Sandra Finley

2012-05-19 TO: MP Blake Richards re his private member’s bill to make it a crime to wear a mask at protests. Remember Montebello, it was the police who wore the masks.

Corporatocracy or Democracy or Administrative State or WHAT?, Peace or Violence No Responses »

May 192012

Please consider forwarding this to police and military officers you might know.

Blake Richards is the Conservative MP for the Alberta constituency called Wild Rose. He wants to make it a Criminal Code offence to wear a mask at a “riot or an unlawful assembly”.

From his blog http://www.blakerichards.ca/about.cfm

In October 2011, Blake introduced Private Member’s Bill C-309 in the House of Commons. The bill if passed would make it a new Criminal Code offence to wear a mask or to otherwise conceal one’s identity during a riot or an unlawful assembly. The bill has garnered the support of police chiefs in major Canadian cities, including Calgary, Toronto, Vancouver and Victoria.

Should I support Blake’s call to make it illegal to wear masks at protests? . . . Email sent to Blake:

TO: blake AT blakerichards.ca

Dear Blake Richards,

I believe you would want to know this event that involved masked protesters. I also sent a brief to the CBC Radio programme, “Day 6” that interviewed you on the morning of May 19.

EVENT: SPP meetings in Montebello, Quebec. Peaceful protest.

DATE: 2007

The only protesters who wore masks were POLICE OFFICERS. They were trained and assigned the role of turning the protest violent.

It is all on video, along with the later statement by the head of Quebec Police (Surete) that yes, the “protesters” were actually police officers.

Peaceful protesters tried to stop these “violent protesters” from using rocks against the line of uniformed police officers who were holding shields and wearing riot gear.

An observant person noticed that the “violent protesters” were wearing police boots and shouted it out. The legitimate protesters then reached in and yanked down the masks so that others could catch the revealed faces on video.

Through video footage, the officers were later identified. The head of the Quebec police was then forced to make a public statement, admitting that the masked “violent” protesters were police officers. He excused their actions.

Links to the video of the Montebello footage and the Police response are contained in http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=747

For at least 15 months, demands for a public inquiry went unheeded. An inquiry was eventually announced. As far as I know, it was never held. No one was ever held to account.

It is illegal to incite violence. When it is masked police offers who are doing it, under the direction and blessing of their superiors, then implicitly sanctioned by the Government (no action to correct), we have descended to a police state.

The documentary film, Battle in Seattle, (huge WTO protests) makes it clear that in some cases it is a police (National Guard) strategy to ALLOW violence to get out-of-hand BEFORE they step in with tear gas and rubber bullets. (Violence discredits the protesters AND makes citizens reluctant to protest). Montebello is ample evidence that in some cases it is the police themselves who instigate the violence, who are the provocateurs.

OFFICIALS LEARN:

Governments and Police officials took lessons from “The Battle in Seattle”. (It took place in the U.S. but remember that Canadian and U.S. military and police are now “integrated” and have “compatible doctrine”. Also note: The WTO, the SPP and the SPP successor organization have a common base: transnational corporate interests.)

It seems to me that the Officials took two things away from Montebello:

Disguised police officers planted in a crowd must not wear police boots OR, maybe it is safer to CONTRACT OUT such work.
They can do whatever they want: Canadians are dumb, uninformed and without backbone. Canadians won’t stand up for ANYTHING. The talk about defending what the veterans fought and died for in World War Two (democracy) is meaningless rhetoric.

Another brief point: Media portray the Quebec protests as student protests over tuition hikes. They fail to note that the largest protests in Quebec happened on Earth Day and are about the failure of Governments to protect the Environment. http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=5143

Failed protection of the environment, the SPP and its successor organization, corporate influence in Universities, failing democracy, widening income gaps – – the ROOT is the same: large corporate interests being served by Governments and public institutions.

In CONCLUSION:

Protests will continue to escalate because NOTHING is being done to address the root cause: the Government, Police Officials and Universities have become tools to serve corporate interests.
Montebello is misleading VIEWED IN ISOLATION. The mistake of “officials” is to add insult upon insult. Growing protest tells me that Canadians know the dangers; they are standing up – with much more to come, unless Government officials start to aggressively defend
and serve the public interest.

I am thinking of supporting your call to make it illegal to wear masks at protests (unmask the police). However,

it should also be illegal for police officials to contract out their “work” (they will do that if they are “unmasked”).
there also needs to be extremely strong whistle-blower protection for police officers.

Thank-you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Sandra Finley

(address)

– – – – – – – – – – —

APPENDED: LINK TO CBC Interview with Blake Richards.

http://www.cbc.ca/day6/

Most Recent Podcast

Day 6 Podcast – May 19, 2012
Unmasking Quebec protesters; Download To download a file, right click and save.

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

Contact info for individual MPs and Senators: http://www.canada.gc.ca/directories-repertoires/direct-eng.html#mem

Email addresses for Canadian MP’s, copy and paste the whole batch: http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=3297

2012-05-11 Harvard to be tried for research fraud.

