Sandra Finley

Oct 282015
 

Funny how events come back to bite people in the ass.  The “smoking gun” emails came to light as  “part of a batch of secret emails held on the private server of Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton which U.S. courts have forced her to reveal”.    My guess is that “U.S. courts” thought Hillary had something to hide;  turns out Tony Blair and George Bush had something to hide.

This comes at a time of mounting pressure on the Inquiry in the U.K. on the U.K.’s role in the Iraq War.   Six years and still no Report.   A paragraph on the blockages to publication is at   I smell gooses cookin’.   Tony Blair’s, George Bush’s.  Tony Blair sorry for Iraq war ‘mistakes’ and admits conflict played role in rise of Isis

I am concerned that the “smoking gun emails” are not receiving adequate disclosure.   They are important in the international efforts to bring war criminals to trial.  BUT ALSO,  in order to have democratic control,  citizens HAVE TO BE INFORMED, AWARE OF WHAT IS DONE IN THEIR NAMES.

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

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3277493/Smoking-gun-emails-reveal-deal-blood-George-Bush-Tony-Blair-secretly-plotted-Iraq-War-closed-doors-YEAR-invasion-started.html

Smoking gun emails reveal Blair’s ‘deal in blood’ with George Bush over Iraq war was forged a YEAR before the invasion had even started

(You may wish to go to the URL.   This is a back-up copy – – just in case the original becomes inaccessible.)

  • Leaked White House memo shows former Prime Minister’s support for war at summit with U.S. President in 2002
  • Bombshell document shows Blair preparing to act as spin doctor for Bush, who was told ‘the UK will follow our lead’
  • Publicly, Blair still claimed to be looking for diplomatic solution – in direct contrast to email revelations
  • New light was shed on Bush-Blair relations by material disclosed by Hillary Clinton at the order of the U.S. courts

By Glen Owen and William Lowther In Washington For The Mail On Sunday

Published: 21:00 GMT, 17 October 2015 | Updated: 06:15 GMT, 18 October 2015

 

A bombshell White House memo has revealed for the first time details of the ‘deal in blood’ forged by Tony Blair and George Bush over the Iraq War.

The sensational leak shows that Blair had given an unqualified pledge to sign up to the conflict a year before the invasion started.

It flies in the face of the Prime Minister’s public claims at the time that he was seeking a diplomatic solution to the crisis.

He told voters: ‘We’re not proposing military action’ – in direct contrast to what the secret email now reveals.

Scroll down to read the documents in full

 

All sewn up: Tony Blair and President George Bush at the infamous 2002 summit at Bush's ranch house in Crawford, Texas, where the two men spoke about invading Iraq

 

The classified document also discloses that Blair agreed to act as a glorified spin doctor for the President by presenting ‘public affairs lines’ to convince a sceptical public that Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction – when none existed.

In return, the President would flatter Blair’s ego and give the impression that Britain was not America’s poodle but an equal partner in the ‘special relationship’.

The damning memo, from Secretary of State Colin Powell to President George Bush, was written on March 28, 2002, a week before Bush’s famous summit with Blair at his Crawford ranch in Texas.

In it, Powell tells Bush that Blair ‘will be with us’ on military action. Powell assures the President: ‘The UK will follow our lead’.

Big man? Blair’s ego was flattered by the President during his visit to his ranch home. He is pictured above embracing First Lady Laura Bush

The disclosure is certain to lead for calls for Sir John Chilcot to reopen his inquiry into the Iraq War if, as is believed, he has not seen the Powell memo.

A second explosive memo from the same cache also reveals how Bush used ‘spies’ in the Labour Party to help him to manipulate British public opinion in favour of the war.

The documents, obtained by The Mail on Sunday, are part of a batch of secret emails held on the private server of Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton which U.S. courts have forced her to reveal.

Former Tory Shadow Home Secretary David Davis said: ‘The memos prove in explicit terms what many of us have believed all along: Tony Blair effectively agreed to act as a frontman for American foreign policy in advance of any decision by the House of Commons or the British Cabinet.

‘He was happy to launder George Bush’s policy on Iraq and sub-contract British foreign policy to another country without having the remotest ability to have any real influence over it. And in return for what?

‘For George Bush pretending Blair was a player on the world stage to impress voters in the UK when the Americans didn’t even believe it themselves’.

Davis was backed by a senior diplomat with close knowledge of Blair-Bush relations who said: ‘This memo shows beyond doubt for the first time Blair was committed to the Iraq War before he even set foot in Crawford.

‘And it shows how the Americans planned to make Blair look an equal partner in the special relationship to bolster his position in the UK.’

Blair’s spokesman insisted last night that Powell’s memo was ‘consistent with what he was saying publicly at the time’.

The former Prime Minister has always hotly denied the claim that the two men signed a deal ‘in blood’ at Crawford to embark on the war, which started on March 20, 2003.

The Powell document, headed ‘Secret… Memorandum for the President’, lifts the lid on how Blair and Bush secretly plotted the war behind closed doors at Crawford.

Powell says to Bush: ‘He will present to you the strategic, tactical and public affairs lines that he believes will strengthen global support for our common cause,’ adding that Blair has the presentational skills to ‘make a credible public case on current Iraqi threats to international peace’.

Five months after the summit, Downing Street produced the notorious ‘45 minutes from doom’ dossier on Saddam Hussein’s supposed Weapons of Mass Destruction. After Saddam was toppled, the dossier’s claims were exposed as bogus.

Nowhere in the memo is a diplomatic route suggested as the preferred option.

Instead, Powell says that Blair will also advise on how to ‘handle calls’ for the ‘blessing’ of the United Nations Security Council, and to ‘demonstrate that we have thought through “the day after” ’ – in other words, made adequate provision for a post-Saddam Iraq.

Critics of the war say that the lack of post-conflict planning has contributed to the loss of more than 100,000 lives since the invasion – and a power vacuum which has contributed to the rise of Islamic State terrorism.

Significantly, Powell warns Bush that Blair has hit ‘domestic turbulence’ for being ‘too pro-U.S. in foreign and security policy, too arrogant and “presidential” ’, which Powell points out is ‘not a compliment in the British context’.

Powell also reveals that the splits in Blair’s Cabinet were deeper than was realised: he says that apart from Foreign Secretary Jack Straw and Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon, ‘Blair’s Cabinet shows signs of division, and the British public are unconvinced that military action is warranted now’.

Powell says that although Blair will ‘stick with us on the big issues’, he wants to minimise the ‘political price’ he would have to pay: ‘His voters will look for signs that Britain and America are truly equity partners in the special relationship.’

The President certainly did his best to flatter Blair’s ego during the Crawford summit, where he was the first world leader to be invited into Bush’s sanctuary for two nights.

Tony and Cherie Blair stayed in the guesthouse close to the main residence with their daughter Kathryn and Cherie’s mother, Gale Booth. Bush took the highly unusual step of inviting Blair to sit in on his daily CIA briefing, and drove the Prime Minister around in a pick-up truck.

Mystery has long surrounded what was discussed at Crawford as advisers were kept out of a key meeting between the two men.

Sir Christopher Meyer, who was present in Crawford as Britain’s Ambassador to the U.S., told Chilcot that his exclusion meant he was ‘not entirely clear to this day… what degree of convergence was, if you like, signed in blood at the Crawford ranch’.

But in public comments during his time at Crawford, Blair denied that Britain was on an unstoppable path to war.

‘This is a matter for considering all the options’, he said. ‘We’re not proposing military action at this point in time’.

Close: Bush and Blair are pictured above shaking hands at a meeting near Camp Davis in February 2001

Bush and Blair on Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction in ’02

During his appearance before the Chilcot inquiry in January 2010, Blair denied that he had struck a secret deal with Bush at Crawford to overthrow Saddam. Blair said the two men had agreed on the need to confront the Iraqi dictator, but insisted they did not get into ‘specifics’.

‘The one thing I was not doing was dissembling in that position,’ he told Chilcot.

‘The position was not a covert position, it was an open position. This isn’t about a lie or a conspiracy or a deceit or a deception. It’s a decision. What I was saying… was “We are going to be with you in confronting and dealing with this threat.” ’

Pressed on what he thought Mr Bush took from their meeting, he said the President had realised Britain would support military action if the diplomatic route had been exhausted.

In his memoirs, Blair again said it was ‘a myth’ he had signed a promise ‘in blood’ to go to war, insisting: ‘I made no such commitment’.

Critics who claimed that Mr Blair acted as the ‘poodle’ of the US will point to a reference in Mr Powell’s memo to the fact Mr Blair ‘readily committed to deploy 1,700 commandos’ to Afghanistan ‘even though his experts warn that British forces are overstretched’.

The decision made the previous October in the wake of the September 11 attacks led to widespread concern that the UK was entering an open-ended commitment to a bloody conflict in Afghanistan – a concern many critics now say was well-founded.

Mr Powell’s memo goes on to say that a recent move by the U.S. to protect its steel industry with tariffs, which had damaged UK exports, was a ‘bitter blow’ for Blair, but he was prepared to ‘insulate our broader relationship from this and other trade disputes’.

The memo was included in a batch of 30,000 emails which were received by Mrs Clinton on her private server when she was US Secretary of State between 2009 and 2013.

Another document included in the email batch is a confidential briefing for Powell prepared by the U.S. Embassy in London, shortly before the Crawford summit.

The memo, dated ‘April 02’, includes a detailed assessment of the effect on Blair’s domestic position if he backs US military action.

The document says: ‘A sizeable number of his [Blair’s] MPs remain at present opposed to military action against Iraq… some would favor shifting from a policy of containment of Iraq if they had recent (and publicly usable) proof that Iraq is developing WMD/missiles… most seem to want some sort of UN endorsement for military action.

