2012-12-11 Laliberte: Lawyer Karen Prisciak re Law Society and Tim Froese. Advises awaiting response from Hesje.
Give it a minute to load. Click on: Prisciak Dec 11-12 re Froese, Law Society
Dec 112012
Sandra Finley
Dec 102012
Return to Anchor, or
Return to The list of EMAILS SENT BY ASHU SOLO
TITLE: Ashu Solo, emails sent December 29
These emails follow the sequence listed at: THE EMAILS SENT BY ASHU SOLO
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
December 29, 2013 2:11 AM By hanging up on me
From: Ashu M. G. Solo [mailto:amgsolo@mavericktechnologies.us]
Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2013 2:11 AM
To: Sandra Finley; Larry Waldinger; Patricia Farnese; Marlene Wells; Vicki Strelioff; Kaitlyn Harvey; ‘Mark Bigland-Pritchard / Low Energy Design Ltd’
Cc: ‘P Swartz; ‘Dianne Rhodes’
Subject: RE: SANDRA FINLEY SPREAD LIES ABOUT ME BEYOND THE EDA
By hanging up on me as soon as she heard my name, Penny Swartz has demonstrated that she is a perfect example of someone whose loyalty to Sandra is so profound that she believes whatever lies Sandra tells her without even wanting to hear the truth from the other side. How many other Greens are like this? Look in the mirror.
Penny, we’re all waiting to hear what malicious lies Sandra told you about me or for what other reason you rudely hung up on me as soon as I said my name. The phone call was recorded for my personal safety, so don’t spread lies about what I said to you.
Is Penny spreading Sandra’s lies to Regina Greens? If she is, I’ll add her to the civil claim for libel and slander.
It’s about time that people learn the truth about Sandra and her underhanded tactics and malicious lies. Sandra’s most disgraceful actions that I know about were to discriminate against someone in being a GPS nominee for being in the military reserve (this is as bad as not allowing someone to be a GPS nominee because he’s black or brown), to spread lies that someone would get divorced if he became a GPS nominee, to spread lies about me from an opponent of my cases without any proof and without hearing my side to so many people without any authority to take any action against me, and to add to those lies about me.
When I criticize Atchison and Donauer, I have NEVER made up any lies about them and I NEVER would. I simply tell the truth about what they said and what they did. Making up lies about someone can be one of the most disgraceful things that someone can do and it should be routinely prosecuted as a crime. A battle fought on lies is a battle not worth fighting. The Republicans spread lies about John Kerry’s military service. Most Democrats had enough honor and integrity not to do the same to John McCain. Finley couldn’t find anything truthful that would bring me down and couldn’t argue on the merits, so she resorted to lies. We don’t need lies to take down the Conservatives. The truth is bad enough for them. And we certainly shouldn’t be lying about each other. You aren’t a progressive if you have no honor and integrity and spread malicious lies.
Ashu
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
December-29-13 6:07 PM Penny, we’re still waiting
From: Ashu M. G. Solo [mailto:amgsolo@mavericktechnologies.us]
Sent: December-29-13 6:07 PM
To: Sandra Finley; Larry Waldinger; Patricia Farnese; Marlene Wells; Vicki Strelioff; Kaitlyn Harvey; ‘Mark Bigland-Pritchard / Low Energy Design Ltd’; Victor Lau
Cc: P Swartz; ‘Dianne Rhodes’
Subject: RE: RE: SANDRA FINLEY SPREAD LIES ABOUT ME BEYOND THE EDA
Penny, we’re still waiting to hear what malicious malignant malevolent lies Sandra Finley told you about me or for what other reason you rudely hung up on me as soon as I said my name. I hope you didn’t hang up on me because I’m Indian. Do you think this is professional conduct? Obviously Penny doesn’t want to tell us why she rudely hung up on me as soon as I said my name because I’m right about the reason for her action.
Penny, if you spread Sandra’s lies to any Regina Greens or anyone else, you’ll be attending Court of Queen’s Bench in Saskatoon to defend yourself for libel and slander.
Does Sandra’s discrimination and bigotry toward veterans and military members only apply to those in military combat occupations or does she also discriminate against those who are in non-combat military occupations like technicians, cooks, medics, physicians, priests, etc? No discrimination is acceptable. It’s almost 2014. Discrimination and bigotry should have been wiped out long ago.
Sandra, I’ve had enough of you spreading lies, bullying, and harassing me. If you engage in conduct that causes me to fear for my safety or the safety of anyone known to me, you can be criminally charged with criminal harassment. By giving private information about me and my family to the cyberbully, you could have committed criminal harassment. By your extreme actions of making libelous and slanderous statements about me, you could have committed the criminal offense of defamatory libel.
I’m working on my criminal complaint, civil claim, and ethics complaints against Sandra.
Ashu
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
December-29-13 8:22 PM Sandra, you better not make
From: Ashu M. G. Solo [mailto:amgsolo@mavericktechnologies.us]
Sent: December-29-13 8:22 PM
To: Sandra Finley; Larry Waldinger; Patricia Farnese; Marlene Wells; Vicki Strelioff; Kaitlyn Harvey; ‘Mark Bigland-Pritchard / Low Energy Design Ltd’; Victor Lau
Subject: RE: MORE NEW BULLYING AND HARASSENT FROM SANDRA FINLEY
Sandra, you better not make your lies public or it will add to the damages I get against you and the criminal complaint of defamatory libel against you. Give me or Larry the password so that I can respond to the lies.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
December 29, 2013 10:15 PM More bullying and harassment
From: Ashu M. G. Solo [mailto:amgsolo@mavericktechnologies.us]
Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2013 10:15 PM
To: Sandra Finley ; Larry Waldinger; Patricia Farnese; Marlene Wells; Vicki Strelioff; Kaitlyn Harvey; ‘Mark Bigland-Pritchard / Low Energy Design Ltd’; Victor Lau
Subject: MORE NEW BULLYING AND HARASSENT FROM SANDRA FINLEY
More bullying and harassment from Sandra Finley:
I just did a Google search on my name and found this in the Google search results:
sandrafinley.ca/?p=11472
3 hours ago – Ashu Solo is acting as though he is a legitimate representative of the Green Party, federally and provincially. The allegations against him are serious. The matter …
Sandra has put up a blog post on me, but it is password protected. I can’t see the content to respond to the lies. Give me the password or content, Sandra. She wants to smear me without even giving me a chance to respond. Who the hell has she given the password to?
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
December-29-13 10:46 PM Please Sandra I beg you
From: Ashu M. G. Solo [mailto:amgsolo@mavericktechnologies.us]
Sent: December-29-13 10:46 PM
To: Sandra Finley
Subject: EMERGENCY regarding your blog
Please Sandra I beg you not to have information about my dad or family’s last name on your blog and to not give this information out. I have millions of enemies from my civil rights cases. I have been threatened many times. I have been physically attacked. I have seen Web site posts of people looking for my address. If people know who my family is, they can get their publicly listed address and go after them or vandalize their property. This is really over the top, Sandra. Whatever your differences are with me, please don’t endanger my family. I wish no harm upon your family or Kelly. I don’t even wish any harm upon you. I’d just like you to please stop telling people lies about me without getting my side of the story. You posted 10 password-protected blog entries about me, but anyone could see my family’s last name in the titles of one blog post. According to the titles, you have a blog post specifically on my dad with documentation gathered in Aug. 2013. Please my dad has absolutely nothing to do with this matter. I really don’t understand. Why were you gathering information on my dad in Aug. 2013 and why is this information on a password-protected blog post now? I was starting to be involved in the GPS at that point. My dad isn’t involved in the Green Party. According to the titles, you have blog posts on my business associations and research activities with documentation gathered in Aug. 2013. Why were you gathering information on my business associations and research activities in Aug. 2013 and why is this information on a password-protected blog post now? I don’t understand what my dad or business associations or research activities have to do with the Green Party and why that is on your blog. Please don’t give information on my family to anyone. Please take down all blog posts about me. Please don’t give out private information on me. Please don’t give information about me to Zimmerman. She can publicize it to others and put my family at risk. I wouldn’t try to harm your family. Please don’t try to harm mine. Let’s put our differences behind us and learn a lesson from this matter.