Corporatocracy or Democracy or Administrative State or WHAT?, Take back the University No Responses »

May 162012

” Inasmuch as no effective, safe treatment for Alzheimer’s exists, and ALL such screening tests have been demonstrably inaccurate and inconsistent, such an “early intervention” approach in clinical practice is unethical and controversial.”

http://www.omsj.org/corruption/harvard-to-be-tried-for-research-fraud

Harvard To Be Tried for Research Fraud

11 May (AHRP) – The US Court of Appeals, 1st Circuit has overturned a summary judgement by a lower court ordering a whistleblower lawsuit filed by Dr. Kenneth Jones against Harvard Medical School, its teaching hospitals, Brigham and Women’s and Massachusetts General Hospital, and Dr. Marilyn Albert (Principal Investigator) and Dr. Ronald Killiany to proceed to trial.

by VERA SHARAV

AHRP

The case involves the largest Alzheimer’s disease [AD] research grants awarded by the National Institutes of Health (from 1980 through 2007) for a large project aimed at identifying early physical signs of Alzheimer’s by scanning certain regions of the brain with MRIs.

Dr. Jones was the chief statistician for the NIH grant. He blew the whistle after realizing that measurements used to demonstrate the reliability of the study had been secretly altered. Without these alterations, Dr. Jones explained, there was no statistical significance to the major findings of the study. When he insisted that the altered measurements be subjected to an independent reliability study, and that the manipulated results could not be presented as part of a $15 million federal grant extension application, he was terminated and his career came to an end.

The allegations in the suit concern multiple research fraud: data manipulation, significant deviations from the protocol, altered and re-traced MRI scans. To get positive results, Dr. Jones alleges, Dr. Killiany “fraudulently altered the MRI study data prior to 1998 to produce false results of a statistically significant correlation between conversion to AD and volume of the EC [entorhinal cortex].”

He further alleged that Dr. Albert and Dr. Killiany violated federal regulations (43 CFR 50.103(c)(3) by making false statements in the NIH grant application: Statements that “were predicated on falsified data that the defendants, knowing of this falsity, failed to take corrective action or disavow the data.”

In overturning the lower court and ordering the case to proceed to trial, the Court of Appeals cited the lower court failure to consider substantial evidence of research fraud, and failed to consider relevant testimony from three expert witnesses presented by Dr. Jones:

“A statistician who confirmed that the alterations were responsible for the statistical significance of the study results, a medical researcher who identified that the altered results could not be justified and were changed to establish a predetermined outcome, and a third expert who confirmed that NIH would not have funded the study had the falsity of the data been revealed during the application process and that Harvard failed to adequately investigate allegations of research fraud.”

The Court of Appeals decision states:

“the essential dispute is about whether Killiany falsified scientific data by intentionally exaggerating the re-measurements of the EC to cause proof of a particular scientific hypothesis to emerge from the data, and whether statements made in the Application about having used blinded, reliable methods to produce those results were true.”

Michael D. Kohn, one of the lead attorneys for Dr. Jones said:

“This is a major breakthrough holding universities accountable for the integrity of reported research results. Fraud committed in order to obtain NIH funding not only robs taxpayers, but also sets back long-term medical research goals. The facts of this case indicate that the report of false data misdirected research efforts at other institutions.”

This case also underscores an inconvenient truth about the financial stakes that drive clinical trials. Those who are persuaded to serve as human subjects “for the good of humanity” and “to help medical progress” believe in the integrity and high mindedness of medical researchers–especially those at premier academic institutions. That trust, however, is all too often misplaced. Vulnerable human subjects are being shamelessly exploited in invalid, most often commercially driven experiments.

Indeed, the rationale behind the Harvard brain scanning experiment was to justify early interventions. Another example is Eli Lilly’s Alzeheimer’s imaging detection test (Amyvid) launched last month.

Inasmuch as no effective, safe treatment for Alzheimer’s exists, and ALL such screening tests have been demonstrably inaccurate and inconsistent, such an “early intervention” approach in clinical practice is unethical and controversial.

Tags: Alzheimer’s, Corruption, Harvard Medical School, Kenneth Jones, lawsuit, Marilyn Albert, Massachusetts General Hospital, Ronald Killiany

This entry was posted on Friday, May 11th, 2012 at 12:18 pm and is filed under Alzheimer’s, Civil Cases, Corruption, Dangerous Doctors, Harvard, Health Care, Incompetence, Investigations, Issues, Junk Science, Medical, NIH, National Institutes of Health, Public Policy, Universities, Vera Hassner Sharav, bioethics, biotechnology, legal, propaganda. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

1 of 6 Please – – Lockheed Martin at University, F-35s and bombers flying over our cities. Yes.

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

May 152012

I’m scaring myself by connecting the dots. If you join me, I am not afraid.

There is a small role for each of us.