‘Blair’s challenge now is to judge the timing and evolution of America’s Iraq policy and to bring his party and the British people on board.

‘There have been a few speculative pieces in the more feverish press about Labor [sic] unease re Iraq policy… which have gone on to identify the beginnings of a challenge to Blair’s leadership of the party.

‘Former Cabinet member Peter Mandelson, still an insider, called it all “froth”. Nonetheless, this is the first time since the 1997 election that such a story is even being printed’.

The paper draws on information given to it by Labour ‘spies’, whose identities have been hidden.

It states: ‘[name redacted] told us the intention of those feeding the story is not to bring down Blair but to influence him on the Iraq issue’.

‘Some MPs would endorse action if they had proof that Iraq has continued to develop WMD since UN inspectors left.

‘More would follow if convinced that Iraq has succeeded in developing significant WMD capability and the missiles to deliver it.

‘Many more would follow if they see compelling evidence that Iraq intends and plans to use such weapons. A clear majority would support military action if Saddam is implicated in the 9/11 attacks or other egregious acts of terrorism’.

‘Blair has proved an excellent judge of political timing, and he will need to be especially careful about when to launch a ramped-up campaign to build support for action against Iraq.

‘He will want neither to be too far in front or behind US policy… if he waits too long, then the keystone of any coalition we wish to build may not be firmly in place. No doubt these are the calculations that Blair hopes to firm up when he meets the President’.

A spokesperson for Tony Blair said: ‘This is consistent with what Blair was saying publicly at the time and with Blair’s evidence given to the Chilcot Inquiry’.

Neither Mrs Clinton nor Mr Powell replied to requests for comment.

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

SENSATIONAL BLAIR EXPOSÉ – YOUR QUESTIONS ANSWERED

Why have these memos come out now?

The U.S. courts have ruled that 30,000 emails received by Hillary Clinton when she was U.S. Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013 should be released.

She may have asked for these documents to grasp the background to the Iraq War.

What was the Crawford summit?

The meeting between Blair and Bush at the President’s Texan ranch in April 2002, 11 months before the outbreak of war. The pair spent long periods discussing Iraq without their advisers, leading to suspicion that they privately cut a deal for the conflict.

UK Ambassador Sir Christopher Meyer said it was impossible to know whether a deal was ‘signed in blood’.

What did Blair say at Crawford?

At the start of the summit, Mr Blair said: ‘We’re not proposing military action at this point in time.’

For the whole of 2002, Blair claimed no decision had been taken and in the run-up to war. He said that Saddam Hussein could avoid conflict by co-operating with UN weapons inspectors.

What happened after Crawford?

In September 2002, in an attempt to prove Saddam was a threat, No 10 falsely claimed Saddam could deploy biological weapons ‘within 45 minutes’, and Mr Blair went around the world trying to drum up UN backing for action against Iraq.

Despite mass anti-war protests, Britain and America invaded Iraq in March 2003 without the backing of the UN.

Had the allies prepared for ‘the day after’?

The invasion was declared complete on April 15, 2003. But the reason for war proved spurious, and Saddam’s removal left a power vacuum filled by warring factions which some say helped Islamic State rise.

Have the memos been seen by the Chilcot Inquiry?

It is not thought the £10million, six-year inquiry has asked to see American Government material.

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

(INSERT:  at the URL, a secret memo to Bush from Colin Powell – – I have tried repeatedly – –  am unable to get it to copy for posting in this space.   See the URL, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3277493/Smoking-gun-emails-reveal-deal-blood-George-Bush-Tony-Blair-secretly-plotted-Iraq-War-closed-doors-YEAR-invasion-started.html)

Stunning memo proves Blair signed up for Iraq even before Americans – comment by former shadow home secretary David Davis

This is one of the most astonishing documents I have ever read.

It proves in explicit terms what many of us have believed all along: Tony Blair effectively agreed to act as a front man for American foreign policy in advance of any decision by the House of Commons or the British Cabinet.

He was happy to launder George Bush’s policy on Iraq and sub-contract British foreign policy to another country without having the remotest ability to have any real influence over it.

And in return for what? For George Bush pretending Blair was a player on the world stage to impress voters in the UK when the Americans didn’t even believe it themselves.

Blair was content to cynically use Britain’s international reputation for honest dealing in diplomacy, built up over many years, as a shield against worldwide opprobrium for Bush’s ill-considered policy.

Judging from this memorandum, Blair signed up for the Iraq War even before the Americans themselves did. It beggars belief.

Blair was telling MPs and voters back home that he was still pursuing a diplomatic solution while Colin Powell was telling President Bush: ‘Don’t worry, George, Tony is signed up for the war come what may – he’ll handle the PR for you, just make him look big in return.’

It should never be forgotten that a minimum of 120,000 people died as a direct result of the Iraq War.

What is truly shocking is the casualness of it all, such as the reference in the memo to ‘the day after’ – meaning the day after Saddam would be toppled.

Stunning memo proves Blair signed up for Iraq even before Americans – comment by former shadow home secretary David Davis

This is one of the most astonishing documents I have ever read.

It proves in explicit terms what many of us have believed all along: Tony Blair effectively agreed to act as a front man for American foreign policy in advance of any decision by the House of Commons or the British Cabinet.

He was happy to launder George Bush’s policy on Iraq and sub-contract British foreign policy to another country without having the remotest ability to have any real influence over it.

And in return for what? For George Bush pretending Blair was a player on the world stage to impress voters in the UK when the Americans didn’t even believe it themselves.

Blair was content to cynically use Britain’s international reputation for honest dealing in diplomacy, built up over many years, as a shield against worldwide opprobrium for Bush’s ill-considered policy.

Judging from this memorandum, Blair signed up for the Iraq War even before the Americans themselves did. It beggars belief.

Blair was telling MPs and voters back home that he was still pursuing a diplomatic solution while Colin Powell was telling President Bush: ‘Don’t worry, George, Tony is signed up for the war come what may – he’ll handle the PR for you, just make him look big in return.’

It should never be forgotten that a minimum of 120,000 people died as a direct result of the Iraq War.

What is truly shocking is the casualness of it all, such as the reference in the memo to ‘the day after’ – meaning the day after Saddam would be toppled.

The offhand tone gives the game away: it is patently obvious nobody thought about ‘the day after’ when Bush and Blair met in Crawford.

And they gave it no more thought right through to the moment ‘the day after’ came about a year later when Saddam’s statue fell to the ground.

We saw the catastrophic so-called ‘de-Baathification’ of Iraq, with the country’s entire civil and military structure dismantled, leading to years of bloodshed and chaos. It has infected surrounding countries to this day and created the vacuum into which Islamic State has stepped.

This may well be the Iraq ‘smoking gun’ we have all been looking for.

In full: The Blair/Bush White House documents

Pictured below is the memo from Secretary of State Colin Powell to George W Bush

  • Part two: This second, explosive memo, drafted by the U.S. Embassy in London, reveals how Bush used Labour ‘spies’ to manipulate British public opinion

 

 

Big man? Blair's ego was flattered by the President during his visit to his ranch home. He is pictured above embracing First Lady Laura Bush

Close: Bush and Blair are pictured above shaking hands at a meeting near Camp Davis in February 2001

 

  • Pictured below is the memo from Secretary of State Colin Powell to George W Bush

  • Part two: This second, explosive memo, drafted by the U.S. Embassy in London, reveals how Bush used Labour ‘spies’ to manipulate British public opinion

Edd, WILSON, United States, about an hour ago

Guess the old adage “careful what you ask for, you may get it” also applies to high government officials. They insisted on getting the emails, just didn’t know how damming it might be.

nomad57, San Juan Capistrano, about 2 hours ago

“”One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.” –President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 “If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.” –President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 “Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.” -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

bartobo, kennewick, United States, about an hour ago

Kriegar you are spouting misinformation and propaganda. The emails you are referring to were on the RNCs server which was used to conduct political, party business. Bush and his staff were required to use that by the Hatch Act which forbids using government equipment ( computers) for political purposes. All government business and emails were done on government equipment and were preserved. As a mater of law the government has no right to the RNCs computer files.

Oct 252015
 

DRAFT PRESENTATION FOR COURT, IN MY DEFENCE

In reply to the accusation of defamation, I will address 3 questions:

  1. Why would I have information about Ashu Solo on my blog?
  2. Why has Ashu gone to the extremes of trying to force my blog-hosting service to take down the blog.   Failing that, he tried to force the domain name registrar to de-register it, which would effectively do the same thing.
  3. The 3rd and final question is one I’ve been asked from the beginning.  Why not just take down the pages that have information about Ashu Solo? It can’t be worth all that Ashu has put myself, numerous people in the Green Party of Canada, and others through.  Nor is it worth the $24,000 (as at Oct 24, 2016) in legal bills to maintain my right to publish the information, so long as it is not defamatory.

– – – – – – – – – – – – –  –

QUESTION #1,  WHY IS THERE INFORMATION ABOUT ASHU SOLO ON MY BLOG?

There are two things you need to know in order to answer the question:   what is the blog about?   and how do the actions of Ashu Solo fit into that?

a.   So, the first question – – what is the blog about?    I will explain it in about 6 points.

The blog deals with serious issues that affect the health of our communities, including the Canadian ideal of “Peace, Order and Good Governance”.

It is a repository for information that is generated and shared by an activist email network.  The network has been in existence for more than 15 years.   I run it.  Nobody gets paid.  I created the blog so that new participants could find information from previous years.  So the blog is mine;  I cover the costs.  There is no advertising revenue.