Sincerely,
Ashu
Return to Anchor, or
Return to The list of EMAILS SENT BY ASHU SOLO
Dec 092012
2012-08-28 Laliberte: Decision of the Complaints Officer, sent from the Law Society
Please click on the following in succession. The letter (cover letter 2 pages, decision 11 pages), August 28, 2012, is contained in the links. Sorry – having trouble getting it uploaded as one document:
LAWSOCIETY Cover Letter, page 1
LAWSOCIETY Cover Letter, page 2
Dec 092012
Return to Anchor, or
Return to The list of EMAILS SENT BY ASHU SOLO
TITLE: Ashu Solo, emails sent December 30
These emails follow the sequence listed at: THE EMAILS SENT BY ASHU SOLO
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
December 30, 2013 12:46 AM Please Sandra I beg you not to have information
From: Ashu M. G. Solo [mailto:amgsolo@mavericktechnologies.us]
Sent: Monday, December 30, 2013 12:46 AM
To: Sandra Finley
Subject: EMERGENCY regarding your blog
Please Sandra I beg you not to have information about my dad or family’s last name on your blog and to not give this information out. I have millions of enemies from my civil rights cases. I have been threatened many times. I have been physically attacked. I have seen Web site posts of people looking for my address. If people know who my family is, they can get their publicly listed address and go after them or vandalize their property. This is really over the top, Sandra. Whatever your differences are with me, please don’t endanger my family. I wish no harm upon your family or Kelly. I don’t even wish any harm upon you. I’d just like you to please stop telling people lies about me without getting my side of the story. You posted 10 password-protected blog entries about me, but anyone could see my family’s last name in the titles of one blog post. According to the titles, you have a blog post specifically on my dad with documentation gathered in Aug. 2013. Please my dad has absolutely nothing to do with this matter. I really don’t understand. Why were you gathering information on my dad in Aug. 2013 and why is this information on a password-protected blog post now? I was starting to be involved in the GPS at that point. My dad isn’t involved in the Green Party. According to the titles, you have blog posts on my business associations and research activities with documentation gathered in Aug. 2013. Why were you gathering information on my business associations and research activities in Aug. 2013 and why is this information on a password-protected blog post now? I don’t understand what my dad or business associations or research activities have to do with the Green Party and why that is on your blog. Please don’t give information on my family to anyone. Please take down all blog posts about me. Please don’t give out private information on me. Please don’t give information about me to Zimmerman. She can publicize it to others and put my family at risk. I wouldn’t try to harm your family. Please don’t try to harm mine. Let’s put our differences behind us and learn a lesson from this matter.
Sincerely,
Ashu
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
December 30, 2013 3:05 AM I greatly appreciate your help (Not to Finley!)
From: Ashu M. G. Solo [mailto:amgsolo@mavericktechnologies.us]
Sent: Monday, December 30, 2013 3:05 AM
To: Victor Lau; Patricia Farnese; Larry Waldinger; ‘Mark Bigland-Pritchard / Low Energy Design Ltd’; Kaitlyn Harvey
Subject: Over the Top
I greatly appreciate your help with this dangerous and urgent situation for my family. Below are the password-protected blog entries that Sandra now has on her blog about me. She has now thankfully removed the publicly visible titles from her blog now, but I’ve listed the titles below. In the titles, I’ve removed my family’s last name that Sandra had listed. As you can see in the blog entry titles, since Aug. 2013, Sandra has been gathering info on me, my dad, my business associations, and my research activities. I really don’t understand why. My dad has never been involved in the Green Parties. I don’t know what Sandra’s up to. I don’t understand why this stuff is now on password-protected blog posts. And I don’t know who she’s planning on giving the password to. My concern is that Sandra may give the password to Zimmerman or another enemy of my civil rights cases who can then spread information on my family to the public and endanger my family. I have millions of hostile enemies from my civil rights cases and received many threats. I think Sandra already gave my family’s last name to Zimmerman because Zimmerman emailed it to me. Can you please try to stop Sandra from giving out information on my family to people? Thanks. Nobody knows who my family is now because they have a different last name. In my ancestry, it’s a tradition for every guy to pick his own last name when he becomes a professional. All of my dad’s brothers have different last names. I don’t understand why all of this is of concern to Sandra and why it is on her blog. This is bizarre. All I’ll say is I think this makes crystal clear that she really has been looking for some kind of dirt on me for a long time to bring me down. I’m gonna stop emailing Sandra and about Sandra unless something urgent and dangerous like this comes up. I’d just like to put all of this behind me. It has made me extremely anxious. Ashu
Documentation, Ashu doesn’t want to be an “unemployed activist” for the rest of his life
X1Enter your password to view comments.
Dec292013
This post is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:
Password:
Posted by admin at 9:52 pm
Documentation, end of August, re the possible conferences that Ashu puts on
X1Enter your password to view comments.
Dec292013
This post is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:
Password:
Posted by admin at 9:01 pm
Documentation, Ashu Solo’s name change (from __________)
X1Enter your password to view comments.
Dec292013
This post is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:
Password:
Posted by admin at 8:50 pm
Documentation, end of August 2013, Ashu’s Father
X1Enter your password to view comments.
Dec292013
This post is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:
Password:
Posted by admin at 8:36 pm
Documentation, end of Aug 2013, re Ashu’s business associations
X1Enter your password to view comments.
Dec292013
This post is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:
Password:
Posted by admin at 8:24 pm
Documentation, emails Dec 10 to 11 by Ashu (not to me), forwarded to me
X1Enter your password to view comments.
Dec292013
This post is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:
Password:
Posted by admin at 7:01 pm
Documentation, exchange regarding Ethics Committee of the GPC (Green Party of Canada)
X1Enter your password to view comments.
Dec292013
This post is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:
Password:
Posted by admin at 6:40 pm
Documentation December 12 – 15
X1Enter your password to view comments.
Dec292013
This post is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:
Password:
Posted by admin at 3:36 pm
Documentation December 19 – 22
X1Enter your password to view comments.
Dec292013
This post is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:
Password:
Posted by admin at 2:39 pm
Documentation December 23 to 26
X1Enter your password to view comments.
Dec292013
This post is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:
Password:
Posted by admin at 2:13 pm
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
December 30 2013, 7:55 AM Vicki called by Ashu at 11 PM last night.
From: Vicki Strelioff
Sent: December-30-13 7:55 AM
To: Sandra Finley; Penny Swartz, CFP
Subject: More drama
Sandra,
I thought that Ashu had finally faded away from us, but he refuses to stop. His most recent activity is calling me at 11 p.m. last night– everyone was sleeping and he not only woke me up but also my husband and older son. The only calls we receive this late at night are family emergencies, and with my mom in the hospital, I woke up panicked that something had happened with her. Needless to say I was annoyed, curt and hung up on him. He wanted me to call you right away as it was an “emergency” and a matter of the safety of his family. I have no idea what he was talking about but he stated that you were giving out information on his family on your blog which was endangering his family (for curiosity sake I looked at it this morning and could find no such thing). Obviously I did not call you (I don’t have your phone number & told him this). In my opinion, he is either delusional or trying to purposefully manipulate/intimidate people.
When I got to work this morning and opened up my email, there were three emails from him, demanding the password to your blog and ranting about you and Penny (I’ll look to see if you are on the distribution list and if not I’ll forward them to you).
I have made it a point to not reply to any of his emails as I hope if no one pays attention to him, he will just go away. Plus, I’m scared for my safety and my family’s because I don’t know him well enough to know his mental state and his Facebook profile picture holding a gun gives me concern about the potential of how far he would go.
I am PRAYING for 2014 that I don’t ever have to see him, talk to him, read about him or receive another email from him.
Vicki
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dec 30, 2013, at 10:15 (two-hour time diff) 12:15 PM, Vicki Strelioff to Victor Lau, I received a message from Elvin Lau
On Dec 30, 2013, at 12:15 PM, (10:15, two-hour time diff) Vicki Strelioff:
Victor,
I received a message from Elvin Lau (any relation?) regarding the GPS Facebook page and cc’d my reply to you as it was really part of your domain for the provincial arm of the Green Party.
I have been trying very hard to stay out of this gong show but it has become increasingly difficult to do so especially after Ashu called me last night at 11 p.m.–waking up me, my husband and son. As no responsible person calls this late at night (except for emergencies–which I thought it could be as my mom still is in hospital), I was very annoyed and angry.
I do not know what your relationship is with Ashu, but if you have any influence with him, I hope that you can persuade him to curtail his aggressive activities as he will find no sympathy from me whatsoever as well as an increasing number of people I know.
Thanks.
Happy New Year and all the best in 2014.
Vicki
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
December-30-13 11:20 AM, Victor to Vicki That is too bad that Ashu called you
From: Victor Lau
Sent: December-30-13 11:20 AM
To: Vicki Strelioff
Cc: Sandra Finley Subject: Re: Facebook problem
Hello Vicki,
That is too bad that Ashu called you so late last night. He did talk to me about how urgent he felt about his Family being outed on Sandra’s blog/website.
He probably called you out of desperation to ask your help with Sandra.
I’ve since received an email from Sandra detailing her end of things.
When I next talk to Ashu, I will let him know about not calling you at late hours.
Hope all else is well.
The world is Going Green 🙂
And that’s a good thing!
Much cheers, vic.
Ps- I replied to your previous email about Elvin Lau. No he is no relation. And also Elvin is not a Sask Green member. He might be a federal Green member (?) I would suggest having little contact with him.
He and Tonia Z. seem to waste ALL OF OUR COLLECTIVE TIME!
They both should be ignored; especially if they are not actual paid up members!
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
30 December, 2013 3:31 PM to 7:34:53 Exchange Ashu to Patricia: Patricia, could you please ask Sandra
On 2013-12-30, at 3:31 PM, “Ashu M. G. Solo” <amgsolo@mavericktechnologies.us> wrote:
Patricia, could you please ask Sandra to immediately remove her two blog posts pertaining to my name change and pertaining to my dad and not give their content to anyone for legal, ethical, and moral reasons. If she isn’t committing criminal harassment, as I suggest below, I’d appreciate if you don’t tell her that just so she can remove the blog posts and not endanger my family. You have a family too, so I’m sure you can understand my concern for my family too. Thanks. Ashu
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
From: Patricia Farnese
Sent: Monday, December 30, 2013 7:21 PM
To: <amgsolo@mavericktechnologies.us>
Subject: Re: Patricia FW: Criminal Harassment by Sandra Finley
I don’t really speak to Sandra. I have no way of getting a hold of her besides Facebook or email. Do you just want me to send an email?