6 short emails. Number:

Stop the University from setting Lockheed Martin up to train our young people for war-related undertakings (below).
Stop Harper from setting up a vacuum pump to funnel our money to Lockheed Martin for F-35’s.
Stop fighter jets from flying over our cities, normalizing the police state. Another one flew over my home in Saskatoon yesterday evening. It
has become routine.
For Saskatonians: Come to the University tomorrow (May 16^th). The University has racked up a pile of debt (Provost Brett Fairbairn). They are holding a “Financial Town Hall Meeting”. Who will be held to account for the huge debt? How will the situation be resolved? Lockheed Martin is plying the University with dollars. Will corporate interests take over this extremely valuable public institution for a few shekels? Will we just let it happen?
*** Understand how a nation becomes conditioned to, and the enablers of, violence and war. Watch Michael Moore’s “Bowling
for Columbine”. ***
And oh yes, Don`t forget Lockheed Martin and Boeing at the new Aviation Training Centre: Drone Technology.

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

Canadians! Don’t you see?

Our Universities train our young people.

These young people feed into Government and other positions of influence.

WHAT do the Grad students study?

As the bright young woman in physics enthusiastically explained: there’s lots of money in . . . “

Grad students go where the $$money$$ is.

The University has racked up a PILE of DEBT.

Lockheed Martin Corporation – – to the rescue! – – Lots of $$money$$!

And they then get to dictate the priorities!

Lockheed Martin’s “lots of $$money$$” actually comes from ONE MAIN SOURCE: tax-payers. (Through things like extravagant contracts for F-35 stealth bombers.)

Now that American tax-payers have been bankrupted by Lockheed Martin’s war-mongering and profiteering,
Lockheed Martin is increasingly turning to the Canadian public purse.

It started out as weapons for the U.S. and their allies. Now . . .

(As you read, remember that if we don’t stop Harper from the F-35 purchase, and if we don’t stop Lockheed Martin’s dollars from pouring into the University, we will end up in the same position as American sheeple for Lockheed.)

From Background Info on Lockheed Martin. excerpt:

(as at 2005): Since 1992, the United States has exported more than $142 billion dollars worth of weaponry to states around the world. ix The U.S. dominates this international arms market, supplying just under half of all arms exports in 2001, roughly two and a half times more than the second and third largest suppliers.x U.S. weapons sales help outfit non-democratic regimes, soldiers who commit gross human rights abuses against their citizens and citizens of other countries, and forces in unstable regions on the verge of, in the middle of, or recovering from conflict. The United States supplied arms or military technology to more than 92% of the conflicts under way in 1999.xi

In addition to paying billions of dollars every year to support weapons exports, Americans may also feel the impact of increasing instability overseas. The United States military has had to face troops previously trained by its own military or supplied with U.S. weaponry in Panama, Somalia, Haiti, Afghanistan and now in Iraq.

Lockheed Martin with a share of 24% of US arms exports xii is the world’s largest arms exporting company. Former company CEO Norman Augustine was a major lobbyist on behalf of the more than $7 billion per year in grants and subsidized loans that the U.S. government provides to U.S. arms exporters each year to help them hawk their products around the world.

Both Augustine and company Vice President Bruce Jackson have also been major supporters of the expansion of NATO, in hopes of selling combat aircraft and other weapons systems to new NATO members states.

– – – – – — – – – – – – – — – – –

On May 7^th I wrote to the Board of Governors, U of S. Who is responsible for Debt situation at the University? Vulnerability to Lockheed Martin Corp. See http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=5325.

2 of 6 Stop Harper from setting up a vacuum pump to funnel our money to Lockheed Martin for F-35’s.

Corporatocracy or Democracy or Administrative State or WHAT?, Lockheed Martin, War Economy (includes Cdn Census & Trials) No Responses »

May 152012

Note: Ceasefire.ca can`t issue receipts for Income Tax because they advocate for peace.

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

The best vehicle for stopping the F-35`s (Lockheed Martin and a war economy) is CEASEFIRE.CA and Steven Staples.

RECENT:

We are entering a critical phase of our campaign to stop Harper. Thank you so much for your support, and let me tell you how we are using donations from our supporters to Ceasefire.ca.

A few days ago I was on Parliament Hill once again to try to stop Harper’s pro-war lobby and the multi-billion-dollar F-35 stealth fighter fiasco.

I wasn’t alone. This time, I was joined by the highest ranking former Canadian military officer to come out publicly against Harper’s war planes.

Colonel Paul Maillet (ret.) had a distinguished 33-year career in the air force. He is an expert in military aircraft, an aerospace engineer who worked on Canada’s current CF-18 aircraft fleet starting in the 1980s, and who rose to become engineering and maintenance manager of the entire fleet in the 90s.

Together, we held a press conference inside the Parliament Buildings and spoke to a room full of journalists from every new media network in the country.

Colonel Maillet, in a calm, matter-of-fact way, laid out a devastating critique of the F-35, arguing that it is a complete mismatch for Canada’s needs, will be terribly expensive, and will likely perform very poorly compared to other available aircraft.

Our press conference was broadcast live across Canada by GlobalTV, and Colonel Maillet was invited onto CBC Radio’s As It Happens that evening. His remarks were carried in nearly every major newspaper in Canada.

Harper’s pro-war lobbyists and their allies in the media are alarmed by our campaign.