The theme of the blog is “Battles to Protect the Commons”.  “The Commons” is those things we share “in common”.  They are the things we are all dependent upon, that affect our well-being and that no one (unless you count the Government) is responsible for – – water, air, food, a knowledge base, peace, order and good governance, healthy relationships and so on.

To the extent that we have poisons (we are normalized to the word “pollutants”;  they are poisons)  in The Commons, we have disease.  The integrity of the water, or the soil, or governance or the knowledge base or values or relationships has been “corrupted”, which is nother word used when things have been poisoned – – they have been corrupted.

To the extent that we do not defend peace, order and good governance, we cycle downwards into violence of one form or another.   That is easy to see.  It is generally true of The Commons – – but different words are used to describe the deterioration, depending on which part of  The Commons we are talking about.

To the extent that we do not individually and collectively defend The Commons we are choosing to relegate the future of our communities to degraded life, to a dark age ahead.

b.    Onto the next question:  how did Ashu come to be on a blog, the theme of which is “Battles to Protect the Commons”?

A young woman who I didn’t know, sent a complaint to me that Ashu was using Green Party social media inappropriately.

I was an appropriate person for her to approach for resolution of the problem.

I was a “go to” person for the Green Party in Sask.   I have known the federal leader, Elizabeth May, since the time she was an activist before she transitioned into politics.   I have great respect for her, her integrity, her amazing mind, and her relentlessly hard work.   I took on the leadership of the Provincial Green Party for a year-and-a-half that included the 2007 Election.  Activists are community-minded people, not out to serve their own interests.  And they are knowledgeable about issues.   Aided by my network we were able to recruit solid candidates, almost doubling the number of candidates running provincially.

I helped recruit Green candidates for the 2008 and 2011 Federal Elections.  And did other volunteer work for the Green Party.  One example is sufficient. It took 6 or 7 years, but through persistence, and in the last years working with a lawyer in Toronto, was able to get the Saskatchewan Election Laws changed such that Candidate Deposits are refundable if the candidate files their Election Expense Return.   For small parties, and especially if they run a full slate of candidates, it amounts to a few thousand dollars every election that were being forfeited.  A constitutional challenge in Ontario by a lawyer who is a Green Party member, the one who assisted us, determined that the practice was unconstitutional.  The Government of Saskatchewan  was deaf to the need to change the Saskatchewan Elections Act because by court ruling their practice was illegal, until the lawyer became involved.

I had dealt with complaints related to the Green Party before.  The young woman (26 years old) and Ashu (42 years old) were both members of the Green Party.  This complaint was serious and reflected badly on the Green Party.   Looking into matters a little deeper, there was credible evidence that the young woman had a significantly larger problem to deal with than the Green Party had.  It looked as though Ashu had been cyber-bullying her for about a year, and he had recently broadened the scope through Green Party platforms.

I felt that the complaint needed to be dealt with by people who did not know Ashu or the young woman;  it should be dealt with by the Ethics Committee of the Green Party in Ottawa – – independent, 3rd party evaluation, fair.  Without the potential for manufactured allegations that the dispute settlement was rigged against Ashu.  The young woman was by this time, very afraid of Ashu and what he might do to her.

She had every right to be afraid of him, judging by these later words of his to Daeran Gall who eventually laid a complaint with the Saskatoon Police after terrible harassment of him by Ashu.

in Reference to someone named “(the young woman) ” when I (Daeran) suggested that he sounded like someone in a lover’s quarrel:  (Ashu’s email in reply)

you may fantasize about flowers and rainbows, but real men fantasize about violence

i fantasize about violenc

violence

ain’t nothing wrong with that

that’s what a military officer does

you pathetic civilian coward  the only way i fantasize about banging her (the young woman) is in the face with punches & kicks

she’s lucky i’m a law abiding citizen   

I told the young woman how the Ethics Committee would handle the case, should she decide to bring a complaint forward.  It was a difficult decision for her;  in the end she decided to proceed.  Ashu had driven her off facebook where she liked to connect with her friends.  She was worried about him following her, for fear he’d find out where she lived.

As stated by Green Party representative at-the-time, and lawyer by training, Patricia Farnese:    x x x x  get the quote xxxx

My punishment, or Ashu’s revenge when he determined my role in dealing with the complaint submitted to me, was to launch an assault on me.  That was in early December, 2013.   He has been ingenious in finding ways to continue to this day.

I deal with a fairly large volume of e-communications for an old lady.   Given the volume and number of people he drew into his line of fire, and the nature of the communications  (none of which I responded to)  I could envision a time in the future when I might need them to defend myself against untrue allegations.  I was worried they would get lost on my computer.  I routinely place material I do not want to lose,  on the blog where it is easy to index and find.  You can make the postings public or private.

By this time I was living in BC and travelled to Saskatchewan with my daughter to spend Christmas with family.  I spent long hours on the first days of my holiday posting Ashu’s communications on the blog, not available to anyone, with a password required to access them.  The information has been very helpful;  Ashu made complaints to the Police against me.  I have been interviewed by the Saskatoon Police, by the RCMP in Duncan BC, and by the RCMP in Parksville BC at his behest.   They all found no basis for his charges;  I had more than enough documentation, all dated, to establish, for example, the sequence in which events happened.   I could prove there was no cause-and-effect relationship as he claimed, simply by supplying proof of the dates on which things happened.

The way that more and more information about Ashu got posted on the blog is this:

I would describe him as being on full throttle in December.  I did not understand what was driving him until a little later.  I will describe the size of the net he cast over the Green Party, eventually using some of the same cyber-bullying techniques he used on “the young lady” whose complaint I had received.   Ashu is effective at taunting people, as you saw in the example of Daeran.  Sometimes you have to talk yourself into keeping your mouth shut and not responding.  As a technique for dealing with the frustration, I determined that every time he taak an action,  I would add more information about him to category X1A (Ashu/cyber-violence)  on the blog.  The volume of material reflects the volume of his aggression.   Although I eventually stopped;  there’s plenty more that should be posted if the goal was to create a complete record.

That is the HOW it came to be,  but not the WHY of it.   What, if anything, does it have to do with “Battles to Protect the Commons”?

I will use the same words I used in explanation to the lawyers for LFC and myself.   It had been proposed that we work together to reach a “global settlement” with Ashu.   The cost of defending against the lawsuits was, as I had been warned, extremely high.  These people were considerate in proposing we should settle because the costs are all mine, because, and I believe Ashu is fully aware that this is how it works:   when a server agrees to host your blog,  you enter into a contractual agreement whereby if the server has legal costs arising from the content of your blog,  you agree to pay the server’s costs.

After launching this lawsuit against me for defamation on —-   on March 9, 2016 my lawyer received a “Formal Offer to Settle” from Ashu for $39,000.00 plus ( xxxxxx get the terms re removal of blogged material).  XXXXXX

The lawsuit against LFC was launched on  (date)      they received an offer to settle on (date)   for $5000  XXXX  did it include taking down the blog?

In addition to the legal bills I had already paid, I would have the costs of settlement.  I will return to how Ashu’s counsel took material that was basically authored by Ashu and submitted it to my lawyer as acceptable legal argument.  I expect the global settlement would be that I take down the blogged pages; in exchange Ashu will reduce his financial demands AND there will be a gag order on me.   In 2014  a Green Party member had offered to mediate the situation with Ashu.  Ashu wrote down his position;  I received it.

AS EXPLAINED TO THE LAWYERS: 

I do truly regret the impact of Ashu’s actions on LFC.  I can alleviate that by agreeing to attempt “global settlement”.   …  HOWEVER!

  1. However,  in my opinion it would be a short-term fix, and it would be a larger betrayal.
    The betrayal can be understood in the framework of “The Tragedy of the Commons”.   No one of us individually is responsible, and therefore no one is responsible.   (The internet – – the air waves – – are part of “The Commons”.)

A short read may be helpful:    Battles to protect the Commons.

EXCERPT:    . . .   battle-fronts to protect The Commons in an era of unprecedented assault on them.   Our success or failure affects the ability of future generations to care for themselves.

When there are incursions onto the Commons, people have to come together to defend it.  If not, the Commons is lost and the whole community suffers  – – a lot.

OTHER people work hard, all the time, in defence of the Commons.  Without them, one tiny example,  the quality of the water coming out of your tap would be less than it is.   Many more people would side-step the issue through the purchase of bottled water, if they can afford it.

There have been monumental efforts by people in Canada and the U.S. to stop things like tiered (preferential) access to the Internet that large corporate interests seek.

In the context of this court case:

Some of you have daughters, sisters, nieces, or are young women yourselves.   The case against me exists because I forwarded a complaint – – this older man was using the internet against a young woman, in ways you would not tolerate.

Click on:    2016-07-29   ‘What law am I breaking?’  How a Facebook troll came undone 

This recent story is of young women who had the courage to fight against such cyber-bullies, and win.  It’s a win for everyone who has a presence on the internet.   AND for everyone who has a daughter, sister or niece.

One woman, Brierley Newton, stood in defence of the Commons.  She is not asking us for our gratitude.  But she should expect that we will at least stand in solidarity when the ball lands in our court.

Standing down from Ashu Solo would be a betrayal by me.   We need to ADD to the success of these young women, not subtract from it.

You might think of the case of Amanda Todd (a teen who committed suicide as a consequence of on-line predation).  This is not as extreme, but it is related.

To what extremes will/would Ashu go?   So far, he knows that the Police and the Justice system will not touch him.

If I capitulate, not only would his belief be reinforced, but he will potentially make money (a “global settlement”) doing what he does.   He would flaunt a win, which would empower him AND others.   The above article, How a Troll came Undone,  describes the extent of the problem.