Sent from my iPhone
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
From: “Ashu M. G. Solo” <amgsolo@mavericktechnologies.us>
Date: 30 December, 2013 7:34:53 PM CST
To: “‘Patricia Farnese'”
Subject: RE: Patricia FW: Criminal Harassment by Sandra Finley
Yes please. If you could send Sandra an email requesting that she immediately remove her two blog posts pertaining to my name change and pertaining to my dad and requesting that she not give that content to anyone, I’d greatly appreciate it. Sandra respects you, so I think she’ll listen to you. I respect you too. Sandra is unlikely to listen to me.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
December-30-13 (3:24) 1:24 PM Sandra, Criminal harassment is
From: Ashu M. G. Solo [mailto:amgsolo@mavericktechnologies.us]
Sent: December-30-13 1:24 PM
To: Sandra Finley
Subject: Criminal Harassment by Sandra Finley
Sandra,
Criminal harassment is engaging in conduct that could reasonably cause me to fear for my safety or the safety of anyone known to me. Giving out information on my family’s last name or who my dad is to anyone reasonably causes me to fear for my safety and the safety of my family considering that I have millions of hostile enemies from my civil rights cases. Even having this information in password-protected blog entries reasonably causes me to fear for my safety and the safety of my family considering that I have millions of hostile enemies from my civil rights cases. Therefore, giving out information on my family’s last name or my dad or even having this information available on password-protected blog entries would constitute criminal harassment. You are endangering innocent people who have done nothing to you. I am urging you to please IMMEDIATELY fully remove the at least two blog posts pertaining to my name change and pertaining to my dad immediately and not give their content to anyone, so that I’m not forced to go to the police. I am asking you nicely to remove these two blog posts pertaining to my name change and pertaining to my dad immediately and giving you a chance to do this or I’ll be forced to go to the police. See section 264 of the Criminal Code of Canada below. Your actions violate sections 264 (1) and 264 (2) (d). Even if you don’t believe that you’re committing criminal harassment you should remove these two blog posts and not give out this information for moral and ethical reasons.
Criminal harassment
- 264. (1) No person shall, without lawful authority and knowing that another person is harassed or recklessly as to whether the other person is harassed, engage in conduct referred to in subsection (2) that causes that other person reasonably, in all the circumstances, to fear for their safety or the safety of anyone known to them.
· Marginal note:Prohibited conduct
(2) The conduct mentioned in subsection (1) consists of
- (a) repeatedly following from place to place the other person or anyone known to them;
- (b) repeatedly communicating with, either directly or indirectly, the other person or anyone known to them;
- (c) besetting or watching the dwelling-house, or place where the other person, or anyone known to them, resides, works, carries on business or happens to be; or
- (d) engaging in threatening conduct directed at the other person or any member of their family.
· Marginal note:Punishment
(3) Every person who contravenes this section is guilty of
- (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or
- (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
· Marginal note:Factors to be considered
(4) Where a person is convicted of an offence under this section, the court imposing the sentence on the person shall consider as an aggravating factor that, at the time the offence was committed, the person contravened
- (a) the terms or conditions of an order made pursuant to section 161 or a recognizance entered into pursuant to section 810, 810.1 or 810.2; or
- (b) the terms or conditions of any other order or recognizance made or entered into under the common law or a provision of this or any other Act of Parliament or of a province that is similar in effect to an order or recognizance referred to in paragraph (a).
· Marginal note:Reasons
(5) Where the court is satisfied of the existence of an aggravating factor referred to in subsection (4), but decides not to give effect to it for sentencing purposes, the court shall give reasons for its decision.
- R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 264;
- R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 37;
- 1993, c. 45, s. 2;
- 1997, c. 16, s. 4, c. 17, s. 9;
- 2002, c. 13, s. 10.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
December-30-13 (6:20) 4:20 PM SANDRA, THESE ARE THE TWO BLOG POSTS
From: Ashu M. G. Solo [mailto:amgsolo@mavericktechnologies.us]
Sent: December-30-13 4:20 PM
To: Sandra Finley
Cc: Patricia Farnese; Victor Lau; Larry Waldinger; ‘Mark Bigland-Pritchard / Low Energy Design Ltd’
Subject: RE: Criminal Harassment by Sandra Finley
SANDRA, THESE ARE THE TWO BLOG POSTS WITH INFORMATION ABOUT MY FAMILY NAME AND FAMILY THAT I WANT IMMEDIATELY REMOVED AND FOR WHICH THE CONTENT MUST NOT BE SENT TO ANYONE ELSE. YOU’RE ENDANGERING MY FAMILY. I HAVE MILLIONS OF HOSTILE ENEMIES FROM MY CIVIL RIGHTS CASES.
X1Enter your password to view comments.
Dec292013
This post is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:
Password:
Posted by admin at 8:50 pm
X1Enter your password to view comments.
Dec292013
This post is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:
Password:
Posted by admin at 8:36 pm
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ==
December-30-13 4:22 PM Re-sends the email sent at 3:24
From: Ashu M. G Solo [mailto:amgsolo@trailblazerintsys.com]
Sent: December-30-13 4:22 PM
To: Sandra Finley
Subject: FW: Criminal Harassment by Sandra Finley
From: Ashu M. G. Solo [mailto:amgsolo@mavericktechnologies.us]
Sent: Monday, December 30, 2013 3:24 PM
To: Sandra Finley
Subject: Criminal Harassment by Sandra Finley
Sandra,
Criminal harassment is . . .
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = = = =
December-30-13 4:21 PM Re-sends the email sent at 3:24
From: Ashu M. G. Solo [mailto:amgsolo@mavericktechnologies.us]
Sent: December-30-13 4:21 PM
To: Sandra Finley Subject: FW: Criminal Harassment by Sandra Finley
From: Ashu M. G. Solo [mailto:amgsolo@mavericktechnologies.us]
Sent: Monday, December 30, 2013 3:24 PM
To: Sandra Finley
Subject: Criminal Harassment by Sandra Finley
Sandra,
Criminal harassment is . . .
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
December-30-13 4:22 PM Re-sends the 6:20 PM message
From: Ashu M. G Solo [mailto:amgsolo@trailblazerintsys.com]
Sent: December-30-13 4:22 PM
To: Sandra Finley
Subject: FW: RE: Criminal Harassment by Sandra Finley
From: Ashu M. G. Solo [mailto:amgsolo@mavericktechnologies.us]
Sent: Monday, December 30, 2013 6:20 PM
To: Sandra Finley
Cc: Patricia Farnese; Victor Lau; Larry Waldinger; ‘Mark Bigland-Pritchard / Low Energy Design Ltd’
Subject: RE: Criminal Harassment by Sandra Finley
SANDRA, THESE ARE . . .
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
December-30-13 8:26 (10:26) PM Criminal Harassment Complaint against Sandra Finley to Saskatoon City Police from Ashu Solo
(The Police would not accept complaints by email. Ashu says that he also went in person to the Police Station. It would be very good if he actually did that.)
From: Ashu M. G. Solo [mailto:amgsolo@mavericktechnologies.us]
Sent: December-30-13 10:26 PM
To: PoliceService@Saskatoon.ca
Subject: Criminal Harassment Complaint against Sandra Finley
Dear Saskatoon Police Service:
This is a criminal harassment complaint against Sandra Finley.
I have received significant media coverage in Saskatoon and across Canada since April 2012 for a human rights complaint that I filed against the City of Saskatoon (Mayor’s Office) and Councillor Randy Donauer with the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission for prayer recitations at government organized events and for a human rights complaint that I filed against the City of Saskatoon (Saskatoon Transit Services) with the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission for promoting only one religion on programmable bus signs. Because of these complaints that I made, there has been significant backlash against me and I have millions of hostile enemies.
I was recruited to be the acting CEO for the Saskatoon-Humboldt Federal Green Party Association. Then I was recruited to be the CEO of the Saskatoon Provincial Green Party Association.
An operative of the federal Green Party named Sandra Finley has said that my controversial human rights complaints will harm the party and she also dislikes me from an argument we had last summer over campaign election policy.
Sandra Finley appears to have been gathering information on me and my family since August 2013. She has now posted this information in password protected blog posts at sandrafinley.ca She has posted information about my dad and about a name change I did from my family last name. I don’t know who she is giving the password for these blog posts to.
Sandra Finley has befriended an individual named Tonia Zimmerman who has been harassing the hell out of me for over a year. I was in the police station yesterday to make a criminal complaint against Zimmerman. I was told to bring the screen captures of Zimmerman’s statements. I am printing those and will bring them in.
My concern is that Sandra Finley may give the password to Zimmerman or another enemy of my civil rights cases who can then spread information on my family to the public and endanger my family. I have millions of hostile enemies from my civil rights cases and received many threats.
I think Sandra Finley already gave my family’s last name to Zimmerman because Zimmerman knows it. Zimmerman can publicize my family’s last name to endanger them. Nobody knows who my family is now because they have a different last name. In my ancestry, it’s a tradition for every guy to pick his own last name when he becomes a professional. All of my dad’s brothers have different last names. I don’t understand why all of this is of concern to Sandra Finley and why it is on her blog.
