Prosecutors on Criminal Harassment. The (last) Date modified is 2016-04-27, a “Print Screen” of the top of the page is appended. http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/cj-jp/fv-vf/har/part1.html

I only had time for quick skim. And for “search page” for the word “Extortion”. You’ll find it under 1.6.1 So far (I will read more), I view it in the context of:

my email to you of November 28, I propose that the Expedited procedures for claims under $100,000.00 set out in the “New Rules”, July 2013, would be appropriate) and

your reply of November 29, It is our position that it would be inappropriate for this matter to proceed expeditiously, for the following reasons:
1. This claim could easily exceed $100,000.00, . . .

My calculation of how you arrived at $100,000 is this:

There are 3 potential financial streams:

I pay to settle
LFC pays to settle and
lawyer expenses.

How would those be apportioned? . . . It is documented that when the Plaintiff threatens different people that he will sue them, he consistently says it will cost them (a number that is more than $20,000) in legal bills.

So:

the lawyer expenses part of the pie is roughly $25,000.
Which leaves approximately $75,000 to bring us to your figuring This claim could easily exceed $100,000.00,
The obvious split is: Sandra will be forced to settle for $50,000 or more. LFC will be forced to settle for $25,000 or more, making up the $75,000

I presume you are aware of the history of Court awards in cases of Defamation, a few thousand dollars at most for ordinary citizens, if they are found to be guilty.

Perhaps you are junior counsel, as is Rachelle for senior counsel Paul Wagner (representing LFC) and as was Samuel for Grant Scharfstein representing me.

To my way of thinking, and I could be completely wrong: this is a matter for discussion with a supervising senior, but perhaps that has already been done. I don’t know when “settlement” becomes “extortion”, but I do know that participation in extortion is a serious criminal offence. The Handbook confirms it. I hope this is helpful.

I remain committed to my reply to you, November 29. As I view it, it’s your call, and I have no desire to contest your decision which would only bring about more delay and expense.

From: Sandra Finley
Sent: November 29, 2016 6:00 PM
To: ‘Tyler Dahl’ <tdahl@cuelenaere.com>
Subject: RE: Solo v. Finley, QB 500 of 2015. NEXT STEP

Thanks for your reply Tyler.

No problem. We will proceed as you and your client wish – – to Questioning and pre-trial conference.

Best wishes,

Sandra Finley

APPENDED PRINT SCREEN

2016-12-09 Washington state sues Monsanto over PCB pollution

Corporatocracy or Democracy or Administrative State or WHAT?, Health, March Against Bayer-Monsanto, Salmon & Fish, Sustainability, Water No Responses »

Dec 092016

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/washington-state-sues-monsanto-over-pcb-pollution/

The Associated Press

SEATTLE – Washington has become the first U.S. state to sue the agrochemical giant Monsanto over pervasive pollution from PCBs, the toxic industrial chemicals that have accumulated in plants, fish and people around the globe for decades. The company said the case “lacks merit.”

Democratic Gov. Jay Inslee and Attorney General Bob Ferguson announced the lawsuit at a news conference in downtown Seattle Thursday, saying they expect to win hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars from the company.

“It is time to hold the sole U.S. manufacturer of PCBs accountable for the significant harm they have caused to our state,” Ferguson said, noting that the chemicals continue to imperil the health of protected salmon and orcas despite the tens of millions of dollars Washington has spent to clean up the pollution. “Monsanto produced PCBs for decades while hiding what they knew about the toxic chemicals’ harm to human health and the environment.”

PCBs, or polychlorinated biphenyls, were used in many industrial and commercial applications, including in paint, coolants, sealants and hydraulic fluids. Monsanto, based in St. Louis, produced them from 1935 until Congress banned them in 1979.

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, PCBs have been shown to cause a variety of health problems, including cancer in animals as well as effects on the immune, nervous and reproductive systems.

Monsanto spokesman Scott S. Partridge said in a statement that the “case is experimental because it seeks to target a product manufacturer for selling a lawful and useful chemical four to eight decades ago that was applied by the U.S. government, Washington State, local cities, and industries into many products to make them safer. PCBs have not been produced in the U.S. for four decades, and Washington is now pursuing a case on a contingency fee basis that departs from settled law both in Washington and across the country. Most of the prior cases filed by the same contingency fee lawyers have been dismissed, and Monsanto believes this case similarly lacks merit.”

In response to a similar lawsuit filed last year by the city of Spokane, Washington, Monsanto said a previous incarnation of the company produced the PCBs, which it said “served an important fire protection and safety purpose.”