 

We leave a more violent world behind us, if we do not accept our responsibility.

The tragedy and comedy of human existence:   we are often unwitting participants in our own demise!

 

Samuel,  excerpt from my email (yesterday) to Andrew (LFC):

I cannot see my way clear to (settling with Ashu).   At an appropriate time I will do some fund-raising (a very not-comfortable undertaking!).   

I have made overtures to the Sask Law Reform Commission and to the Office of the Deputy Minister of Justice (Sask).  Both expressed  (sincere, I believe) interest in documentation I will provide to them regarding the practice of using the threat of legal action to intimidate people.   When done in the corporate sphere it is called a SLAPP suit.    

Ontario has legislation to address the practice.  I believe the legislation in a number of jurisdictions has been effective in putting an end to the SLAPP suits.   – – But now, individuals like Ashu have learned how to use the same practice.    

I might be able to on-line fund the push to get the legislation done in Sask and some other provinces.   My work is volunteer, but maybe I could use the proceeds to re-stock the larder.

 

 

 

 

 

On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 10:21 AM, Sandra Finley <sabest1@sasktel.net> wrote:

It is not a peace agreement between me and Ashu.

I do not need any kind of agreement with him.  I simply do not engage with people who are disrespectful, who lie, who attempt to intimidate and coerce other people.

 

The point seems to have been missed:  what I do, I do not do on my own behalf.  I have the wherewithal to neutralize the effects of Ashu Solo in my life.   SOME OTHER PEOPLE DO NOT.

 

REQUIRED:  an undertaking by Ashu to conduct himself appropriately vis-a-vis other people.

 

Perhaps this will make clear the PRINCIPLE at play here:

 

In democracy, there is no fear in speaking or publishing truthful and respectful thoughts.

 

I, nor anyone else, should be intimidated by how Ashu might react.   He robs me of the freedom accorded citizens in a democracy if I succumb out of fear of what he might do.

 

It is the responsibility of citizens in a democracy to understand and to defend the principles of democracy in action.   Many people before us have fought hard and died, to establish the principles.

 

I am reminded of the (secular Muslim – – like Ashu – –  and author) Salman Rushdie’s nine years under Islamist fatwa (a call to murder Rushdie by the Ayatollah, because of a novel he wrote).   Rushdie (and a very small, international group of authors, journalists and book publishers)  refused to have their freedom taken by religious and political leaders.

 

Atheism (Ashu) is one among many religious beliefs (religion is no more than man’s interpretation of the life energy).     In Ashu’s case,  as in the case of the particular Ayotollahs,  the religious belief is not a justification for behaviour that is outside the law, or that attempts to limit the freedom of others.

 

The actions of Rushdie and his supporters arose out of one small principle, that of defending freedom of the individual.   The freedom to say, write and publish, even that which might be critical of the religion and its leaders.  (Of course, there are responsibilities and limits to the freedom.)  The threat to Rushdie’s life (and family) from Islamist zealots was real, and only because the Islamists did not like legitimate criticism.

 

It seems so obvious and fundamental that the principle must be defended if we wish to preserve it.  In the practical world it is often easier and more comfortable to try and ignore those who would bully others into submission.

 

The difficulties with Ashu began over his bullying and intimidation of a young woman who disagreed with some of his statements.   He used Green Party social media in his attacks.    When I forwarded the complaint about him, he turned and directed his tactics against me.   It is the Rushdie story carried out, but in miniature.  Ashu will likely appreciate the irony.

 

Sandra

Oct 252015
 

CONVERSATION #2  WITH MEDIATOR   Oct 25

From: Sandra Finley Sent: October 25, 2016 6:44 PM  To: Andrew G. MacCorquodale ; and mcdougallgauley

Subject: Ashu Solo: UPDATE. Rept, Conversation #2. Contingent relationship, And other matters.

Hello Andrew and Paul’s Junior Counsel,

The conversation with the Mediator today will shorten the amount of time required for Mediation on Nov 22nd.

Things I discussed with him and information provided:

  1. CONTINGENT RELATIONSHIP

If I successfully defend against defamation, then Ashu’s case against LFC collapses,   ipso facto.

There is a contingent relationship, within a relationship where the co-defendants have different purposes.

So I think Tim will, at his discretion,  make some time available for the co-defendants to converse privately during the Mediation, if that would be helpful.

2.TYLER ASKED WHEN HE MIGHT COMMUNICATE WITH ME IN THE TIME LEADING UP TO NOV 22ND   

SIMULTANEOUSLY A SOLID FOUNDATION LAID BY THE VANCOUVER LAWYER WHO REPRESENTED ME IN THE BEGINNING (began with Domain Name Registrar – a BC company):

   – – –   MORE THAN 6 TIMES (NOT COUNTING PHONE CALLS)  HARPER GREY (Vancouver) REQUESTED FROM TYLER SPECIFICS OF WHAT IS DEFAMATORY, SO I COULD ADDRESS AND CHANGE IF WARRANTED.

Tyler has been communicating with me through a lawyer since January 2015.  Coming up to 2 years.   If he follows through on contacting me prior to Nov 22nd,  I will listen to him, and tell him that I’ll take what he has to say under consideration.   I am unlikely to participate in “communication”  beyond that.

I excerpted statements regarding the many requests (emails and phone calls) from Daniel  to Tyler during the first 6 months.  When Tyler did respond, it was with material that didn’t meet the criteria required by law (you received same).  For the purposes of the lawsuit he has to provide the specifics.   (My perverted mind says that they never expected to go to trial, hence the no-necessity to engage!)   That aside,

I will use the list of attempts to obtain specifics,  at trial.

If you (LFC and Paul’s Jr Counsel)  want, they are at  http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=17723    cbb2

 

3.   DEFENCE I WILL USE AT TRIAL    SO MEDIATOR UNDERSTANDS WHERE I AM HEADED AND WITH WHAT ARGUMENT.  

SHOULD ALSO BE HELPFUL TO YOU, GIVEN THE CONTINGENT RELATIONSHIP.  YOU CAN BETTER ASSESS MY CHANCES OF BEING SUCCESSFUL.  (I am somewhat biased.)     Draft at   http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=17781   cbb2

I told Tim.

I will address 3 questions:

  1.  Why would I have information about Ashu Solo on my blog?
  2.  Why has Ashu gone to the extremes of trying to force my blog-hosting service to take down the blog.   Failing that, he tried to force the domain name registrar to de-register it, which would effectively do the same thing.
  3.  The 3rd and final question is one I’ve been asked from the beginning.  Why not just take down the pages that have information about Ashu Solo?   It can’t be worth all that Ashu has put myself, numerous people in the Green Party of Canada, and others through.  Nor is it worth the $24,000 (as at Oct 24, 2016) in legal bills to maintain my right to publish the information, so long as it is not defamatory.

As a lay person self-representing, I will likely do little cross-examination of the plaintiff’s evidence.  Basically, by addressing those 3 questions in my presentation to the Court (and a few other points),  I will have refuted the evidence of the plaintiff – –  without having to deal with Ashu’s manipulations, lies, and minutiae.  I  (of course!  Ha ha!)  think that the case as laid out  is compelling, even in this first draft, incomplete form

I want to be clear on what I would say in Court,  prior to entering Mediation so that I don’t go astray down dead-end alleyways.

In order to give you time, IF it might be helpful to your understanding and strategy, I am providing the link  (above), even tho it is draft and incomplete.

4.   RECOVERY OF COSTS, POSITION CHANGED

Earlier,  I did not expect to recover “blood from a stone”.    I have changed my position:   Ashu has access to as much (more?) money than I have.   He needs to be held accountable.

In my submission to the Court,  I need to tell the Court that I am responding to charges about defamation.   But really the case is about abuse of the Justice system.   I was expected to capitulate to the financial coercion that the system affords.   (I have a collection of excerpts, again, with which to back-up my statement that this is a version of a SLAPP suit.)

5.    THE NEED TO HIT THE BALL WHEN IT LANDS IN OUR COURT:  THE CASE OF THE YOUNG WOMEN IN AUSTRALIA WHO TOOK A CYBER-BULLY TO COURT AND WON, CONTRARY TO ADVICE AND EXPECTATIONS OF OTHERS.

6.   I WILL BE MOSTLY INCOMMUNICADO as of THIS FRIDAY,  and FOR COUPLE OF WEEKS.   WILL CHECK EMAILS INFREQUENTLY.

I don’t expect to have more conversations with Tim before Nov 22.

Tyler knows not to try to contact me during this period.

If there is anything you wish to contact me about,  please use  sabest1  AT   sasktel.net    I will check it occasionally.  And regularly, except for the 2-week hiatus from emails and phones.

There may be other miscellany – –

That’s all I can think of, at the moment.

/Sandra

 

 

From: Tyler Dahl

Sent: Friday, October 21, 2016 15:24

To: Sandra Finley; Samuel Edmondson; Grant Scharfstein

Subject: RE: Self-representation RE Solo v. Finley and Loose Foot Computing Limited – QB 500 of 2015

Hello Ms. Finley, Mr. Edmondson and Mr. Scharfstein,

Please provide the current contact information for Ms. Finley so that I can effectively communicate with her as this matter proceeds.  . . .

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

From: Sandra Finley  Sent: October 21, 2016 3:58 PM To: ‘Tyler Dahl’ <tdahl@cuelenaere.com> Cc: ‘Chelsey Kuspira’ <ckuspira@scharfsteinlaw.com>; ‘Samuel Edmondson’ ; ‘Grant Scharfstein’  Subject: Contact Information, Sandra Finley RE Self-representation, Solo v. Finley and Loose Foot Computing Limited – QB 500 of 2015

Hi Tyler,

Land-line:   250-594-9898      (Cell is seldom turned on.)