Sandra Finley had my previous last name on her blog until fellow party operatives urged her to remove it. I believe this was done to endanger me and my family.
Criminal harassment is engaging in conduct that could reasonably cause me to fear for my safety or the safety of anyone known to me. Giving out information on my family’s last name or who my dad is to anyone reasonably causes me to fear for my safety and the safety of my family considering that I have millions of hostile enemies from my civil rights cases. Even having this information in password-protected blog entries reasonably causes me to fear for my safety and the safety of my family considering that I have millions of hostile enemies from my civil rights cases. Therefore, giving out information on my family’s last name or my dad or even having this information available on password-protected blog entries would constitute criminal harassment. Sandra Finley are endangering innocent people who have done nothing to her. I urged her to please IMMEDIATELY fully remove the at least two blog posts pertaining to my name change and pertaining to my dad immediately and not give their content to anyone, but she didn’t, so now I’m not forced to go to the police. I believe that Sandra Finley’s actions violate sections 264 (1) and 264 (2) (d) of the Criminal Code of Canada.
Below are three emails that I sent to Sandra Finley to try to get her to remove blog posts pertaining to my family’s last name and pertaining to my dad. I will forward you another email that I sent to Sandra Finley about this. You can see that I expressed concerns about my safety and my family’s safety, so she will have reasonably known that her actions caused me to fear for my safety and my family’s safety.
Sincerely,
Ashu Solo
Phone: (306) 242-0566
Email: amgsolo@mavericktechnologies.us
(The appended emails are
- December 30, 2013 10:27 PM Sandra, You having a blog post with information
- Monday, December 30, 2013 6:20 PM SANDRA, THESE ARE
- December 30, 2013 3:24 PM Sandra, Criminal harassment is )
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
December-30-13 (10:27) 8:27 PM Sandra, You having a blog post
From: Ashu M. G. Solo [mailto:amgsolo@mavericktechnologies.us] Sent: December-30-13 8:27 PM To: Sandra Finley Cc: Patricia Farnese; votelau@gmail.com; Larry Waldinger; ‘Mark Bigland-Pritchard / Low Energy Design Ltd’ Subject: RE: RE: Criminal Harassment by Sandra Finley
Sandra,
You having a blog post with information from Aug. 2013 on my dad is extremely unnerving and as inappropriate, bizarre, and insane as if you had a blog post with information on Larry’s mother or Patricia’s son or Mark’s daughter or Kaitlyn’s mother. It makes no sense. My dad has absolutely nothing to do with the Green Parties. I urge you not to endanger my family in whatever you’re doing.
Ashu
Return to Anchor, or
Return to The list of EMAILS SENT BY ASHU SOLO
Dec 092012
Update: In response to the call for assistance to pay for the costs of taking the Robocall scandal to Court,
- Dec 11: $4.2 K has been raised
- On Dec 8: $1.9K had been raised.
The total estimated cost will be $300K. Canadians still have a way to go! Please spread the word.
It’s easy to make a contribution on-line: https://fundrazr.com/campaigns/0OoK3
Or, donations can be sent:
Council of Canadians National office
700-170 Laurier Avenue West
Ottawa, ON, K1P 5V5 Canada
On my death-bed I would like to know that my children are receiving an intact democracy.
I figure that the Robocall Court Case is a better investment for their future and yours, than to save DOLLARS to pass along to them. Democracy is far more valuable!
Please forward to the strong of heart.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Maude Barlow, Council of Canadians writes:
HI Sandra –
Monday we go to Federal Court for the election fraud case and we are up against a huge machine – the Conservative Party of Canada and its phalanx of lawyers, lobbyists and marketers. We have prepared this social media fundraiser to build a defence fund for the applicants and would deeply appreciate your getting this out to your contacts. We agree with the applicants from six ridings who believe that electoral fraud took place in the days leading up to the last federal election and have put ourselves on the line to support them as they seek to have the elections in their ridings overturned and re-held.
Any help you can give us would be so great. Many thanks!
Maude
https://fundrazr.com/campaigns/0OoK3
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
What is the mainstream media telling Canadians about the upcoming Robocalls court case?
It starts Monday and it’s damned important. Do you know about it?
- The Ottawa Citizen has an excellent article (but how many of you live in Ottawa?). Robocalls (election fraud): Democracy’s day in court (Ottawa Citizen) by Glen McGregor and Stephen Maher
- The Winnipeg Free Press did a robocall article on November 22, but doesn’t actually say when the court case takes place. Robocall challengers stay firm, Winnipeg Free Press
I’m having trouble finding anything else, which is consistent with Comment #3 below.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
THREE COMMENTS ON THE OTTAWA CITIZEN ARTICLE (ON-LINE):
1. Linda Belanger
Maher and McGregor should get the order of Canada for their work on this. If the Supreme Court rules against the plaintiffs on this, we can kiss democracy goodbye. It doesn’t matter if the election results were affected or not, all that matters is that the fraud took place. No one can really ever ascertain if these seats would have gone the other way. The only fact that matters is that the Con party engaged in fraud on a large scale.
– – – – – – – – – – – – –
2. Bob Mulholland
The Council Of Canadians has set up an online fundraiser to help Linda Hirst, Ken Ferance and the others cover the $300K cost of this court case.
Please donate as much as you can and spread this fundraising campaign on all your social media channels:
https://fundrazr.com/campaigns/0OoK3
– – – – – – – – – – – – –
3. Marvin DiGeorgio
Congratulations to The Ottawa Citizen for following this story while other major newspapers like the Globe and Mail completely ignore it. I agree, democracy itself is at stake, and Canadians need to have the protection of the courts and the press.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
RELATED TO ROBOCALLS (You can also generate a list of past postings by clicking on “Robocalls” in the right-hand sidebar under “Corporatocracy or Democracy”)
1. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/03/15/pol-investigation-.html Misleading robocalls went to voters ID’d as non-Tories. Click on the link, wait a second for the colourful graphic at the top. There’s an arrow at bottom right – click to get the CBC TV News broadcast with appearances by some of the people that make up the evidence.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
2. www.votemoving.com/ckuw.mp3
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
3. 2012-03-14 Voter fraud concerns in east Toronto widespread (This is part of the “How” votes get “moved”.)
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
4. 2012-03-15 Great video: Rally in Ottawa Against 2011 Election Fraud
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
5. 2012-03-15 Important info: The legal status of #robocalls – – Election fraud or dirty tricks? By Peter Rosenthal.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
6. (2008) The Canadian Nixon
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/apr/24/thecanadiannixon
From the British paper The Guardian:
Stephen Harper’s feud with Elections Canada is just the latest front in his war against government institutions
Dimitry Anastakis and Jeet Heer guardian.co.uk, Thursday 24 April 2008 21.00 BST
Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper is in trouble with Elections Canada, the government body that runs the vote in Canada. They’ve accused him of overspending in the last election and have even gotten the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to raid the Conservative party’s headquarters to find incriminating evidence. In response Harper and his followers have lashed out against Elections Canada, accusing it of a partisan witch hunt.
The whole sorry situation shouldn’t surprise anyone who has paid attention. Every prime minister has a modus operandi. Harper’s is his utter contempt, shown not once but many times, for Canadian institutions. In fact, it is not a stretch to say that Harper simply sees many Canadian institutions – Elections Canada being simply his latest target – as illegitimate, not just in need of reform but worth attacking root-and-branch.
The historian Garry Wills once observed that Richard Nixon wanted to be president not to govern the nation but to undermine the government. The Nixon presidency was one long counterinsurgency campaign against key American institutions like the courts, the FBI, the state department and the CIA. Harper has the same basic approach to politics: attack not just political foes but the very institutions that make governing possible. The state for Nixon and Harper exists not as an instrument of policy making but as an alien force to be subdued.
Canadians have never had a prime minister who has literally made his career attacking and undermining the legitimacy of Canadian institutions.Until now. [ . . . . . ]
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
7. 03/14/2012 OTTAWA – Michael Sona has joined the ranks of other jilted Conservatives who suddenly find themselves defended and used by the official Opposition.
The young Tory staffer recently resigned as assistant to MP Eve Adams after unidentified sources were quoted as saying the Conservative party was investigating his possible role in placing controversial robocalls in Guelph, Ont., during the last federal election….
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
8. VIDEO: Who killed our democracy? Robocall justice now!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gf4zcb6gKOg
(From http://www.shitharperdid.ca/. See also, on their blog, upper right tab for “more”. Keep clicking on one after the other transgressions – – a reminder list.)
Dec 082012
In a lawsuit over allegations of voter suppression the integrity of the electoral system is at stake
By Glen McGregor and Stephen Maher, Ottawa Citizen
A few days before the May 2011 federal election, a phone operator in a Conservative Party call centre placed a call to the home of a retired couple in the northern Ontario town of Mattawa.
“Can I speak to Kenneth Ferance?” the caller asked.
“He’s sleeping right now. Can I help you with something?” said his wife, Linda Hearst.
“We’re calling from the Conservative Party,” the caller said. “Are you supporting the Conservative party?”
Hearst replied, “I wouldn’t vote for them if they were the only politician on the ballot,” and the operator politely ended the call.
On election day, after they voted, Ferance and Hearst received another call.
This caller claimed to be from Elections Canada. He told Ferance his polling station had been moved to a location about 20 kilometres away.