“PCBs sold at the time were a lawful and useful product that was then incorporated by third parties into other useful products,” Charla Lord, a company spokeswoman, wrote. “If improper disposal or other improper uses created the necessity for clean-up costs, then these other third parties would bear responsibility for these costs.”

Several other cities – including Portland, Oregon, and Oakland, Berkeley, San Jose, Long Beach and San Diego, California – have also sued Monsanto over PCB pollution, the Attorney General’s Office said. Those cases are ongoing.

Ferguson, a Democrat, pointed to internal Monsanto documents that show the company long knew about the danger the chemicals posed. In 1937, an internal memo said testing on animals showed “systemic toxic effects” from prolonged exposure by inhaling PCB fumes or ingestion. In 1969, a company committee on PCBs noted, “There is too much customer/market need and selfishly too much Monsanto profit to go out.”

“There is little probability that any action that can be taken will prevent the growing incrimination of specific polychlorinated biphenyls … as nearly global environmental contaminants leading to contamination of human food (particularly fish), the killing of some marine species (shrimp), and the possible extinction of several species of fish eating birds,” a committee memo said.

Ferguson said that infuriated him. He noted that his great-grandparents settled along Washington’s Skagit River in the late 19th century. The Skagit was one of more than 100 water bodies in the state listed in the lawsuit as being polluted with PCBs.

“That river, the Skagit River, which my family depended on to a great degree in the 19th century as they homesteaded here, is now contaminated by PCBs, as are the fish,” he said. “That makes me mad.”

Ferguson said his office had been in touch with counterparts in other states, but it remained unclear if other states would follow Washington’s lead in suing the company.

Washington’s lawsuit seeks damages on several grounds, including product liability for what it described as Monsanto’s failure to warn about the danger of PCBs; negligence; and even trespass, for injuring the state’s natural resources.

2016-12-05 George Bush, War Criminal: California Court confirms judges who will hear argument on legality of Iraq War December 12

George Bush war criminal No Responses »

Dec 082016

THE LAWSUIT: Saleh v. Bush

BACKGROUND: 2016-09-04 Iraqi Woman Uses Chilcot Report in War Crimes Lawsuit Against George W Bush, Truthout

Note: the link at the bottom of the article, to the Oct 24th decision by the Court: the application to enable use of the Chilcot Report was denied.

UPDATE: from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saleh_v._Bush (Wikipedia)

Saleh v. Bush was a class action lawsuit filed in 2013 against high-ranking members of the George W. Bush administration (including George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condi Rice, Colin Powell, and Paul Wolfowitz) for their alleged involvement in premeditating and carrying out the Iraq War. In December 2014, the district court hearing the case ordered it dismissed with prejudice. The dismissal was affirmed by the United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit. . . .

On July 22, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a motion for judicial notice, submitting excerpts from the Chilcot Report in support of their claims.^[4]

Oral argument was held on December 12, 2016, before Judges Susan Graber, Andrew Hurwitz, and Richard Boulware, heard thirty minutes of oral arguments on December 12, 2016.^[d]^[e]

On February 10, 2017, the Ninth Circuit unanimously affirmed the judgment (INSERT: dismissed with prejudice) in an opinion by Judge Graber.^[5]^[6]

RELATED:

United States war crimes (see on Wikipedia)

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

California Court confirms judges who will hear argument on legality of Iraq War December 12

George W. Bush war crimes trial given go-ahead in California court

The United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit today (Dec 5) confirmed that Judges Susan Graber and Andrew Hurwitz will hear arguments on December 12, 2016, in the case of Saleh v. Bush.

Witnessiraq.com reports:

San Francisco, Calif. — Today the United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit confirmed that Circuit Judges Susan Graber and Andrew Hurwitz, as well as District Court Judge Richard Boulware (sitting by designation) will hear oral argument on December 12, 2016, in Saleh v. Bush.

Saleh v. Bush involves claims by an Iraqi woman, Sundus Shaker Saleh, that former President George W. Bush and other high ranking Bush-era officials broke the law when they planned and waged the Iraq War.

Saleh alleges that former Bush Administration leaders committed the crime of aggression when they planned and executed the Iraq War, a war crime that was called the “supreme international crime” at the Nuremberg Trials in 1946.

Saleh is appealing the immunity provided to the Defendants by the district court in December 2014.