Email:   use   sabest1@sasktel.net

Time-Line:

  • Oct 27th to Nov 15th    No Contact.  Retreat from phone and e-communications
  • Nov 19th & onward:    Do not use land-line,  I will be in Saskatoon.

/Sandra

= = = = = = = = = = =  = = = = = =

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

Sent: October 21, 2016 4:01 PM To: Sandra Finley <sabest1@sasktel.net>

Subject: RE: Contact Information, Sandra Finley RE Self-representation, Solo v. Finley and Loose Foot Computing Limited – QB 500 of 2015

Thank you Sandra.

What would be the best way to contact you between October 27th and November 15th, or after November 19th?

All the best,

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

= = = = = = = = = = =

From: Sandra Finley [mailto:sabest1@sasktel.net]

Sent: October 22, 2016 10:25 AM

To: ‘Tyler Dahl’ <tdahl@cuelenaere.com>

Subject: RE: Contact Information, Sandra Finley RE Self-representation, Solo v. Finley and Loose Foot Computing Limited – QB 500 of 2015

HI Tyler,

After Nov 19th – – by email.

Between Oct 27th and Nov 15th  – – best way is not to try!

/Sandra

 

Oct 242015
 

I highly recommend:    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-a6jzU0YgQ     (1:08:49)

John Perkins is essentially another whistleblower.   His stories are from his own employment as an “economic hitman” for the U.S..

HOWEVER,  he has much more to say (listen to the end).   We are not in rebellion, overthrowing the scoundrels.   He believes that around the globe we are crafting a new way of being.

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

Another interview,  but not as packed with information and as extensive as the above:

YouTube, Amy Goodman interview of John Perkins:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6p5pXqQEGM4

 

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

From: Dianne   Sent: October 15, 2015 9:00 AM To: Sandra Subject: John Perkins talked last night ———

 

Another sign that we need to heed the words from John Perkins

Children suffer as World Bank’s borrowers upend their lives.
Over the last decade, projects funded by the World Bank have physically or economically displaced an estimated 3.4 million people, forcing them from their homes, taking their land or damaging their livelihoods. International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, Huffington Post.  Oct 12

 

 

Oct 242015
 
As at 2022-12-12             PAID TO LAWYERS TRAVEL  MISCELLANEOUS
                   AND TO LFC Receipt #
2015
Harper Grey  $    1,390.10 1
Scharfstein retainer 2022-07-18  $              5,000.00 2
18-Jul  $            3.93 3 fax
23-Jul  $            2.81 4 fax
18-Sep  $  3,819.76 5
09-Oct  $     827.76 6
12-Nov  $  2,212.33 7
01-Dec  $       96.26 8
2016 01-Feb  $                 342.58 9
01-Mar  $                   88.00 10
01-Apr  $              1,089.00 11
01-May  $                 886.62 12
June  $                 220.00 13
July  $                 242.00 14
Aug, cr cd  $                 506.00 15
Sep, cr cd  $                 913.39 16
Oct, cr cd  $                 308.00 17
Nov, cr cd  $                 374.00 18
13-Dec  $            5.60 19 fax
 $  16,925.70
LFC 2016-10-24  $              1,855.43  MacCorquo attend mediatn 20
December 31, 2015  $           10,600.00 21
 $  12,455.43
Robertson Stromberg
2017-01-01  $              1,124.52 22
2017-02-01  $              2,000.00 23
2017-04-01  $                 720.06 24
2017-05-01  $                 653.63 25
29-Aug  $    4,498.21
     MEDIATION, 2016, Nov 22
Flight (booked in Oct)  $    336.26 26
Travel to & from Nanaimo Airport  $      24.00 27
Half, Parking, Nanaimo Airport  $      45.00 28
Taxi from Airport, S’toon (forgot to get recpt)  $      24.00 29
Half, car rental S’toon $100.00 30
Parking, Saskatoon (2) $4.00 31
Gas, Saskatoon $26.00 32
2022 20-Jul  $            2.81 33
29-Aug  $            2.81 34
08-Dec  Fax to Court  $            7.00 35
      SUB-TOTALS  $  35,269.44  $    559.26  $          24.96
TOTAL EXPENSES, TO DATE         As at Dec 12, 2022  $  35,853.66
Oct 232015
 

THREATENS TO TAKE TO COURT,  COERCION.  People feel harassed.  Etc.(REPLY TO MARCH 9, 2016 REQUEST FOR PARTICULARS)

MY DRAFT MATERIAL

= = = = = = = =

Court File Number   QB No. 500 of 2015

 

In Reply to “Request for Particulars”, March 9, 2016, the Plaintiff Ashu Solo demands

particulars of the “other individuals” that the Plaintiff is alleged to have targeted, threatened, or intimidated, as claimed at paragraphs 17 and 18 of the Statement of Defence.

 “17. … Finley was advised that Solo’s conduct included some or all of: …

  1. Numerous emails to the person which included some of all of the following characteristics: … 
  1. threatening legal action

Particulars:

  1. December 18, 2013, Ashu Solo to Daeran Gall:

I am writing to notify you of my intention to take you, Sandra Finley, Tonia Zimmerman, and Elvin Lau to Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench. In order to avoid a Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench action against you for libel and slander, I demand payment of $500,000 within 20 days of the date of this letter.   (Etc.)

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

2.  Tue, December 03, 2013 12:04 pm, Ashu Solo to John Gormley

Once I win my civil claim against the guy in the U.S. spreading lies about our conference, we will send out a media advisory on that and I want you to retweet that and Rawlco to report it. Then I probably won’t sue you and Rawlco Radio.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

3.  Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 10:59 AM, Ashu Solo to Lois Mitchell:

. . .   I am going to sue you and track you down to serve you with civil claim documents.  I’m gonna get your house after I get a court judgment against you.  Your homeless buddies can teach you how to live on the streets in your old age.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
4.   Mon, 16 Dec 2013 19:22:15 -0600, Ashu Solo re Tonia Zimmerman:

My counterattacks against Zimmerman will be lawful and through the courts and through the police. That is, I’m suing her and making a criminal complaint against her.

3:23pm Apr 4   (to Zimmerman)

If you think I’m bluffing about you being   criminally investigated, phone up Sgt. Gulka and see at 975-8321 in   Saskatoon. If you think I’m bluffing about you being sued, show up at Court   of Queen’s Bench in Saskatoon on Apr. 9 at 9:00 AM. I’m looking forward to   seeing you in court, Zimmerman. Bring your boyfriend.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

5.   Ashu Solo to Daeran Gall, threatening to sue:

From: Ashu M. G. Solo [mailto:amgsolo@mavericktechnologies.us]

To: Sandra Finley; Daeran GallSubject:

YOU NOW HAVE 15 DAYS FINLEY AND GALL,

YOU NOW HAVE 15 DAYS TO COME UP WITH $500,000, AS PER THE ATTACHED DEMAND LETTERS, OR YOU’RE GONNA HAVE TO ANSWER TO YOUR LIES IN COURT.  ASHU M. G. SOLO

I SUGGEST THAT YOU LOOK AT YOUR FUTURES AND ACCEPT THIS OFFER. FINLEY HAS TO LOOK AFTER HERSELF AND HER DAUGHTER AND DOESN’T WANT HER MONEY AND ASSETS SEIZED AND HER INCOME PERMAMENTLY GARNISHED. GALL HAS TO LOOK AFTER HIIMSELF AND WHOEVER AND DOESN’T WANT HIS MONEY AND ASSETS SEIZED AND HIS INCOME PERMAMENTLY GARNISHED.ASHU SOLO

– – – – – – – – – – – – – — – –

6.   Sent: Monday, December 23, 2013 10:51 PM

December-23-13 (11:09 pm)   THINK I’M BLUFFINGFrom: Ashu M. G. Solo [mailto:amgsolo@mavericktechnologies.us]Sent: December-23-13 9:09 PM (INSERT: 2 hr time diff = 11:09)To: Sandra Finley; Daeran GallSubject: RE: YOU NOW HAVE 15 DAYSTHINK I’M BLUFFING ABOUT SUING YOU? WAIT AND SEE. YOU’RE GONNA BE FORCED INTO BANKRUPTCY AND LOSE ALL OF YOUR MONEY AND ASSETS FOR SPREADING LIES ABOUT ME.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – — – –

December-25-13 1:53 AM   YOU SPREAD LIES ABOUT VICTORFrom: Ashu M. G. Solo [mailto:amgsolo@mavericktechnologies.us]Sent: December-25-13 1:53 AMTo: Sandra FinleySubject: RE: YOU NOW HAVE 15 DAYSYOU SPREAD LIES ABOUT VICTOR. YOU SPREAD LIES ABOUT ME. YOU MADE UP LIES ABOUT ME. YOU DISCRIMINATED AGAINST VETERANS. YOU DISCRIMINATED AGAINST GUYS. YOU’RE REALLY A DESPICABLE PERSON. LOOK IN THE MIRROR. I’M FINISHING UP MY ETHICS COMPLAINTS ABOUT YOU, SO YOU CAN BE REMOVED FROM ALL OF THE GREEN PARTIES. AND I’M GONNA SUE YOU AND GET ALL OF YOUR MONEY AND ASSETS SEIZED BY THE SHERIFF’S OFFICE AND GET YOUR INCOME GARNISHED FOREVER