Ferance told the caller he was mistaken.
“It’s wrong because, A, I just voted. B, I live next door to the voting station, and C, I can still see people coming and going,” he recalled in an interview in April.
In Federal Court in Ottawa on Monday, a lawyer representing Ferance — along with voters in five other ridings who say they also received deceptive calls — will ask a judge to overturn the election results in their ridings.
The lawyer leading the challenge, Steven Shrybman, will argue that the elections ought to be set aside because of an orchestrated voter-suppression scheme, a deliberate attempt to stop people from voting, mostly by calling them and giving them misleading information about the location of their polling stations.
The litigation is backed by the left-of-centre advocacy group, the Council of Canadians, and targets six ridings all won by close margins by Conservatives, including Jay Aspin, who beat Liberal incumbent Anthony Rota by 18 votes in Ferance’s riding, Nipissing-Timiskaming.
In the courtroom, Shrybman will face Arthur Hamilton, the lawyer for the Conservative MPs. He will argue that the applicants can’t prove that they were disenfranchised, since they all voted in the election, and they haven’t managed to prove that the final result was affected by fraud.
The hearings will mark the first time a court has looked into allegations of voter suppression since the Ottawa Citizen and Postmedia News first reported on Elections Canada’s “robocall” investigation in February.
The reports drew public attention to an apparent pattern of voter suppression calls and prompted a nationwide investigation into calls like the one Ferance received. Even as the Federal Court case gets underway, Elections Canada continues to investigate misdirecting robocalls made in the riding of Guelph and misleading live and recorded calls reported by voters across the country. The applicants in the Federal Court cases must meet a difficult legal burden, proving that any “irregularity, fraud, corrupt practice or illegal practice” was enough to change the outcome of the votes.
Proving that is tough, as former Liberal MP Borys Wrzesnewskyj found out this year, when the Supreme Court of Canada rejected his attempt to have the election result in Etobicoke Centre overturned because of administrative errors that cast doubt on some of the ballots cast in that Toronto riding.
But Shrybman has a lot more evidence than he did when he launched the lawsuit, and he has since won a series of legal skirmishes that could have killed the case.
In an April interview with the Toronto Star, Hamilton predicted the court would quickly shut down the case.
“They don’t have any backup,” he said. “This is a publicity stunt.”
In July, though, the Federal Court rejected Hamilton’s argument. Federal prothonotary Martha Milczynski ruled that the calls could shake public confidence in the system.
“Far from being frivolous or vexatious, or an obvious abuse, the applications raise serious issues about the integrity of the democratic process in Canada and identify practices that, if proven, point to a campaign of activities that would seek to deny eligible voters their right to vote and/or manipulate or interfere with that right being exercised freely,” she ruled.
The court also rejected a motion from Hamilton that would have required the applicants to present a $260,000 surety, and refused to rule as inadmissible the key to Shrybman’s case: a study from EKOS pollster Frank Graves, who found that opposition supporters in the target ridings were more likely to report having received a deceptive call than either Conservatives or opposition supporters in other ridings.
Shrybman maintains the Graves study proves that the results were affected by voter suppression calls. The Conservatives paint Graves as a partisan opponent and attack the validity of his work, although he has received the backing of experts Michael Adams and Neil Nevitte.
Shrybman also has Annette Desgagne, a woman who worked for Responsive Marketing Group (RMG), the call centre company contracted by the Conservatives, who says she was alarmed at being asked to make what appeared to be deceptive calls. Her testimony was contradicted by that of RMG CEO Andrew Langhorne.
Last month, Elections Canada handed two batches of fresh evidence to Shrybman.
First was a series of internal emails that show the agency contacted the Conservatives during the campaign to express concern about reports of deceptive calls. Secondly, the agency gave Shrybman the first results of a national investigation into the calls.
Elections Canada handed over court documents detailing 87 complaints from voters in six provinces, most of whom report receiving fake poll-moving calls, some from live callers, others robocalls, like the “Pierre Poutine” call that sent hundreds of voters to the wrong polling station in Guelph.
The complaints so far outlined in the court documents concern only the calls received by voters who get their home phone service from Shaw and Videotron: only about 7.5 per cent of the total complaints. At least one more document — concerning complaints from those who get their phone service from Rogers — is likely to be released soon.
How much weight to give all the evidence will be decided by Justice Richard Mosley, who was appointed to the bench by former prime minister Jean Chrétien, and who previously put the government of Stephen Harper in a politically awkward position with a ruling that found Omar Khadr’s human rights had been violated by his detention at the U.S.-run detention facility at Guantanamo Bay.
For the Conservative Party, there’s more at stake than just the jobs of six MPs. If the court voids the results in a single riding, the finding could reignite the robocalls scandal and shake public confidence in the electoral system.
Even if the court rejects the bids for new votes in the six ridings, a finding of wrongdoing by the judge could still be politically damaging for the Tories, leading to renewed calls for a public inquiry.
But a clear win in the cases would give the Conservatives a new political line of defence against robocalls allegations as the Elections Canada investigations proceed.
Although the Federal Court case has no bearing on the ongoing investigations in Guelph and elsewhere — which could result in criminal charges — the Tories would likely try to blur this distinction in order to rebuff opposition attacks. The party used the same tactic in the in-and-out scandal over advertising purchases in the 2006 election before it eventually pleaded guilty to Elections Act violations.
For Hearst and Ferance, the fact that the case is proceeding is a cause for optimism.
Hearst said Thursday that she has no idea who called her husband and told him his polling station had moved, but she believes that someone tried to trick them and she is glad a court is considering the issue.
“We shouldn’t tolerate any efforts to mess around with the vote,” she said. “It’s just such a dangerous thing to get started on. If you accept the first infraction the next one becomes easier for them, for whoever wants to do that.
“Whoever did it, for whatever reason, it was wrong.”
© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen
Dec 082012
Winnipeg Free Press – PRINT EDITION
Robocall challengers stay firm
Despite setback, voters, lobby group say they have a case
By: Mia Rabson
Posted: 11/22/2012 1:00 AM | Comments: 21
CP Fred Chartrand / The Canadian Press Voters Sandra McEwing (left) of Winnipeg and Peggy Walsh Craig of Ontario want those who would suppress voters to be held accountable.
OTTAWA — Winnipegger Sandra McEwing wants somebody to be held accountable for the robocalls scheme that attempted to disenfranchise thousands of voters during the 2011 federal election.
She is one of eight Canadians asking the Federal Court to overturn election results in six ridings, including Elmwood-Transcona and Winnipeg South Centre. The eight say robocalls misled voters about the location of their polling stations, which means the results cannot be trusted.
“I had no idea Canadian politics was so vulnerable to such underhanded behaviour,” McEwing said Wednesday at an Ottawa news conference.
Conservative MPs won all six ridings by a relatively small margin. Three of the eight electors are from Manitoba, two from Winnipeg South Centre and one from Elmwood-Transcona.
McEwing, who lives in Winnipeg South Centre, had already voted when she received a call on election day from someone alleging to be from Elections Canada. She knew the information was wrong but didn’t believe it was something nefarious. “I assumed it was just a clerical error,” she said.
She ensured her 18-year-old son, who hadn’t voted yet, went to the correct polling location.
She believes she was gullible for not realizing immediately someone was up to no good.
“It really makes me angry that someone is trying to mislead me and to mislead my son in his first election,” McEwing said.
More than 1,300 people from at least 200 ridings complained to Elections Canada about receiving similar calls.
The eight electors involved in the challenge allege they have evidence robocalls were far more widespread.
The case hit a snag after the only applicant who said she did not vote because of a robocall was disqualified.
Garry Neil, the executive director of the Council of Canadians — which is backing the case — said Wednesday the voter’s mistake was not knowing her riding, which is Don Valley East. She thought it was Don Valley West.
She knew her polling location and the candidates in her riding, he added.
She didn’t vote after being told her polling location had changed, he added.
With that riding removed from the case, six ridings remain.
An EKOS Research poll found the calls targeted Liberal and NDP voters more often and may have suppressed the non-Tory vote by one per cent in the seven original ridings.
That would equal about 6,800 votes, Neil said.
The Tories argue the group hasn’t produced a single voter who didn’t vote because of a robocall.
“The applicants allege that they received these calls, but admit they all voted normally,” the Conservatives argue in a 157-page document filed in court this week. “The applicants plead mass disenfranchisement, but none of them (was) disenfranchised.”
The Conservatives dispute the validity of the EKOS poll, saying its methodology is wrong.
The party has admitted it may have made calls to voters that improperly informed them of a polling location change but blamed that on potential mistakes in the party’s voter database.
Documents recently made public show a flurry of emails between Elections Canada and Conservative officials about the robocalls. In the emails, Elections Canada asks the party to stop making calls about polling station locations.
Peggy Walsh Craig is a voter in the northern Ontario riding of Nipissing-Timiskaming, which was lost by the Liberal incumbent by just 18 votes in 2011. She said she didn’t realize the call she got days before the election was fraudulent until news of the robocalls scandal broke last winter. Even if no results are overturned, she said she hopes those responsible learn a lesson.
“The people that carried out this voter suppression need to come to know the risks outweigh the benefits,” she said.