“We are pleased that the Ninth Circuit will hear argument. To my knowledge, this is the first time a court will entertain arguments that the Iraq War was illegal under domestic and international law,” Saleh’s attorney D. Inder Comar, legal director at Comar LLP, said. “This is also the first time since World War II that a court is being asked to scrutinize whether the war itself was an illegal act of aggression — a special war crime that was defined at the Nuremberg Trials in 1946.” Comar is handling Saleh’s case pro bono.

Assuming the oral argument takes place, the argument will be live streamed and recorded on the Ninth Circuit’s YouTube channel, permitting members of the public to watch the argument. The Court’s calendar commences at 9:00 a.m. Pacific Time on December 12th; the case will likely be heard later in the morning, as it is last on the Court’s calendar.

In addition to former President Bush, Saleh has named former Administration officials Richard Cheney, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz as defendants in the case.

In December 2014, the district court dismissed Saleh’s lawsuit, holding that the defendants were immune from further proceedings because of the federal Westfall Act of 1988 (28 U.S.C. § 2679). The Westfall Act immunizes former federal officials in civil lawsuits if a court determines that the official was acting pursuant to the legitimate scope of his or her employment.

Saleh disputes the immunity, arguing that the planning and waging of a war of aggression against Iraq fell outside the legitimate scope of employment of former President Bush and the other defendants.

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

I commented (edited):

Thank you very much for this information. And the earlier report that the Court denies entry of the Chilcot Report (UK). The decision is (I don’t know the right word). If it is “to be expected” then where are citizens? Why do people put up with a justice system that is not just?

I helped with the efforts in Canada to get Bush / Cheney arrested when they thought they could come here and be celebrities flogging books. They no longer come; at the last visit, protesters blockaded Cheney at a venue in Vancouver, for 7 hours.

I try to maintain a list of the various efforts around the World to bring these war criminals to justice (see Arrest George Bush. Rule of Law critical to Democracy). Sundus Shaker Saleh together with Comar Law is an important addition. Bless her and bless you for making this story known.

2016-12 To Tyler Dahl, When “settlement” becomes “extortion” (use of the court system for abusive purposes)

X1B Postings No Responses »

Dec 012016

July 21, 2022 Note

In the materials Tyler submitted to the Court re Sandra Finley (2022), to substantiate my Contact Info (Service of Documents), he excerpts from an email I sent him.

A single page, an email I sent to Tyler following the Mediation on November 22, 2016. It says, “Thanks for your email of Dec 7.” And is dated December 10-16. He used that to substantiate my email address.

It is part of an exchange I initiated with Tyler in the week after Mediatio

Maybe I will have the opportunity to refer to Tyler’s evidence – – he confirmed that he participated in the email exchange.

EXCERPTS, FINLEY TO DAHL (full email below), 2016

The rule-makers would not construct Rules that have no application. . . . How is the Rule, procedurally, brought to bear?

5-3(1) The Court may modify or waive any right or power pursuant to a rule in this Part or make any order warranted in the circumstances if:

a person acts . . . in a manner that is vexatious, evasive, abusive, oppressive, improper or tediously lengthy;

I respect the intelligence of your client (Ashu Solo). His actions on November 22 (Mediation) were effective. Numerous times he has claimed knowledge of the law (I can provide those statements). But you don’t actually need to be conversant with the intricacies to know that if you do what he did, the Mediation would be drawn to a close, which is exactly what happened.

My turn to speak was taken away because of actions specifically described in 5-3(1). You will of course know that under the Constitution Act, Section 2, I have the Right to express myself. Where could that be more critical than in legal proceedings?

Why would the Plaintiff risk doing what he did when there were witnesses in the room? Do the cost-benefit-risk analysis.

The cost: 5 credible witnesses observe you (Ashu Solo) in action.

The benefit: the defendant is prevented from being heard.

The risk: little, because what is said and done in Mediation is inaccessible at Trial.

But again, rule-makers do not construct Rules that have no application. The (confidential) information must be sealed in a form satisfactory to the local registrar or a judge when filed, . . .

Since my proposed application has no hope of succeeding – – (your words, thank-you) – – I have been reading more to understand an alternate way in which the intention of the Law and Rules can be achieved.

It is obviously not the intention that persons can use abusive, oppressive actions and knowledge of how the system works to silence the testimony of others.

– – – – – – – – – – – –

From another communication to Tyler:

Search: “Canada Law Extortion Abuse Justice System”.

Result: Government of Canada, Department of Justice website: A Handbook for Police and Crown Prosecutors on Criminal Harassment. The (last) Date modified is 2016-04-27, http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/cj-jp/fv-vf/har/part1.html

Search page: for the word “Extortion”.