– – – – – – – – – – – – – — – –

December-25-13 11:49 PM   WITHOUT PREJUDICEFrom: Ashu M. G. Solo [mailto:amgsolo@mavericktechnologies.us]Sent: December-25-13 11:49 PMTo: Sandra Finley; Daeran GallCc: Larry WaldingerSubject: DEAL OF THE LIFETIME FOR FINLEY AND GALLWITHOUT PREJUDICESANDRA FINLEY AND DAERAN GALL,BECAUSE I’M A NICE GUY, I’M OFFERING YOU TWO THE DEAL OF A LIFETIME:I WON’T SUE BOTH OF YOU IF EITHER OF YOU IS SUCCESSFUL IN IMMEDIATELY CONVINCING TONIA ZIMMERMAN TO PERMANENTLY CEASE AND DESIST POSTING AND SPREADING LIES ABOUT ME, CEASE AND DESIST CONTACTING PEOPLE ABOUT ME, DELETE ANYTHING SHE HAS ALREADY POSTED ABOUT ME INCLUDING ON STARPHOENIX, TWITTER, ANAD HER FACEBOOK TIMELINE, AND STOP BOTHERING ME IN ANY WAY.IF YOU HAD ANY MORALS, YOU SHOULD HAVE DONE THIS IN THE FIRST PLACE BEFORE I LAWFULLY ATTACKED YOU BACK WHEN YOU SAW WHAT SHE WAS DOING INSTEAD OF SPREADING LIES ABOUT ME AND MAKING UP LIES ABOUT ME. I SAW THERE WAS EVEN A LIE POSTED IN RESPONSE TO FINLEY’S COMMENT THAT FINLEY HAD THE ABILITY TO DELETE, BUT SHE DIDN’T BECAUSE SHE WANTED TO SMEAR ME. GALL WAS MORE CONCERNED ABOUT ME SAYING ZIMMERMAN WAS SPREADING LIES THAN ZIMMERMAN SPREADING LIES.LET ME KNOW IF YOU’RE TAKING UP THIS OFFER. IF EITHER OF YOU ACCEPTS THIS DEAL AND IS SUCCESSFUL IN CONVINCING TONIA ZIMMERMAN TO DO THE ABOVE, THEN I WON’T SUE BOTH OF YOU. YOU HAVE UNTIL DECEMBER 27, 2013 AT 12:00 PM SASKATCHEWAN TIME TO ACCEPT THIS DEAL AND UNTIL DECEMBER 30, 2013 AT 12:00 PM SASKATCHEWAN TIME TO SUCCESSFULLY CONVINCE TONIA ZIMMERMAN TO DO THE ABOVE. AFTER DECEMBER 27, 2013 AT 12:00 PM SASKATCHEWAN TIME, I AM WITHDRAWING THIS OFFER.ASHU SOLO

 

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

 

  1. From: Ashu M. G. Solo [mailto:amgsolo@mavericktechnologies.us] Sent: January-19-14 10:22 AM To: Sandra Finley Subject: RE: Army pictures of me

. . .   MONEY THAT COULD BE GOING TO YOUR DAUGHTER WILL NOW BE GOING TO ME AFTER I’M DONE SUING YOU.

 

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

 

  1. From: Ashu M. G. Solo [mailto:amgsolo@mavericktechnologies.us]

Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2013 9:00 AM

To: Sandra Finley; Daeran Gall

Subject: GET YOUR PRIORITIES STRAIGHT

. . .   Now you’ve caused trouble with the wrong person, so you’re about to be sued for a helluva lot of money. It’s more important for you to worry about how you’re gonna afford to take care of yourself and your daughter after paying damages to me than it is for you to try to cause more damages for me.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – –

You’re (i.e. Daeran is)  despised in the provincial Green Party for being a bootlicker to Finley and for promulgating lies about me You called Finley a “powerful woman.”  She doesn’t look so powerful now that she’s paying a lawyer $300 per hour to defend herself. You’re the biggest hypocrite and idiot ever . . .

 

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

 

  1. Finley was advised that Solo’s conduct included some or all of: …

AND

  1. Finley was advised by individuals targeted by Solo that they felt intimidated, harassed, and powerless in the face of his barrage of communications and threats.

 

Particulars:

  1. From: Sent: July 28, 2014 3:29 PM To: Sandra Finley <sabest1@sasktel.net> Subject: Re: My visit to RCMP this morning

Sandra,   I spoke with Sgt. Gulka this afternoon.  He has advised me to reply to Ashu if he does email me again, asking him to not contact me by phone, text, email or in person, and if he continues that I will be moving further with the complaint I have filed.  He believes this would be enough to stop him, but if not, then I would have to go down to the station to complete a video statement, and then the police would either move to charges if they feel it is warranted or a restraining order.

 

2.   From: “John Gormley Live”To: “Ashu M. G. Solo”   (some of this scrambled when I pasted it,  but the full thread is under the X1A category.

Hey — Now that I’m back in Saskatoon, have been reading back in the show email timeline, your increasingly odd emails re my RT’ing (re-tweeting) of Tonia Zimmerman’s tweet.

Subject: Re: I’ll keep my mouth shut about the batteries incident

Date: Tue, December 03, 2013 8:53 am talk with several women who have saved FB screencaps of your comments and threats toward them; and discuss your “Gupta” background and your Dad’s profound discomfort at your antics.

Until now, your dread fear of privacy is something that I have respected only for concern of your family; I’m under no legal obligation not to disclose details about your business, personal and academic life.

Your treatment, in recent days, of Ms. Zimmerman has gone too far.

And, with respect to me, looking at your various emails on this “Zellers batteries incident” you’ve either gotten the wrong person or become completely delusional. I was last in a Zellers in 1980!  Is there even still a Zellers around?

I’m concerned for your mental health; the next move is yours, my friend; tear down your spam sites, particularly of Ms. Zimmerman and all this ends.  If not, you will be very uncomfortable in the coming days.

J.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

3.    From: Sent: June 8, 2015 5:55 PM To: Sandra Finley <sabest1@sasktel.net>; Penny Swartz <pswartz@myaccess.ca>; Andrea Oldham <andrea.oldham@greenparty.ca> Cc: Kaitlyn Harvey <harvey.kaitlyn@gmail.com> Subject: Fwd: RE: RE: CIVIL CLAIM AGAINST FINLEY AND GPC: BULLYING OF ME IN GPC Ashu Solo

Pots and kettles, eh? I’ve received the 3 emails below from Ashu Solo over the last few days.  I think it only fair that you be aware of their content, but I am sending them to you confidentially – I am not prepared to be sucked into Ashu’s vortex.  So it’s important to me that Ashu not find out that I have passed them on.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

4.   From: Daniel Reid [mailto:dreid@harpergrey.com]
       Daniel J. Reid Associate| Harper Grey LLP T  604.895.2877 | F  604.669.9385

. . . .   Earlier today I spoke with Tyler Dahl.

He advised he was unaware of his client’s emails to me and communications to DomainPeople, and that he would tell his client to cut it out.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

5.   From: Sent: April 4, 2014 7:38 PM To: Sandra Finley <sabest1@sasktel.net>

Subject: Fwd: YOU NEED TO KNOW THIS: DAMAGES TO LARRY, ME, AND OTHERS FROM SANDRA FINLEY’S CRIMES, LIES, AND ATTACKS

Sandra, I think you need to forward this email to Sgt. Gulka so that he is aware of the depth of Ashu’s delusions.  He may become dangerous.  He has also made negative comments about Lois so he may work on harassing her and making up more stories to feed his almost obvious mental illness.  I am concerned about him possibly going after others and hope he doesn’t become violent.  I wish the police could do something about him but until he actually does act violently, they cannot do anything–and after the fact it’s too late if someone is hurt or killed.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

6.    From: Mark Bigland-Pritchard / LED [mailto:mark@lowenergydesign.com] Sent: July 8, 2015 10:59 AM To: Sandra Finley <sabest1@sasktel.net> Subject: Fwd: Finley’s human rights complaint

Now he’s dragging this up. Sorry you have to go through this crap. Between his attacks on you and now his online assaults on Vicki and Daeran, I’m not sure I see an end to this without turning the law against him.  I don’t know if there is enough evidence to sue him for defamation, but I think it’s worth exploring.  If it is a credible prospect, you would have my full support after October 19th.     m

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

7.   From: Sent: July 19, 2014 9:44 AM To: Mark Bigland-Pritchard <mark@lowenergydesign.com>; Penny Swartz, CFP <pswartz@myaccess.ca>; Kaitlyn H <harvey.kaitlyn@gmail.com>; Lawrence, Bonnie <blawrence@sasktel.net>; Daeran Gall <daerangall@gmail.com>; Lois Mitchell <grammalo.mitchell6@gmail.com>; Sandra Finley <sabest1@sasktel.net> Subject: The path I’m taking

Sandra,

I’m truly sorry that this is all happening.  It is unfortunate that so many people have been negatively effected by one person.  I have personally decided not to give an audience to hate, and so I am going to try to figure out how to block his emails from coming through (etc.)

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

8.   From: Sent: February 9, 2015 7:21 AM To: Patricia Farnese <patricia.farnese@gmail.com>; Sandra Finley <sabest1@sasktel.net> Cc: Vicki Strelioff <vstrelioff@gmail.com> Subject: Fwd: Fwd: More on Finley Ethics Complaint Ashu Solo

Patricia – as promised in previous email. Sandra – in case you aren’t aware of this…

——– Forwarded Message ——–

Subject:

Fwd: More on Finley Ethics Complaint

Date:

Sun, 08 Feb 2015 20:55:28 -0600

From:

To:

Meggan Hougham <think37@gmail.com>, Andrea Oldham <andrea.oldham@greenparty.ca>

Meggan, Andrea – . . .   Ashu Solo, a man whose abusive behaviour wasted the time of Saskatoon GPC people for far too long. This continued vendetta against Sandra Finley seems to me to be a waste of your time and that of Federal Council.  I advise Federal Council to disregard it totally. …   I am not prepared to have the sort of intense and continuous harassment which Ashu Solo has demonstrated himself capable of perpetrating.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

9.    From: Patricia Farnese [mailto:patricia.farnese@usask.ca] Sent: August 24, 2015 2:49 PM To: Sandra Finley <sabest1@sasktel.net> Subject: Re: Ashu Solo.