The notorious Sun TV took aim at Colonel Maillet and tried to malign him for standing for election in the past for the Green Party, for saying the billions of dollars for the F-35 should be used for education or hospitals, for being opposed to a war against Iran, and even for being associated with “Steven Staples who runs a website called Ceasefire.ca….”

Your support has allowed us to push this issue to the top of the political agenda.

More than 400 Ceasefire.ca supporters have joined our Peacekeepers monthly donor club already. Would you gladly give $25 each month to stop Harper’s F-35 stealth fighter, too?

I hope you answered “Yes!”

In my letter to you earlier this year, I promised we would confront Harper’s agenda at every turn.

I made a commitment to you that we would

• release a damning new study on the F-35,

• speak to Members of Parliament urging them to stop the waste, and

• bring Canadians together to send thousands of letters to Harper and other MPs.

And that’s what we did!

In March, Ceasefire.ca supporters and friends like you came together and sent more than 5,000 emails against the F-35s to Harper, opposition party leaders and their own MPs through Ceasefire.ca. A massive outpouring!

And now the government appears to be in trouble.

Harper was exposed by the Auditor General, who released a report on the F-35 debacle proving that Canadians have been lied to by Harper and his pro-war lobby.

• Harper said there is a contract for the jets. There isn’t!

• Harper said they’d be $75 million each. They won’t!

• Harper said it will be the only plane that can meet the military’s needs. It falls far short!
Our campaign has put Harper in a tight spot – but he still refuses to back away from the F-35s.

We must keep up the pressure on Stephen Harper.

There are only a few weeks left before Parliament breaks for the summer. Will you help us raise $15,000 before June 8?
(INSERT: click on http://www.ceasefire.ca/)

We are planning more meetings with MPs.

We will be publishing news articles, speaking to journalists and appearing on national television.

And we will mobilize Canadians again on the F-35!

Thank you for everything you do for peace.

In peace,

Steven Staples, Ceasefire.ca

P.S. Please help us to stop Harper by making a small gift of $25 every month to Ceasefire.ca. If you choose, we will also send you a free copy of Noah Richler’s book, What We Talk About When We talk About War.

Please share this message.

Sent from Steven Staples, Rideau Institute, Ceasefire.ca 63 Sparks St., suite 608, Ottawa, ON K1P 5A6.

3 of 6 Stop fighter jets from flying over our cities, normalizing the police state.

Lockheed Martin, War Economy (includes Cdn Census & Trials) 3 Responses »

May 152012

I don’t know when I heard the first fighter jet fly over my home
in Saskatoon. Sometime in the last year
or two. I wondered what on Earth was
happening. Moose Javians (live in Moose
Jaw, SK) might be accustomed to them – NATO does training exercises at their
nearby Air Force base.

WHAT are they doing HERE?
If you know, please let me know.
If no one knows, I had better find out!

The first time the fighter jets fly over, a chill goes in your
bones. You cannot mistake them for a West Jet or Air Canada flight, not by
sound nor by sight. Now they are almost
routine.

Fighter jets should not be flying over our cities, as a step in the
normalization of a military state. “Conditioning” us.

One flew over my home yesterday evening. Another time, coincidentally
just after I’d sent out an email to challenge Lockheed Martin at the University!,
one roared very low over the house; a
minute later the phone rang. Larry had
been in his backyard. He phoned to ask
if I’d seen the devil – – from where he stood about 10 blocks away, it looked
as though the plane went right over my house.
I assured him it had! (I seem to
be on a flight path.)

Lynn writes:

Dear
Sandra, I refer to the jets as ” grooming us ” for war, I use
the words deliberately because that is what sex offenders do, they condition
their victims for abuse.

Imagine, we are
supposed to accept austerity in order to provide Lockheed Martin with huge
profits. I was reading about Obama in Z magazine and his connections with
General Dynamics who have increased their profits threefold in eight years,
a 300% increase, while we get accustomed to many more people being
homeless, while middle income people are bankrupted by health insurance
payments that have increased that much as well.

4 of 6 Lockheed Martin at University. Financial Town Hall, Wed May 16th, TIME CHANGED to 1:30 pm, Saskatoon

Lockheed Martin, War Economy (includes Cdn Census & Trials), Take back the University 1 Response »

May 152012

NOTE:

the time change
you can also watch the meeting on-line
the original notice of meeting is appended, scroll down.

For Saskatonians: Come to the University tomorrow (May 16^th). The University has racked up a pile of debt (Provost Brett Fairbairn). They are holding a “Financial Town Hall Meeting”.

Who will be held to account for the huge debt? How will the situation be resolved?

Lockheed Martin is plying the University with dollars. Will corporate interests take over this extremely valuable public institution for a few shekels? Will we just let it happen?

1. ORIGINAL NOTICE OF MEETING, RECEIVED MAY 2 – scroll down, it’s appended.

2. NOTICE OF MEETING (REVISED), MAY 14 (below)

3. MY LETTER TO THE UNIVERSITY BOARD OF GOVERNORS, MAY 7, Click on http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=5325
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = ==

2. NOTICE OF MEETING (REVISED), May 14

(Note: Anyone who received the original notice will not know from the subject line that the meeting time is changed.)