Meantime, the Council of Canadians has started a hotline so voters in three federal ridings where byelections are to be held Monday — Durham (Ont.), Calgary Centre and Victoria — can report suspicious phone messages or live calls.
mia.rabson AT freepress.mb.ca
Dec 082012
Steve Staples, President of the Rideau Institute and the man behind www.ceasefire.ca, action in search of peace, relentlessly holding the Government’s feet to the fire on the F-35’s.
STEVE WRITES (to all supporters):
Dear Sandra,
I spent this morning on Parliament Hill. Stephen Harper’s government is in an absolute turmoil over the F-35 stealth fighters.
The Globe and Mail’s headline is “Ottawa scraps plan for F-35 jet,” while the National Post’s reads, “F-35 Dead in the Air.” Despite the headlines, which were spurred by an unnamed government source, the Harper government says nothing has changed. What is the truth?
Our Ceasefire.ca team responded quickly to the news reports, and we held a press conference on Parliament Hill.
Watch the video of our press conference: http://youtu.be/2ihlm_tAtRQ.
As you know, my commitment to you is to act as a voice for peace in Ottawa, and to confront Stephen Harper’s pro-war plans at every turn. So that’s what we tried to do.
You see, I am very concerned that this coverage is a smoke screen to hide the fact that Harper is sitting on another bombshell report, showing the cost of his F-35 stealth fighter scheme is approaching $40 billion (by comparison, in April, the Auditor General estimated $25 billion, and in March the PBO said $30 billion).
We demanded that the Harper government release this latest F-35 report, which was written by financial firm KMPG. There is only one week left before MPs take their holiday break. I bet Harper is counting the days.
We also explained to reporters that the F-35 is an offensive weapon system, to be used for “shock-and-awe” bombing missions. Canada has no need for it!
Today has been a very important day in our campaign. There’s no doubt that the Harper government is feeling the heat, but we need to keep up the pressure to stop the F-35 stealth fighters.
Thanks for your ongoing support, and everything you do for peace.
In peace,
Steven Staples
= = = = = = = = = = =
FOR MORE INFORMATION ON THE F-35: click on sub-category Lockheed Martin, War Economy (includes Cdn Census & Trials). I’ll try to find time to create a separate sub-category that is only F-35 material. There are, for example, reports on other countries that have backed out of F-35 contracts (for good reason).
A contract for the F-35’s has not yet been signed by the Govt of Canada (listen to the above video, Steve Staples). You may remember that Harper’s deal to buy the F-35’s did not go through the required Government tendering process.
Dec 082012
Kim writes:
Here’s an interesting perspective on drone warfare from TomDispatch that may assist your efforts to expose prospective cyberwar research by Lockheed Martin at U of S. (BELOW)
REPLY: Thanks! I also watched the interview between Engelhardt and Bill Moyers that was linked in. Good stuff. (At the end of the article: You can see his recent interview with Bill Moyers on supersized politics, drones, and other subjects by clicking here.)
= = = = = = = = = = = =
The Barack Obama Story (Updated)
How a Community Organizer and Constitutional Law Professor Became a Robot President
By Tom Engelhardt
President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear President Obama,
Nothing you don’t know, but let me just say it: the world’s a weird place. In my younger years, I might have said “crazy,” but that was back when I thought being crazy was a cool thing and only regretted I wasn’t.
I mean, do you ever think about how you ended up where you are? And I’m not actually talking about the Oval Office, though that’s undoubtedly a weird enough story in its own right.
After all, you were a community organizer and a constitutional law professor and now, if you stop to think about it, here’s where you’ve ended up: you’re using robots to assassinate people you personally pick as targets. You’ve overseen and escalated off-the-books robot air wars in Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen, and are evidently considering expanding them to Mali and maybe even Libya. You’ve employed what will someday be defined as a weapon of mass destruction, launching history’s first genuine cyberwar against a country that isn’t threatening to attack us. You’ve agreed to the surveillance of more Americans every which way from Sunday than have ever been listened in on or (given emailing, texting, and tweeting) read. You came into office proclaiming a “sunshine” policy and yet your administration has classified more documents (92,064,862 in 2011) than any other in our history. Despite signing a Whistleblower Enhancement Protection Act, you’ve used the Espionage Act on more government whistleblowers and leakers than all previous administrations combined, and yet your officials continue to leak secret material they see as advantageous to the White House without fear of prosecution. Though you deep-sixed the Bush administration name for it — “the Global War on Terror” (ridding the world of GWOT, one of the worst acronyms ever) — you’ve accepted the idea that we are “at war” with terror and on a “global battlefield” which (see above) you’re actually expanding. You’re still keeping uncharged, untried prisoners of not-quite-war in an offshore military prison camp of injustice that, on the day you came into office, you promised to close within a year. You’re overseeing planning that, according to recent reports, will continue the Afghan War in some form until at least 2017 or possibly well beyond. You preside over an administration that has encouraged the further militarization of the CIA (to which you appointed as director not a civilian but a four-star general you assumedly wanted to tuck safely away during campaign season). You’ve overseen the further militarization of the State Department; you’ve encouraged a major expansion of the special operations forces and its secret presidential army, the Joint Special Operations Command, cocooned inside the U.S. military/ You’ve overseen the further post-9/11 expansion of an already staggering national security budget and the further growth of our labyrinthine “Intelligence Community” — and though who remembers anymore, you even won what must have been the first prospective Nobel Prize for Peace more or less before you did a damn thing, and then thanked the Nobel Committee with a full-throated defense of the right of the U.S. to do what it pleased, militarily, on the planet! And if that isn’t a weird legacy-in-formation, what is?
I mean, you have my sympathies. The Bush administration did you no favors. You inherited hell for a foreign policy and when it came to matters like Guantanano, the Republicans in Congress hung you out to dry.
Still, who woulda thunk it? Don’t these “accomplishments” of yours sometimes amaze you? Don’t you ever wake up in the middle of the night wondering just who you are? Don’t you, like me, open your eyes some mornings in a state of amazement about just how you ended up on this particular fast-morphing planet? Are you as stunned as I am by the fact that a tanker carrying liquid natural gas is now making a trip from Norway to Japan across the winter waters of the Arctic? Twenty days at sea lopped off an otherwise endless voyage via the Mediterranean Sea, and the Indian and Pacific Oceans. Did you ever think you’d live to see the opening of the Northeast Passage in winter? Don’t you find it ironic that fossil fuels, which helped burn that oceanic hole in the Arctic ice, were the first commercial products shipped through those open waters? Don’t you find it just a tad odd that you can kill someone in distant Yemen without the slightest obstacle and yet you’ve been able to do next to nothing when it comes to global warming? I mean, isn’t that world-championship weird, believe-it-or-not bizarre, and increasingly our everyday reality?
Aren’t you amazed that your Pentagon has recently issued a directive meant to ensure that armed robots will never kill human beings on their own? Not so long ago, that was the stuff of sci-fi; now, it’s the subject of a bureaucratic document. Tell that to Skynet someday, right?
Who could make this stuff up? Maybe William Gibson — maybe he already did — but not me and my guess is not you either.
Putting Yourself in a Box
I know that we humans are terrible at predicting the future. Still, if I had told you back in, say, 2003 that, in the wake of a lawless administration, we would vote a constitutional lawyer into the White House as a “peace candidate” and he’d do exactly what you’ve done so far (see, again, above), you wouldn’t have believed it, would you? And if I had told you it would be you, I’ll put my money on your laughing me out of any room (not that I’ve ever been in a room with you).
Just the other day, something leaked by two “administration officials” onto the front-page of the New York Times got me started on this letter. In a piece headlined “Election Spurred a Move to Codify U.S. Drone Policy,” reporter Scott Shane wrote that, fearing you might lose to Mitt Romney, you were rushing to develop “a formal rule book,” including “explicit rules for the targeted killing of terrorists by unmanned drones, so that a new president would inherit clear standards and procedures.” You won the election, of course, but Shane claims you’re “still pushing” — though at a far more leisurely pace — “to make the rules formal and resolve… exactly when lethal action is justified.”
To use your term, you are putting “a legal architecture” in place for a process of White House-directed robotic assassination — you call them “targeted killings” — that will assumedly be long-lasting. These are acts that in the years before 9/11, as Shane points out, Washington used to condemn when Israel committed them and that most countries consider illegal to this day.
I understand why the idea of Mitt Romney as assassin-in-chief made you nervous and why you wanted to put him in a straitjacket of drone codification. But it’s hard not to ask — and I’m not the first to do so — what about you? It’s human nature to trust ourselves over the other guy, but has it occurred to you that some of us might have the same reaction to you at the helm of a globalizing robot war as you had to Mitt?
In any case, haven’t you already managed to do to yourself what you planned to do to him — without cutting down the killing appreciably, including the deaths of civilians, children, at least four American citizens, and a Yemeni deputy provincial governor who had nothing to do with al-Qaeda? If press reports are to be believed, you’ve already been fully involved in regularizing, bureaucratizing, legalizing, and codifying your drone wars. In other words, you’ve put yourself deep inside a developing system in which you no longer have a hope in hell of imagining the world any other way.
Here’s a little history of the process (not that you of all people don’t already know it): You inherited an ad hoc Bush administration program of CIA drone strikes in the Pakistani tribal borderlands that started in 2004 and was originally aimed at top al-Qaeda types. But as will happen, those “targeted killings” became ever less targeted, spreading to lower level al-Qaeda types, Taliban leaders, Taliban “foot soldiers,” and finally what came to be called “signature strikes” against “patterns of behavior.” (A group of military-age males with weapons, say, in an area believed to be controlled by Islamic extremists.)