I have to consult the GPC as I am a director of the GPC fund and we have been given advice to ignore Ashu. . . . I wish to try to stop the emails we are repeatedly being sent. Thanks.  Sent from my iPhone

Oct 232015
 

Subject:    Repeated Requests:  please specify what is defamatory.  Culminates in Court filing.  Took 8 months to obtain specifics.  Could not file Statement of Defence without it.

A Court Document “Request for Particulars”   was filed on August 31, 2015  after months of attempting to obtain from the Plaintiff:  “please specify what is defamatory”.   It was, of course, expected that legal criteria for defamation would be met.

The documentation below:

From my first lawyer,  Daniel Reid (Harper Grey, Vancouver)  to Ashu’s lawyer,  Tyler Dahl (Cuelenaere, Saskatoon).  First half of 2015.  At least 6 emails and not counting phone calls, beginning Feb 12.

Aug 31,  Saskatoon lawyer Samuel Edmondson filed a document with the Court in order to obtain the particulars.

The Requested Details were received September 8 from Ashu’s lawyer

We could file a Statement of Defence.

 

REPEATED REQUESTS

PLEASE SUPPLY THE SPECIFICS OF WHAT IS DEFAMATORY

2015

—– Original Message —–

From: “Daniel Reid”

Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 3:29:10 PM

Subject: Solo v. Finley

February 12, 2015

VIA EMAIL

Good afternoon Sandra,

Earlier today I spoke with Tyler Dahl.  He advised he was unaware of his client’s emails to me and communications to DomainPeople, and that he would tell his client to cut it out.

He will be sending me a list of the specific posts Mr. Solo has issues with later this week or early next week. He was very frank in stating that his client’s instructions were to send the list but that he recognized many of the things on the list likely were not actionable (i.e. you are permitted to post), and not to interpret the list as being his position with respect to the law.

Once I receive the letter from Mr. Dahl we should set up a time to discuss an appropriate response.

Kind Regards,

Daniel J. Reid

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

—–Original Message—–

From: SANDRA FINLEY

Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2015 4:19 PM

To: Daniel Reid

Subject: Re: Solo v. Finley   (INSERT:  I was able to read before Daniel.)

If I was a lawyer communicating with another lawyer on behalf of my client, I would be embarassed to be sending a document that does not even attempt to define the legal issue(s).

Out of self-respect, I would not expect the other lawyer to be doing my work for me.

Daniel – – I will not be paying for you to do the work that Ashu’s lawyer should be doing. And I will not be wasting my time reading through the tripe submitted by Tyler. He is responsible for what he sent to you.

/Sandra

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

—–Original Message—– From: Daniel Reid    Sent: February 16, 2015 11:27 AM To: ‘SANDRA FINLEY’  Subject: RE: Solo v. Finley

February 16, 2015

VIA EMAIL

Good morning Sandra,

I have not read the attachment, as on first glance it does not properly set out the legal objections to the various posts you have authored. Are you free to discuss at 3pm today?

Regards,

Daniel J. Reid

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

From: Daniel Reid   Sent: May 4, 2015 11:07 AM To: ‘Sandra Finley’  Subject: RE: Billing, Solo v Finley

May 4, 2015 

VIA EMAIL 

Good morning Sandra,

My apologies, I had this in my “to respond” pile and overlooked getting back to you.  . . .

since you wrote to me there has been a troubling development.  On Friday afternoon I received the attached fax, which purports to be a statement of claim filed in Saskatchewan naming you as a defendant in a defamation action.

The attached claim suffers from the same defect I repeatedly advised Mr. Dahl of – it does not set out, with any of the required details, the specific statements that Mr. Solo is alleging are defamatory. 

I am quite puzzled by this – I repeatedly made it clear to Mr. Dahl that you could not properly respond to demands that did not contain the statements that are at issue and why they are actionable.

Please let me know if you are free to discuss this matter tomorrow or Wednesday.

Kind Regards, 

Daniel J. Reid

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

  • May 1  Statement of Claim received by my lawyer.    This first Claim (date filed with Court, 2015-04-17,  I think is irrelevant given the Amended Claim.) (Note to self:  it’s in May 4 email from Lawyer to me.)

 

As we have discussed, it is my position that a proper claim in defamation or for a breach of privacy must include the allegedly defamatory words.  The importance of pleadings in actions for defamation is well known.  . . .  (followed by the comprehensive documentation)

(In my view, the First Claim should be viewed in the context of everything that has happened and not in isolation.)

—–Original Message—– From: Sandra Finley

Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2015 12:16 AM To: Daniel Reid Subject: Ashu Solo, letter to Tyler re missed deadline

Is it possible to get a short letter to Tyler?  . . .

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

From: Daniel Reid

Sent: June 18, 2015 10:08 AM To: ‘Sandra Finley’ Subject: RE: Ashu Solo, letter to Tyler re missed deadline

June 18, 2015

VIA EMAIL

Thank you – I confirm I have heard nothing further from Mr. Dahl.

I will provide you with a draft letter later today – . . . .

Daniel J. Reid

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

File Number:  132048
June 18, 2015
Cuelenaere, Kendall, Katzman & Watson Barristers, Solicitors and Mediators 500, 128 – 4th Ave South Saskatoon, SK S7K1M8
Attention: Tyler M. Dahl

Dear Sirs/Mesdames:

Re: Solo v. Finley et al

I write further to my letter of May 7, 2015, in which I set out my position that the notice of civil claim provided to my office failed to particularize the statements your client alleges are defamatory or are in breach of his privacy, and was therefore deficient.

As stated in my earlier letter, Ms. Finley was willing to make her blog password protected, in order to permit you time to prepare an amended notice of civil claim that properly sets out the statements that are allegedly defamatory or comprise a violation of your client’s privacy.

As you may be aware, following my letter, the entire blog was made password protected and no longer generally available.  Ms. Finley has been very reasonable in attempting to resolve this matter quickly, efficiently, and without needless litigation.

Despite the additional time, the deadline of June 15, 2015 has passed.  I remain at a loss as to what specific passages of the blog Mr. Solo alleges are defamatory or in breach of his privacy.

As Ms. Finley has instructed me to advise, if an amended notice of civil claim is not received on or before Wednesday, June 24, 2015, she may remove the password protection from her blog.

Page 2
132048/2919157.1
I look forward to hearing from you on or before June 24, 2015.

Yours truly,

HARPER GREY LLP

Per: Daniel J. Reid
DJR

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

—–Original Message—– From: Daniel Reid [mailto:dreid@harpergrey.com]

Sent: June 23, 2015 5:54 PM

To: ‘Sandra Finley’    Subject: RE: Today’s missive from Ashu SOlo, (June 23) Ashu Solo,

Thanks. I have heard nothing from Solo’s lawyer – I will try calling tomorrow, as I find the failure to respond to my letter quite unusual.

Regards,

Daniel J. Reid

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

2015-06-24   Amended Claim received.  Posting includes my reaction, sent to my lawyer, Daniel.

= = = =  = = = = = = = = =  = =

From: Sandra Finley [mailto:sabest1@sasktel.net] Sent: June 24, 2015 5:24 PM

To: ‘Daniel Reid’

Cc: Andrew G. MacCorquodale

Subject: RE: Solo v. Finley

CC:  LFC Web Hosting  (Jeff and Andrew), LFC named as co-defendant in the Statement of Claim

(Jeff & Andrew:  do you have contact info for Fishnet?  I would like to let them know that the situation is under control and regret that Ashu Solo is attempting to draw them into this.  /S)

– – – – – –  – – – – – – –

Thank-you Daniel (my lawyer),

Re inclusion of web hosting services (LFC and Fishnet) in the Statement of Claim,  . . .    And Fishnet is in Russia – – Ashu’s lawyer (Tyler) would know that the Court has no jurisdiction there?

Re the claim itselfI read the first part and stopped.   It is, as are earlier communications,  a twisted version of information.

Furthermore and as before,  it is full of examples that do not meet the legal criteria for defamation;  you can tell just by the wording.   Really, it is a continuation of what has been received to date.  We repeatedly requested that they provide claims that meet criteria.

It has the appearance of being a document prepared by Ashu and given to the lawyer, Tyler, to submit.

I am thinking there are two options:

  1. A counter-claim, as we discussed earlier.   . . .
  2. I can go item-by-item and refute these claims (an odious waste of my time).   Unless a counter-claim were to shut him down.

I will leave password protection in place for the time being.

/Sandra

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

While I think you have a counterclaim for defamation and potentially for intentional interference with economic relations

Accordingly, if at all possible I would strongly recommend Saskatchewan counsel drafting a response and counterclaim, even if the response is not provided to Mr. Dahl until August.  (INSERT:  holiday time)  Defamation is an area of the law that can be very technical.  It would be most unfortunate if Ashu was able to use the technical rules governing pleadings to obtain an advantage.

Kind Regards, 

Daniel J. Reid Associate| Harper Grey LLP

– – – – – – – – –

Jul 6   Sandra to Daniel.   re the work on transferring the file to a lawyer in Saskatoon.   (Daniel would have to take out a Sask license plus I’d have more travel expenses to cover.)