From: Leonhardt, Lesley [mailto:lesley.leonhardt AT usask.ca]

Sent: May-14-12 2:08 PM

Subject: Financial Town Hall, May 16th

We will provide updated information on the university’s financial situation, including the 2012-13 detailed operating budget, and provide more information on the emerging strategy related to budget adjustments at a financial town hall:

Date: Wednesday, May 16, 2012

Time: 1:30 – 2:30 pm (please note this is a new time from what was previously scheduled)

Place: Convocation Hall, College Building

We encourage everyone to attend. If you are unable to, you can watch live online at www.usask.ca/finances. The video of the presentation, including the question and answer period, will also be available on this website by May 18.

We also encourage you to continue to submit your ideas for financial solutions through www.usask.ca/finances or email them directly to finances@usask.ca, by May 23.

Kind regards,

Brett Fairbairn, Provost and Vice-President Academic

Greg Fowler, Acting Vice-President Finance and Resources

For more information, contact:
Office of the Provost and Vice-President Academic at 966-8484

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

3. MY LETTER TO THE UNIVERSITY BOARD OF GOVERNORS, MAY 7th

Who is responsible for Debt situation? Vulnerability to Lockheed Martin Corp.

Click on http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=5325 .

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

ORIGINAL NOTICE OF MEETING

RECEIVED: Wed 02/05/2012 9:43 AM

SUBJECT: Financial Town Hall May 16, 2012

Members of Senate: please see the email announcement below.

Lea Pennock

University Secretary

Financial Town Hall May 16, 2012

U of S Campus Community,

As part of the ongoing process related to the current financial pressures our university is facing, we are holding our next Financial Town Hall (on the topic of “Emerging Strategy”) on May 16 at 11:30 am in Convocation Hall. Everyone is welcome and we encourage you to attend. You may also watch the event live online at www.usask.ca/finances

At this town hall, we will talk about how the university’s plans have started to come together since the last town hall on April 3, including the process, governance and timelines of upcoming initiatives to balance the university’s budget. We will also discuss how your ideas assist in forming the strategy to narrow the gap between our revenue and expenses.

As you now know, we face a potential shortfall of $20 million to $40 million annually by 2016. The first challenge in narrowing this gap between our revenues and expenses will be to address the projected $15.5 million deficit for 2012-13. At their May meeting, the Board of Governors will consider actions that can be taken to mitigate a portion of the 2012-13 projected deficit through the detailed operating budget; details of these actions will be shared with you at the May 16 town hall.

In connection with the first town hall, we asked you for your ideas, comments and suggestions. We have heard from individuals from all areas of campus, including students, alumni, staff and faculty. We are very pleased with the participation we have seen so far, and we continue to look to all of you to share your thoughts with us at finances@usask.ca.

Submitted ideas range from short-term to long-term solutions and include suggestions such as offering more online classes, allowing more flexible work weeks and looking at more energy-efficient options to reduce utility expenses. On behalf of the Provost’s Committee on Integrated Planning (PCIP), the two of us are assembling an ad hoc committee to oversee the process of budget adjustments and to receive and consider ideas from across the campus. This committee will consider these ideas as we use the initial campus community consultations to co-ordinate a strategy to address the gap. At the town hall we will say more about this committee and its make-up.

Hearing from you will continue to be a vital part of this process. Key to our deliberations and actions as a university will be focus: focus on the priorities all of us have already identified in integrated planning; focus on choices; and focus on sustainable long-term solutions. In light of the budget pressures we face, we must continue to invest our resources in the areas we have identified in Promise and Potential, our third integrated plan, while also mitigating the risks inherent in our situation.

For more information, including the presentation and video from the last financial town hall, we encourage you to visit www.usask.ca/finances

Kind regards,

Brett Fairbairn
Provost and Vice-President Academic

Greg Fowler
Acting Vice-President Finance and Resources

For more information, contact:
Provost’s Office at 966-8484

10. Ballantyne

X Ballantyne No Responses »

May 092012

2012-05-09 Laliberte: Reply to Law Society Complaints Officer (Did you ever see these documents?)

George Laliberte

211 Avenue R South

Saskatoon SK

S7M 2Y9

Ph: (306) 249 0397

——————————————————————————————————————————-

May 9, 2012

TO: John H.B. McIntosh

Law Society of Saskatchewan

Designated Complaints Officer

#201-12 Cheadle St West

Swift Current, SK

S9H 0A9

Ph: (306) 778 5240

RE: Timothy Froese and George Laliberte: Law Society File # 80-11818

Dear John McIntosh:

Thank you for your correspondence concerning my complaint and your response dated April 28, and received on Friday, May 4^rd, 2012. The following is my response regarding issues you requested me to answer and my assessment of the McKercher letter:

1. Your question (page 2): “The Statement of Defence was prepared by your lawyer and filed with the Court. I enclose a copy. Did you ever see this document before? Did you agree to it?”