We know that President Bush took you aside at the changeover moment and urged you to continue the drone wars in Pakistan (along with his cyberwar program against Iran). And though it must have been very new to you, you did so, expanding them in Pakistan and extending them in a major way to Yemen, while ever more drone bases were built in key areas of the world and ever more drones ordered up.
As this happened, those wars became ever less ad hoc, ever more organized and bureaucratic. A regular process for deciding on individual “targets” came into being. You had your “baseball cards” (PowerPoint slides on potential individuals to target) that you discussed in your regular “Terror Tuesday” meetings. Where once George W. Bush kept in his desk drawer a “personal scorecard,” a list of bad guys to cross out whenever one of them was killed, you now have an official “kill list.” Where once these strikes were just launched, you got the Office of Legal Counsel to produce a 50-page legalistic justification for using drones to kill a U.S. citizen. It and other legal memos on drone use have never been released to the public or even to congressional leaders. Still, your top officials feel free to use them to their advantage in public defense of U.S. counterterror policies. (Note that the Bush administration did the same thing with its torture policies, producing Justice Department “torture memos” that “legalized” acts which, in almost any other context, or if committed by any enemy nation, would have been denounced as nightmarish acts of international illegality and that, in the past, the U.S. had prosecuted as crimes of war.)
Now, Shane reports, you’ve had the urge to codify it all and so institutionalize a presidential right to conduct assassination campaigns without regard to Congress, the American people, national sovereignty, the world, or previous standards of legality. And that is an accomplishment of the first order. I mean — Voilà! — you’ve officially created the box that no one can think outside of.
You are — so the story goes — the most powerful man on Earth. From the Oval Office, you should have the widest of wide-angle views. But sometimes don’t you feel that you’re trapped like a rat inside a maze in part (but only in part) of your own creation?
Dreaming Before It’s Too Late
Of course, I’ve never gotten nearer to the Oval Office than Pennsylvania Avenue, so what do I know about how it’s like there? Still, I’m older than you and I do know how repetitive acts rigidify, how one possible way morphs into the only way, how one limited system of living comes to seem like the only option on Earth. It happens with age. It also happens in Washington.
The other day, I noted this little passage in a New York Times report on the discovery of huge quantities of ice on Mercury: “Sean C. Solomon, the principal investigator for [the spacecraft] Messenger, said there was enough ice there to encase Washington, D.C., in a frozen block two and a half miles deep.” I couldn’t help smiling. After all, the Washington I read about already seems enclosed in a block of ice, which is why, when it comes to the world, it so seldom thinks a new thought or acts in a new way.
If only you could reverse time and take a step back into the world of the community organizer. After all, what does such an organizer do, if not try to free people from the rigidities of their lives, the boxes they can’t think outside of, the blocks of ice they’re encased in, the acts that have come to dominate them and regularly wipe out any sense of alternative possibilities? What’s the point of community organizing if not to allow people to begin to imagine other ways of being and becoming?
Maybe you don’t even realize how you’ve been boxed into, and boxed yourself into, the codifications from hell, almost all based on our militarizing way of life. Outside that box where the bureaucratized killing takes place, where the “wars” are fought, and the battle plans are endlessly recalibrated in ways too familiar to matter, outside the airless world of the National Security Complex where one destructive set of ways has become the only way, there surely are other possibilities that could result in other kinds of worlds. After all, just because you’re trapped in a box doesn’t mean that the world is. Look at the Middle East. For better or worse, it visibly isn’t.
Back in 2009 when you first took office, I wrote a speech for you. In it, “you” told the American people that you were “ending, not expanding, two wars.” I knew that you would never give such a speech (no less read mine), but I did believe that, despite the “wisdom” of Washington, you could indeed have put both of Bush’s wars — Iraq and Afghanistan — behind you. We’ll never know, of course. You chose another path, a “surge” of 30,000 troops, CIA operatives, special forces operators, private contractors, and State Department types that led to yet more disastrous years in Afghanistan.
Unfortunately, the ghostly what-ifs of history count for nothing. Still, haven’t you ever wondered whether something else wasn’t possible? Whether, for instance, sending bombs and missiles into poverty-stricken, essentially energy-less, essentially foodless Yemen was really and truly the way to world peace?
My apologies! I let sarcasm get the better of me. How about: really and truly the way to enhance U.S. national security? Honestly, Yemen? Most Americans couldn’t find it on the map to win the lottery, and according to reports, American drone and air strikes have actually increased membership in al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. And yet you won’t stop. You probably can’t.
Similarly, don’t you ever wonder whether a “pivot” to Asia, mainly involving military power and guaranteed to exacerbate regional relations in the Pacific is the best way to deal with the rising power of China? After all, what would it mean to go to war with the country which now holds well more than $1 trillion in U.S. debt? Wouldn’t it be like shooting ourselves in the foot, if not the head?
And don’t you ever wonder whether a labyrinth of 17 (yes, 17!) major agencies and outfits in the U.S. “Intelligence Community” (and even more minor ones), spending at least $75 billion annually, really makes us either safe or smart? Mightn’t we be more “intelligent” and less paranoid about the world if we spent so much less and relied instead on readily available open-source material?
I mean, there are so many things to dream about. So many ghostly possibilities to conjure up. So many experimental acts that offer at least a chance at another planet of possibility. It would be such a waste if you only reverted to your community-organizer or constitutional-law self after you left office, once “retirement syndrome” kicked in, once those drones were taking off at the command of another president and it was too late to do a thing. You could still dream then, but what good would those dreams do us or anyone else?
Tom Engelhardt, co-founder of the American Empire Project and author of The United States of Fear as well as The End of Victory Culture, his history of the Cold War, runs the Nation Institute’s TomDispatch.com. His latest book, co-authored with Nick Turse, is Terminator Planet: The First History of Drone Warfare, 2001-2050. You can see his recent interview with Bill Moyers on supersized politics, drones, and other subjects by clicking here.
Follow TomDispatch on Twitter @TomDispatch and join us on Facebook. Check out the newest Dispatch book, Nick Turse’s The Changing Face of Empire: Special Ops, Drones, Proxy Fighters, Secret Bases, and Cyberwarfare.
Copyright 2012 Tom Engelhardt
Dec 082012
U.S. CENSUS BUREAU: http://2010.census.gov/partners/pdf/cccTrainingManual.pdf
ALBERTA MUNICIPAL CENSUS TAKING (excerpts included) http://www.finance.alberta.ca/aboutalberta/population_reports/municipal_census_training_manual.pdf
Municipal Census Training Manual
Guidelines for Conducting a Municipal Census
© Government of Alberta 2009
INSERT Notes:
The status of this Manual (2009) is “can’t be stored in a retrieval system“, etc.
Perhaps that has changed. It is posted on the internet by the Government (Govt of Alberta URL).
Further, the information contained in the Manual is just common sense, nothing to be secretive about.
If I am wrong and the Manual is on-line accidentally, the only reason I can think why they would put the confidentiality clause in, is that they might not want people to know what is clearly stated in the document: there is no legal obligation for people to participate in the municipal census. The collection of data is dependent upon the goodwill of citizens and others.
Although it is clearly stated in the body of the Manual that the data collection cannot be legally compelled (see excerpts from Pages 4 and 6 below), there is nonetheless a heading OPTIONAL SECTIONS ON THE CENSUS FORM.
I hope I am not accused of undermining the ability to collect data for decision-making. Statistics Canada started all this by out-sourcing work on the Canadian census to Lockheed Martin Corporation. They have persisted in spite of great and legitimate opposition from citizens.
IMPORTANT: prior to the excerpts from the Training Manual (2009), it might be that the Govt of Alberta changed their law in 2010:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hwy43/Sandbox/Municipal_census_in_Canada
Municipal census
Four provinces and territories in Canada have legislation empowering municipalities to conduct a municipal census.[1] These include the provinces of Alberta[2] and Saskatchewan[3] and the territories of Nunavut[4][5] and Yukon.[6] Of these four provinces and territories, municipalities in Alberta were the only ones that exercise the option to conduct a municipal census as of 2006.[1]
Alberta
In the Province of Alberta, Section 57 of its Municipal Government Act (MGA) is the enabling legislation that allows municipalities to perform their own censuses on any given year.[2] The MGA’s Determination of Population Regulation requires that a municipal census must be conducted no earlier than April 1 and no later than June 30 of the same year.[7] If a municipality would like to have its resulting municipal census population count accepted by Alberta Municipal Affairs (AMA) as an official population recognized by the Government of Alberta, it must:
meet the requirements of the Determination of Population Regulation;
conduct the census in accordance with the Municipal Census Training Manual;[8] and submit the resulting population to AMA prior to September 1 of the year the census was performed using a population affadavit.
The latest census counts for Alberta’s municipalities are released in the Ministry’s annual Official Population List[9] publication.
References
1.^ a b “Municipal Census Policy (City Council Agenda Item No. E.1.l)”. City of Edmonton. 2006-05-31. Retrieved 2010-12-26.
2.^ a b “Municipal Government Act”. Alberta Queen’s Printer. 2010-09-10. Retrieved 2010-10-24.