It’s under 1.6.1 I view it in the context of:

my email to you of November 28, I propose that the Expedited procedures for claims under $100,000.00 set out in the “New Rules”, July 2013, would be appropriate) and

your reply of November 29, It is our position that it would be inappropriate for this matter to proceed expeditiously, for the following reasons:
1. This claim could easily exceed $100,000.00, . . .

My calculation of how you arrived at $100,000 is this:

There are 3 potential financial streams (for you):

I pay to settle
LFC pays to settle and
lawyer expenses paid by your client, maybe out of the settlement he receives, I don’t know.

So:

the lawyer expenses part of the pie is roughly $25,000.
Which leaves approximately $75,000 to bring us to your figuring This claim could easily exceed $100,000.00,
The obvious split is: Sandra will be forced to settle for $50,000 or more. LFC will be forced to settle for $25,000 or more, making up the $75,000

I presume you are aware of the history of Court awards in cases of Defamation, a few thousand dollars at most for ordinary citizens, if they are found to be guilty.

I don’t know when “settlement” becomes “extortion”, but I do know that participation in extortion is a serious criminal offence. The Handbook confirms it. (A Handbook for Police and Crown Prosecutors on Criminal Harassment.)

I remain committed to my reply to you, November 29. As I view it, it’s your call, and I have no desire to contest your decision which would only bring about more delay and expense.

From: Sandra Finley [mailto:sabest1@sasktel.net]
Sent: November 29, 2016 6:00 PM
To: ‘Tyler Dahl’ <tdahl@cuelenaere.com>
Subject: RE: Solo v. Finley, QB 500 of 2015. NEXT STEP

Thanks for your reply Tyler.

No problem. We will proceed as you and your client wish – – to Questioning and pre-trial conference.

– – – – – – – – – – –

Nothing happened. Until now. Five years later.

It’s not about Justice. It’s about using the Justice System, with impunity, as a tool of threat and coercion.

– – – – – – – – – – –

From: Sandra Finley [mailto:sabest1@sasktel.net]
Sent: December 10, 2016 11:53 AM
To: ‘Tyler Dahl’ <tdahl@cuelenaere.com>
Subject: RE: Solo v. Finley, QB 500 of 2015. CHANGE

Hi Tyler,

Thanks for your email of Dec 7. (2016)

By next week I expect to respond more fully with an alternate proposal to my Dec 6 email to you.

My thinking:

A role of the Justice system is to help achieve “Peace, order, and good governance”.
The rule-makers would not construct Rules that have no application. I just have to figure out how the Rule, procedurally, is brought to bear.

5-3(1) The Court may modify or waive any right or power pursuant to a rule in this Part or make any order warranted in the circumstances if:

a person acts . . . in a manner that is vexatious, evasive, abusive, oppressive, improper or tediously lengthy;

I respect the intelligence of your client. His actions on November 22 (Mediation) were effective. Numerous times he has claimed knowledge of the law (I can provide those statements). But you don’t actually need to be conversant with the intricacies to know that if you do what he did, the Mediation would be drawn to a close, which is exactly what happened.
My turn to speak was taken away because of actions specifically described in 5-3(1). You will of course know that under the Constitution Act, Section 2, I have the Right to express myself. Where could that be more critical than in legal proceedings?
Why would the Plaintiff risk doing what he did when there were witnesses in the room? Do the cost-benefit-risk analysis. The cost: 5 credible witnesses observe you in action. The benefit: the defendant is prevented from being heard. The risk: little, because what is said in Mediation is inaccessible at Trial. But again, rule-makers do not construct Rules that have no application. The (confidential) information must be sealed in a form satisfactory to the local registrar or a judge when filed,

It is obviously not the intention that persons can use abusive, oppressive actions and knowledge of how the system works to silence the testimony of others.

Best wishes, Sandra

From: Tyler Dahl [mailto:tdahl@cuelenaere.com]
Sent: December 7, 2016 10:42 AM
To: Sandra Finley <sabest1@sasktel.net>
Subject: RE: Solo v. Finley, QB 500 of 2015. CHANGE

Hello Ms. Finley,

Thank you for your email.

I strongly recommend that you seek legal counsel with respect to your desire to expedite the trial process. Your email mentions bringing a court application under Part 5 of the Queen’s Bench Rules. However, Part 5 is concerned with the disclosure of information stage of the proceedings and not with expediting matters.