Thank you for sending me this document as it is the first time I have seen it, therefore I did not agree to it, and if it was presented to me at the time I would have not agreed to its position in my defense.

The decision written by Judge Popescul in January 17, 2012 is based on this document (Statement of Defence). And as such, the decision is a case solely against myself (George Laliberte), with no mention of the Liberal Party, a proceeding handled in a simplified manner that does not amount to a full trial, essentially without ‘examinations for discovery’, or even in this case the calling of any evidence other than the submission of Maurice Vellacott’s affidavit. Most of my grievance that is relevant to what actually happened, including how I came to ask the controversial questions, and the fact that I apologized, are conveniently left out of the defence.

2. Your invitation (page 1, para 2): “If you have any comments about his (Tim Froese’s) letter, I would be pleased to receive them before I continue with the investigation.”

I believe that the following comments about Tim Froese’s letter will be helpful to your deliberations:

a) McKercher LLP, Page 1, paragraph 3: “He (Joel Hesje) further advised that McKercher had been handling Mr. Laliberte’s defence pro bono.”

McKercher is not handling my case pro bono:

(From my statement of fact): “…He (Chris Axworthy, the Liberal candidate) told me not to worry about anything and that the party will take care of everything, at the same time Mr. Axworthy confirmed that I did nothing wrong, he informed me that one of their lawyers (Liberal) would contact me and that they would take care of the situation. Since then it has been my position to just leave the conflict to the Liberal Party and their Lawyers, to which I regret to this day…

…Not long after my phone conversation with Chris Axworthy, a lawyer contacted me. At no time during this controversy did I ask or seek a lawyer but rather was assigned to me by the Liberal Party, the first lawyer that contacted me was from Saskatoon McKercher Law Firm …”

Note: Chris Axworthy has been a professor of law at the Universities of New Brunswick, Dalhousie and Saskatchewan; was Dean of the University of Manitoba Law School and is currently the Dean at Thompson Rivers University Law School. He knows the law. He told me I had done nothing wrong. He said that one of their (Liberal) lawyers would contact me and they would take care of the situation.

I did not include this in my statement of fact to the Law Society, I thought it was not important: Before Joel Hesje (McKercher) phoned me in 2006, an Aboriginal lawyer named Darren Winegarden contacted me for a meeting. He informed me that he was hired by the Liberals to come and talk with me. I sensed right away that it was because he is First Nations that he had been selected to talk with me. I told Darren at the time I felt like I’ve been used and that the Liberals should at least talk to me directly to let me know what it is that they want me to do, as I felt the political controversy was of their making. Darren agreed with me and went back to talk with the Liberals. I didn’t hear from him and so I phoned to find out what happened. He said, “They fired me.” And he didn’t say more.

Soon after that a McKercher lawyer, whose name I know now to be Joel Hesje, phoned me.

So the Liberals hired and fired Darren Winegarden, then they hired or made some arrangement with Joel Hesje to look after a matter that was of their making and for which Chris Axworthy, the Liberal candidate, assumed responsibility in his conversations with me.

Please see 2.f. below: Doug Richardson (a senior partner at McKercher) is heavily involved in the Liberal Party. McKercher was representing the interests of the Liberal Party, they were not doing pro bono work for me.

From Maurice Vellacott, Feb 14: http://ckom.com/story/mp-awarded-5000-slander-case/43890?quicktabs_4=0 …Vellacott said he believes that Laliberte was just their puppet.

“You’ve got a high paying law firm taking on the case for an indigent aboriginal person like that, you know there’s something else is going on,”.

Therefore, Tim Froese’s statement is misinformed: “McKercher had been handling Mr. Laliberte’s defence pro bono.“

b) McKercher LLP, Page 2, last para: “I observed that there was a mailing address in Saskatoon on file, but did not expect it to be current. I viewed the disconnection of Mr. Laliberte’s home phone number as an indication that he had changed residences. In addition, it is not my practice to seek instructions by mail. … “. It is understandable that Tim Froese may have thought this. However I do not think any client would seek or direct instructions through mail. If I received mail correspondence I would have went to Mr. Froese’s office right away in person. However his justification is unacceptable in our fundamental principles of due process. Because of this, the resulting court proceedings against me were nothing more than a kangaroo court.

I had my home phone number (668-7725) disconnected in 2006 because of the extreme stress that I was experiencing, as I did not know what to say to reporters. Chris Axworthy stopped returning my phone calls. My health began deteriorating and was suffering insomnia. I felt I had to disconnect my phone to try block out the assault that was focused on me. Nonetheless, I maintained my Saskatoon home address to which I continue to reside to this day. I did go back for periods to my home community, Ile-a-la-Crosse, as I have always done from time-to-time, I needed to escape the City, as I needed to recover from extreme stress to which resulted in a heart attack.

But as always, I get my mail at the address in the McKercher file. When I am out-of-town I phone relatives in the city to check my mail and open any important mail that I may have and read it to me over the phone.