3.^ “The Municipalities Act”. Government of Saskatchewan. 2006-01-01. Retrieved 2010-10-24.
4.^ “Cities, Towns and Villages Act”. Government of Nunavut. Retrieved 2010-10-24.
5.^ “Hamlets Act”. Government of Nunavut. Retrieved 2010-10-24.
6.^ “Municipal Act”. Government of Yukon. 2002. Retrieved 2010-10-24.
7.^ “Determination of Population Regulation”. Alberta Queen’s Printer. 2006. Retrieved 2010-10-24.
8.^ Alberta Finance and Enterprise (2009). “Municipal Census Training Manual”. Retrieved 2010-10-24.
9.^ Official Population List
Hinton [1]
Slave Lake [2]
From the Alberta Municipal Census Training Manual:
PAGE 4:
Informing Residents About the Census
Participation is key to a successful census. As a municipal census is not mandatory for residents to partake in, it is essential to increase participation through awareness of the census and its importance to the community.
– – – – – – – – – – – – –
PAGE 6:
Collecting Personal Information (NOTE: this section does not take into account the Charter Right to Privacy of personal information.)
“Personal information” is defined in section 1(1)(n) of theFOIP Act as recorded information about an identifiable individual, including the individual’s name, home or business address or telephone number, age, gender, marital or family status and information about the individual’s educational, financial or employment history, etc. Enumerators are collecting personal information during a municipal census. They are collecting individually identifiable information when they attach a name or other identifier to the personal information being collected.
Municipalities do not currently have the authority to collect names of household residents in connection with their other personal information, unless the census information is being audited or verified (e.g. by the department of Alberta Municipal Affairs). In the case of an unaudited population count, if the municipality provides an affidavit swearing to the official population count, names of residents are not needed.
NOW, BACK TO THE TEXT OF THE MUNICIPAL TRAINING MANUAL:
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without prior permission from Alberta Finance and Enterprise, Statistics Division.
Questions concerning this Training Manual, or further information on census methodologies, terms, and techniques for are welcome and can be directed to: Alberta Finance and Enterprise, Economics & Statistics Statistics Unit Room 545, Terrace Building 9515 – 107 Street Edmonton, Alberta T5K 2C3 Telephone: (780) 427-3099 Fax: (780) 427-0409. To be connected toll free in Alberta, first dial 310-0000. To contact us by e-mail: Finance.Statistics@gov.ab.ca
Preface
The procedures outlined in this manual constitute general standard practices used in conducting a census of population, and are intended as guidelines only. For information regarding the prescribed authority, for filing official population counts as specified under the Municipal Government Act , please contact Alberta Municipal Affairs at (780) 427-2225.
PART 1: AUTHORITY FOR A MUNICIPAL CENSUS …………………………………….1
PART 2: APPLYING FOIP TO A MUNICIPAL CENSUS ………………………………….2
PART 3: CONDUCTING A STANDARD MUNICIPAL CENSUS ………………………3
THE ROLE OF THE CENSUS COORDINATOR …………………………………………..
Informing Residents About the Census ………………………………………………………….4
Enumeration Areas ………………………………………………………………………………………4
Hiring and Training ……………………………………………………………………………………..5
Supervising …………………………………………………………………………………………. 5
Preparation ………………………………………………………………………………………… 6
Collection and Analysis of Census Data …………………………………………………………..6
Collecting Personal Information …………………………………………………………………….6
Review and Processing of Forms ……………………………………………………………………6
Analysis …………………………………………………………………………………………………. 7
Retention of Census Forms and Information …………………………………………
THE ROLE OF THE ENUMERATOR ………………………………………………………….. 8
Your Responsibilities …………………………………………………………………………………. 8
Confidentiality ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 8
Your Approach …………………………………………………………………………………………… 8
Your Routine ……………………………………………………………………………………… 8
Your Routine ……………………………………………………………………………………… 8
Assistance From Your Census Coordinator ………………………………………………….. 9
THE ENUMERATOR’S MATERIALS ………………………………………………………….. 9
THE ENUMERATION AREA ……………………………………………………………………. 10
The Enumeration Area Census Map ………………………………………………………….. 10
Method of Covering Your Area …………………………………………………………………. 10
(i) Urban Coverage ………………………………………………………………………………….. 10
(ii) Rural Coverage ………………………………………………………………………………….. 11
INTERVIEWING PROCEDURES …………………………………………………………….. 12
Where to Interview …………………………………………………………………………………. 12
Whom to Interview …………………………………………………………………………………. 12
Letter of Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………. 12
The Interview ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 12
Unusual Situations ………………………………………………………………………………….. 13
CALL-BACKS ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 15
COMPLETING THE CENSUS FORM: GENERAL POINTS …………………………. 16
COMPLETING THE CENSUS FORM: SPECIFIC POINTS ………………………….. 17
Geographic Profile ………………………………………………………………………………….. 17
1. Type and Name of Municipality …………………………………………………………….. 17
2. Census Date ………………………………………………………………………………………… 17
3. Municipality Code ……………………………………………………………………………….. 18
4. Form Number ……………………………………………………………………………………… 18
5. Address ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 18
6. Enumeration Area ………………………………………………………………………………… 18
7. For Rural Use Only ……………………………………………………………………………….. 19
8. Dwelling Type ……………………………………………………………………………………… 20
9. Dwelling Is ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 23
Usual Number of Residents ……………………………………………………………………… 24
Usual Residents: Definition ……………………………………………………………………… 24
Include as Usual Residents ………………………………………………………………………. 25
Do Not Include as Usual Residents …………………………………………………………… 25
Table of Contents
OPTIONAL SECTIONS ON THE CENSUS FORM ……………………………………… 26
Demographic Profile ……………………………………………………………………………….. 27
1. Number ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 27
2. Sex ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 27
3. Age …………………………………………………………………………………………… 27
Household Profile ……………………………………………………………………………………. 28
1. Relationship to Person …………………………………………………………………………. 28
2. Length of Residence in this Municipality………………………………………………… 29
3. Previous Residence ……………………………………………………………………………… 30
Employment Profile ………………………………………………………………………………… 31
1. Employment Status ……………………………………………………………………………… 31
2. Employment Location …………………………………………………………………………. 32
Elective Categories ………………………………………………………………………………….. 33
1. Type of Industry ………………………………………………………………………………….. 33
2. Type of Occupation ……………………………………………………………………………… 36
3. Marital Status ……………………………………………………………………………………… 37
4. Highest Education Level Attained …………………………………………………………. 37
5. Number of Bedrooms …………………………………………………………………………… 38
6. Conditions of Occupancy ……………………………………………………………………… 38
7. Previous Residence (by Province) …………………………………………………………. 39
8. Mode of Travel to Work ………………………………………………………………………. 39
SUMMARY OF ENUMERATION PROCEDURES ……………………………………… 40
REFERENCES ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 41
APPENDICES ………………………………………………………………………………………… 42
CENSUS ENUMERATOR’S OATH OF OFFICE …………………………………………. 43
LETTER OF INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………………………… 44
CALL-BACK MATERIALS ………………………………………………………………………. 45
Call-Back Form ……………………………………………………………………………………… 46
Call-Back Card ………………………………………………………………………………………. 45
RESPONSE CATEGORY CARD ………………………………………………………………. 47
Side 2 …………………………………………………………………………………………………… 48
Side 1 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 47
ELECTIVE RESPONSE CATEGORY CARD ……………………………………………… 49
STANDARD CENSUS FORM ………………………………………………………………….. 51
DWELLING TYPES ……………………………………………………………………………….. 52
2009 MUNICIPAL CODES …………………………………………………………………….. 53
FOIP INFORMATION FOR CONDUCTING A MUNICIPAL CENSUS ………… 58
– 1 –
PART 1: AUTHORITY FOR A MUNICIPAL CENSUS
The authority for conducting a municipal census is contained in the Municipal Government Act and the Determination of Population Regulation.
Section 57 of the Municipal Government Act (MGA) provides the authority for municipalities to conduct a census. Section 6 of the MGA provides that a municipality has natural person powers, except to the extent that they are limited by any enactment.
The Determination of Population Regulation, defines official census and usual residence, and provides the time frame to conduct an official census and submit the results to the Minister of Municipal Affairs.
A municipality wishing to conduct a census must keep in mind that the regulation requires only a count of usual residents. If the municipality decides to collect information in addition to a resident count, it should consider the relevant provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP), particularly those relating to the collection, use, and protection of personal information.
Please see the following page for more information on FOIP.
Municipalities should also be aware that the legislative provisions about census may change and the municipalities should ensure that they are always working with the updated legislation.
. . . Municipalities are encouraged to consult with their own legal counsel about the authority and the type of information they would like to collect prior to conducting a census to ensure that their plan will be consistent with the MGA and the FOIP Act.
Municipal Government Act , please call: Alberta Municipal Affairs Phone: (780) 427-2225
. . . (Sandra: Please go to the URL if you wish to see the whole document.)
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
AM ORGANIZATION, UNFPA, THAT HELPS GOVERNMENTS DO THEIR CENSUSES: http://www.unfpa.org/webdav/site/global/shared/documents/procurement/Census_Procurement_ENGLISH.pdf
CANADA – 1956 CENSUS TRAINING MANUAL: http://archive.org/details/1956981956I31956eng
That’s all I have time to look up now. There’s more online!