– – – – – – – – –

  • 2015-08-31   My lawyer (now Saskatoon lawyer Samuel Edmondson)  files with Court: 

Request-for-particulars filed with Court

 

 

Oct 222015
 

POINTS MADE AND TO BE MADE:

___   MY MOTIVATION.   Peace, order and good governance in my community.    

Ashu is putting fear of what he might do into people.  They no longer feel secure.   The Police are unable to act;  the Justice system is too expensive to use.  The means available to the community to protect itself is through publication of information.

I would like to secure a Judge’s ruling on specifically what information is defamatory.  I have a Charter Right to free speech;  furthermore I am a journalist.

I need a court order saying that Ashu may not interfere with business contracts I have entered into; and he may not interfere in my life, or the lives of my acquaintances in other ways.

___   ASHU’S MOTIVATION:   Prevent documents such as the John Gormley email thread from becoming public.

___  Ashu’s motivations:

He was (likely still is) unemployed.  He wants to get elected to public office and figured (or was manipulated into believing)  he could do it through the Green Party.   Because he was using Green Party social media to broaden the scope of his cyber-bullying  I forwarded the complaint of the young woman to the Ethics Committee in Ottawa.   Independent, 3rd party adjudication – – fair.

In his mind I am the reason why he has been prevented from running as a candidate for the Federal or the Provincial Party.

LFC enters the picture:   I posted under password, Ashu’s attempts to discredit me, his coercive attacks on others.   I could see potential need for “proof” and didn’t want to lose evidence in the jumble on my computer.

Ashu is highly motivated to prevent some documents from becoming public.  One example:

An email thread between Ashu and John Gormley, the Rawlco talk show host, lawyer by training.    John gave the thread to the young woman for use as a defence against Ashu, if John’s words did not make Ashu stop his cyber-bullying of the young woman and two other young women.   Basically, John will expose Ashu’s lies (specified ones)  through officials he will have on the show if Ashu doesn’t stop.

When LFC did not capitulate to Ashu’s demands to take down my blog, he began attacks on my domain name registrar demanding that they de-register the name.   That company is in BC;  their way of shutting the door on Ashu – – I had to employ a lawyer to whom they could refer his harassing communications.

I don’t know how he will handle the Mediation.   Trials are public,  he knows that.   He might be able to guess how many good people he has harassed and threatened and bullied and put fear into.  If this goes to trial,  some of them intend to attend.

_✓_   Start point for me being  the complaint from the 26-year old woman who he (age 42) had been cyber-bullying for a year.  With serious effects on her.

_✓_  I told Tim Nickel why I would not respond to the cross-claim (the system creates adversarial relationships where none exist;  I can choose not to cooperate with that).

_✓_  I told Tim Nickel that LFC was acting upon my request when LFC did not accept to settle at the price of $5000  offered by Ashu.   (It would come out of my pocket, go into Ashu’s;  I would be paying HIS legal bills, too!)

_✓_    made clear to Tim that I am a journalist and have been for more than 15 years.  I am not about to relinquish for myself and for others, the charter right to freedom of speech.

___  One thing I did not spell out to him, but will:   it is recorded in the communications from the young Vancouver lawyer:  – –   Ashu was requested more than once to just tell us the specific items in the blogged material that are defamatory.   They could be addressed if he would identify them.   That offer still stands.

 

___ I expressed concern over the fact that Ashu will need something by which to save face.  (Seems like I’m demanding everything and have nothing with which to buy compromise).  Tim replied (words to effect) that he would be looking at that aspect.  I took it to mean:  that’s his job.  I am not presently able to envision what I can do to assist in the “save face” need.

 

___  I can’t or won’t back-down on Charter Rights.   Tim knows that.

 

I did not discuss:

___

 

___  I think Tim understands:     I will seek (even if the chances are almost zero) to have my expenses reimbursed and even if there is little chance of actually recovering the money.

 

 

___  I am not presently able to envision what I can do to assist in the “save face” need. I do not have a reliable memory of whether or not I told him that the Sk Law Reform Commission considered, at its Sept meeting,  a submission I made about the need for legislation that prevents “SLAPP suits” (use of the justice system as a tool of coercion, which this is;  also the need for legislation to address cyber-violence which the UN has asked countries to do – – it is a very large problem.   They replied;  there is already work underway by the Uniform Law Commission of Canada.  I have inquired about contacting them.   Their next meeting is in Regina, according to website.

 

I will call him early next week and let you know what he has to say:    I am thinking there will be 3 separate rooms.  To start, LFC and Paul’s Jr in one.  Ashu and Tyler in another.  Me in the third.    With Tim going back-and-forth between the rooms.    During Mediation, would it be at Tim’s discretion to advise me of your positions and progress?

 

 

WHAT IS ASHU’S CURRENT STATE-OF-MIND?

Recent renewed activity leads me to think Ashu is plenty worried. (A pattern in his behavior –  stressful developments cause him to go into a frenzy of activity.)  The date got set; no one has backed down.   In the last few days he has started a second (crazy) campaign at the U of S to discredit, through my role of elected member of University Senate (I have recently completed the maximum two terms).    Some of the other Senators and the University Secretary have received missives claiming that a group of Senators (that included me)  have defamed him.  And they had better do  X, Y or Z.   OR ELSE!    The emails were forwarded to me.   I replied with an update:  Mediation Nov 22.    And the usual suggestion/request:  best not to engage with him.

 

Cheers!

Sandra Finley

250-594-9898

 

 

APPENDED

 

(1)   Nickel, Timothy J.,

  1. Ed., Reg. Psych.

1110 –14th Street East

Saskatoon, SK S7H 0A3

Phone: 306-203-9142

E-Mail: tim.nickel10@gmail.com

Place of Employment: Private Practice; Contract with Dispute Resolution Office

 

Education: M. Ed –U of S

Mediation Training: Justice Institute of B. C. (210 hrs.);

Organizational Diagnosis;

Community at Work (Sam Kaner); TJA Conferencing; Circles and Restorative Processes

Mediation Experience: 18 years

Areas of Competence:

Organizational Development and Workplace Mediation; Civil

Litigation and Business Disputes; SGI Personal Injury Claims;

Multi -Party and Public Policy Development; Board Governance

 

Fees Charged:

$150.00 per hr. ($120.00 per hr – Prov. Gov’t.)

 

Professional Affiliations:

Conflict Resolution Saskatchewan Inc.; FMC; SKCP

  • – – – – – – – – —

 

(2)     PHOTO  and other  info at   https://ca.achievecentre.com/trainer/tim-nickel/

Oct 222015
 

http://www.canada.com/news/canada/canada+pullout+from+program+will+boost+aircraft+costs+other/11460218/story.html

By David Pugliese, Ottawa Citizen

As the Pentagon prepares for Canada’s withdrawal from the F-35 jet program, lawmakers in Washington are raising concerns that the U.S. too will have to cut its numbers of stealth fighters because of increasing costs.

Prime minister-designate Justin Trudeau has promised to withdraw Canada from the F-35 program, saying it has become too costly. When that will happen is still unclear, as the Liberals won’t unveil the cabinet until Nov. 4.

A Liberal government would hold a competition to replace the current fleet of CF-18s and select a cheaper alternative to the F-35.

Canada’s withdrawal from the program will see the cost of the F-35 go up between 0.7 per cent and one per cent for other countries – or about $1 million US per plane, said Lt.-Gen. Chris Bogdan, head of the F-35 Joint Program Office.

The Conservatives committed in 2010 to buy 65 of the aircraft but put that on hold because of the increased costs of the jet and allegations that the procurement process was not properly handled.

Before they were defeated in the election, the Conservatives said no decision on the F-35 had been made. But Bogdan told U.S. lawmakers on Wednesday that Canada was scheduled to buy the planes starting in 2017-18.

The one-per-cent increase in the cost of the F-35 because of Canada’s decision to pull out of the program appears to be the least of the concerns for supporters of the aircraft.

The program is currently $200 billion over budget. It will cost an estimated $400 billion for the U.S. to buy the 2,443 aircraft it has determined it needs.

Some U.S. lawmakers are now questioning whether the Pentagon can afford to buy all of those.

John McCain, the Republican senator and chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said this week he expects the U.S. will have to cut its number of F-35s because of costs.

Bogdan said it is still unclear what will happen to Canadian firms who are currently building parts for the stealth fighter. “We do not have a set rule as to what happens to that industrial participation if a partner reduces airplanes, adds airplanes or leaves the program,” said Bogdan.

“But it is my opinion that the remaining partners and our industry partners are going to have a discussion about what to do with all of the industry in Canada that is building parts for the airplane.”

Officials with Lockheed Martin have told the Citizen they could drop Canadian suppliers if Canada doesn’t buy the plane.

Alan Williams, the former procurement chief at the Department of National Defence, said that might happen but Lockheed could find it difficult to acquire replacement systems as production of the planes is now underway.

Trudeau said holding a competition for a new fighter jet would ensure Canadian firms receive work. Under the F-35 program, there were no guarantees Canadian companies would be entitled to a specific amount of work when Canada purchased the aircraft.

The F-35 became a major political headache several years ago for the Conservatives. Although the Liberal government originally signed on to a research and development program for the plane, the Conservatives significantly expanded commitment and later agreed to the purchase 65 of the planes.

An independent audit on Canada’s proposed F-35 project found the purchase of the aircraft would cost $44 billion over the 42-year life of the plane. That figure included everything from maintenance to fuel.

dpugliese@ottawacitizen.com

Twitter.com/davidpugliese