It is not Tim Froese’s “practice to seek instructions by mail” (Page 3, top paragraph). But mail is a reliable way to get in touch with someone. I have lived in the same residence since July 2005 for 7 years. McKercher has always had my address.

c) McKercher LLP, Page 1, para 3: “Mr. Hesje advised that the last step in the litigation had been mediation in early 2007, and that to his knowledge our firm had no contact with Mr. Laliberte since that time.” And Page 2, second last paragraph, August, 2011: “I attempted to contact Mr. Laliberte by telephone …”

McKercher had not been in contact with me for four-and-a-half years. On August 11, 2011 Tim Froese attempted to contact me by phone and found that 668-7725 was no longer my phone number. He attempted to find a new phone number for me. On August 25th he appeared in Chambers to represent me.

After four-and-a-half years of no contact with me, McKercher only allowed two weeks in their attempt to contact me, (granted if they really did try to contact me). However, they failed to send a letter to my residence, or attempt to go and physically verify my residence, or talk with people who would know where I was to which is my home address in Saskatoon, where I have lived for last 7 years. I have always been an active member within the Aboriginal community of Saskatoon, as a respected Elder and teacher, I am known, people know where to find me.

I can understand that the case would have been competing for time and priority with other cases. But it was a failure of adequate and conscientious representation of a client who didn’t even know that he was a client. This is not acceptable.

d) McKercher LLP, Page 3, para 3: “It was, and still is, my view that I could adequately represent Mr. Laliberte’s interests without his express instructions.”

In a democratic society, is it ethical to be “represented” in a Court of law by someone you have never met or spoken with, in proceedings against you that you have no idea are taking place, using documents that you have not seen, authorized, or signed?”

I have a reasonable expectation to have been advised in a fair and just due process when Maurice Vellacott brought a civil suit against me. As far as I was concerned, if there was to be court action, I believed it would be against the Liberals, and at the very least, jointly against the Liberals and me.

When I was seconded to attend the mediation in 2007, I assumed that was the end of Vellacot’s pursuit to address his grievance, because I received no correspondence from McKercher for four-and-a-half years.

e) McKercher LLP, Page 3, last paragraph: “The Chambers Judge (Popescul) found . . . “

In his description of what Judge Popescul found, Tim Froese does not say what was reported in the Saskatoon Star Phoenix on Feb. 14, 2012: “Falsely accusing someone of being charged with sexual assault is reprehensible,” Popescul said in the 16-page decision.”

Who is responsible for the “reprehensible” act? My grievance from the very beginning has been that I was set up. (From my statement of fact):

“…Marie-Therese Verma, campaign manager for Chris Axworthy, approached me and asked if I could do a favor for her by making a phone call to the televised debate. She explained that she had to observe the debate in another room and she was unable to make the phone call at the same time; as a volunteer, I agreed to make the call. She gave me a paper with the phone number and three questions to ask Mr. Vellacott. She told me to wait and would signal me when to make the phone call. The three questions to ask Mr. Vellacott that were written on the paper as best as I can recall them …”

The question that needs to be addressed and whoever responsible be held accountable is; who thought up and wrote down the questions in the first place? I do not know if Marie-Therese is the sole author of the questions or if it was someone else in her circle.

As I was a loyal liberal supporter and an official volunteer following directions, I trusted other people and went along with what was requested of me. I am responsible for that. When I understood, I sincerely regretted what I had done. I apologized to Maurice Vellacott. Therefore, someone pre-meditated the “reprehensible” act. Who was the person responsible?

The fact that the phone was disconnected and moved in the time it took me to get a coffee, as explained in my Statement of Fact, leads me to think that the responsible people knew what they had done, and immediately took measures of damage control and/or cover up.

An article in the Lawyer’s Weekly:
“…the March 2, 2012 edition of Lawyers’ Weekly, a weekly national lawyers’ newspaper circulated widely [law profs and most law firms get copies] there is a nearly full page story on the Vellacott v. Laliberte case. It mostly says what the court judgment says, and none of the lawyers were available for, or responded to the Lawyers Weekly, to comment. However Vellacott is quoted as saying: “Even people put up as pawns are still accountable for their actions because it downgrades the democratic process’ and he said he ‘wants an apology and the payment from whomever ‘put [Laliberte] up to damaging me in some way. They can step forward.”

So far that “whomever” has not stepped forward.

f) McKercher LLP, Page 4, second last para: “I deferred the matter of the agreement with the Liberal Party to Doug Richardson, another lawyer at McKercher.”

Doug Richardson is a senior partner at McKercher. On one occasion when I was at the Campaign Headquarters for electing the Liberal candidate (Chris Axworthy), Doug Richardson was also there. He was pointed out to me, I thought it was because he was the campaign manager but that position was filled by Marie-Therese Verma, who gave me the questions to ask Maurice Vellacott. Doug Richardson is not just “another lawyer at McKercher”. He is part of the Federal Liberal Party in Saskatchewan.

This is a serious conflict-of-interest. Senior people at McKercher LLP are Liberal backers. The placement of the Vellacott complaint against the Liberal Party in the McKercher Law Firm meant that lawyers in McKercher had a significant interest in keeping the Liberal Party name out of the court documents. If you read the documents that were submitted to the Court, there is no record, not a whisper, of Liberal Party involvement.