In particular, Rule 5-4(2), which you mention, has no application to the privileged communications that took place in mediation; rather, it applies to the information and documents referred to in Rule 5-4(3), none of which have been produced in this case.

So too, Rule 5-3(1), which you mention, applies to modifying or waiving a right or power with respect to the disclosure of information. It is my opinion that this case requires the disclosure of information and documentation in order for all parties to identify what is in dispute and what evidence is available about the dispute.

Accordingly, my client will vigorously oppose the application that you described in your email. We suggest that you refrain from making unnecessary applications that lack merit. Otherwise, my client and Loose Foot Computing will be put to unnecessary expense, which will undoubtedly result in costs being awarded against you. Furthermore, since your application has no hope of succeeding, we will serve a formal offer in response to any such application, in order to be awarded double costs.

Govern yourself accordingly,

Tyler M. Dahl, B.A., J.D.

Cuelenaere, Kendall, Katzman & Watson

#500, 128 – 4th Avenue South

Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7K 1M8

Phone: (306) 477-7260

Fax: (306) 652-4171

Email: tdahl@cuelenaere.com

www.cuelenaere.com

“WITHOUT PREJUDICE”

CONFIDENTIALITY WARNING

This message and any attachments are solely for the use of intended recipients. They may contain privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you received this email in error, and that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this email and any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you receive this email in error please contact the sender and delete the message and any attachments associated therewith from your computer. Your cooperation in this matter is appreciated.

From: Sandra Finley [mailto:sabest1@sasktel.net]
Sent: December-06-16 1:42 PM
To: Tyler Dahl <tdahl@cuelenaere.com>
Subject: RE: Solo v. Finley, QB 500 of 2015. CHANGE

Hi Tyler,

I rescind the agreement I communicated to you on November 29th: We will proceed as you and your client wish – – to Questioning and pre-trial conference.

It was made in a state of ignorance.

Under the circumstances I seek to go directly to trial. I see where the Rules provide for protection against more of the abusive, oppressive and improper behavior exhibited by the Plaintiff at Mediation (5-3-1).

There is also provision for information from Mediation that would is confidential under normal circumstances (5-4-2).

Today, I spoke with the Court of Queen’s Bench, Deputy Registrar. It is agreed that I will send the Notice of Application for remedy (straight to trial) with any references to information from Mediation in a sealed, marked envelope.

I will get the documents to the Court as soon as possible.

Thanks Tyler,

Sandra Finley

—–Original Message—–
From: Sandra Finley [mailto:sabest1@sasktel.net]
Sent: November 29, 2016 6:00 PM
To: ‘Tyler Dahl’ <tdahl@cuelenaere.com>
Subject: RE: Solo v. Finley, QB 500 of 2015. NEXT STEP

Thanks for your reply Tyler.

No problem. We will proceed as you and your client wish – – to Questioning

and pre-trial conference.

/Sandra

—–Original Message—–

From: Tyler Dahl [mailto:tdahl@cuelenaere.com]

Sent: November 29, 2016 10:33 AM

To: sabest1@sasktel.net

Subject: RE: Solo v. Finley, QB 500 of 2015. NEXT STEP

Hi Sandra,

Thank you for your email. I spoke with my client about your proposal, regarding going forward under the rules for expedited proceedings. It is our position that it would be inappropriate for this matter to proceed expeditiously, for the following reasons:

This claim could easily exceed $100,000.00; 2. The parties will benefit from examinations for discovery, as the factual circumstances are largely in dispute between the Plaintiff and both Defendants; and 3. The parties will benefit from hearing from a Judge at a pre-trial conference, with respect to the trial’s possible outcomes and the strengths and weaknesses of their case/defence, which may increase the likelihood of resolving the matter without the need for a trial.

Nevertheless, my client does not wish to delay the proceedings in any way.

Accordingly, he has begun assembling his documentation for the Affidavit of Documents. We have already requested that Loose Foot Computing do so as well, and now we are requesting the same from you. We hope to have the Plaintiff’s Affidavit ready for you before the new year.

Once the Affidavits of Documents have been filed, we will attempt to schedule Questioning between the parties as soon as possible, while accommodating your and Loose Foot’s availability.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Best regards,

Tyler M. Dahl, B.A., J.D.

Cuelenaere, Kendall, Katzman & Watson

#500, 128 – 4th Avenue South

Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7K 1M8

Phone: (306) 477-7260

Fax: (306) 652-4171

Email: tdahl@cuelenaere.com

www.cuelenaere.com

“WITHOUT PREJUDICE”