Tim Froese is in the early stages of his career in a big law firm. He is under pressure to “produce” (billings); wants to look good in the firm; he was told that this case is pro bono.

And because of the way the system works, I have no alternative at this stage but to address the role of Tim Froese because it was him who was delegated to participate in a kangaroo court.

3. In response to your questions (page 2):

“Do you believe that Mr. Vellacott’s version (of the questions asked) is correct?” Yes.

“Do you know whether your original lawyer (Joel Hesje) ever looked into and obtained the exact wording? I do not know.

“Do you have any access to a recording of what was said?” No.

In response to your inquiry: If possible I would like to hear a recording or read a transcript of the actual wording.” I think that Maurice Vellacott would have obtained that in preparation for going to Court. I would suggest asking him. What I recalled is basically the same as what Maurice Vellacott entered onto the Court record. I believe that the wording supplied by him is correct and reliable.

I have answered your questions related to the wording of the questions. But I do not see how they are related to the question of legitimacy of me being represented in Court by McKercher (Tim Froese).

I believe the issues for your decision are fundamental ones:

– In a democracy, does a citizen have to be told when there are court proceedings against him?

– Can someone represent you in Court without your knowledge and without ever even having talked with you, using documents that you would not have signed or authorized?

With that it is my hope this correspondence will assist you in your investigation, I seek only truth, justice and accountability for all the grief and suffering imposed on me and hopefully exoneration from a “reprehensible act” that I was accused of committing. If you have further questions, I will make myself available at anytime and will be happy to try and answer them to the best of my ability. Thank you.

Sincerely,

_______________________

George Laliberte

2012-05-07 Letter to U of S, Board of Governors. Who is responsible for Debt situation? Vulnerability to Lockheed Martin Corp.

Lockheed Martin, War Economy (includes Cdn Census & Trials), Take back the University No Responses »

May 072012

LETTER TO THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS (May 7)
REPLY RECEIVED (July 11, 2012)

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

1. LETTER TO THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS

May 7, 2012

TO:

Members of the Board of Governors

University of Saskatchewan

(Peter MacKinnon, Vera Pezer, Art Dumont, Nancy Hopkins, Greg Smith, Garry Standing, David Sutherland, Grit McCreath, Susan Milburn, Linda Ferguson, Scott Hitchings, Lea Pennock)

FROM:

Sandra Finley

University Senator (Elected)

656 Saskatchewan Cres East

Saskatoon, SK S7N 0L1

306-373-8078

Dear Members of the Board of Governors,

Speaking on behalf of the citizens of Saskatchewan who are the owners of the University of Saskatchewan, and for whom I am one of the elected representatives (“voices of the community (owners)”):

I am very concerned about the vulnerabilities created by the deteriorating financial situation at the University.

The finances, roughly:

$95 million debt
Borrowing capacity maxed out
A $10 million shortfall in the current operating budget
$15.5 million deficit for 2012-13
a potential shortfall of $20 million to $40 million annually by 2016
$600 million needed for repair and maintenance of the existing buildings
No money to finish the interior of some of the new buildings

The vulnerability:

Corporate take-over of the University, as a way to deal with the deficits and debt.

Who is responsible?

In any system of democratic governance, it is the role of elected representatives to hold administrators to account. I see where the University Governors are mostly by appointment. So it seems that I am supposed to ask the hard questions.

QUESTION 1:

Who is responsible for the current financial situation of the University? (It is not “we are all responsible and hence no one is responsible.”) Big salaries are being paid, who is the responsible person? Is that person being held to account, and if so, how?

QUESTION 2:

What are the numbers for cuts to quantity, salaries, benefits and frills of Administrators? (At Senate Meeting on April 21, the Dean of Law defended back-to-back 16% tuition increases for students in law. There was no discussion regarding cuts in Administration costs.)

QUESTION 3:

Lockheed Martin Corporation is courting the University with money. Who is responsible for the decision to accept money from Lockheed Martin? (At Senate Meeting Ernie Barber, Dean of Engineering, defended collaboration with Lockheed Martin. You will find a copy of the “Collaboration Topics” in the posting http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=5103.)

QUESTION 4:

Are you aware that a main focus of the unrest in the world today is corporate behaviour? (witness the “Occupy” movement which started on WALL STREET). Lockheed Martin’s recruiting on campus was during exams so there was little mobilization. I spoke with two different Muslim professors from two different faculties (U of S, Medicine, Engineering). I doubt I need to describe their reaction to you. Lockheed Martin had a large influence in the decision of the Americans to launch a war of aggression on Iraq. They used lies to justify it. Muslim people have been killed in large numbers and driven from their homes. It seems to me that the U of S is making a large mistake in taking any money from Lockheed Martin, not only on moral and legal grounds, but also in terms of setting itself up for targeting.

Thank-you in advance for your responses to these questions.

Sincerely,

Sandra Finley

= = = = = = = ==

FYI

1. SCIENCE UNDER SIEGE

An ill wind is gusting through the halls of science these days: faked research, suppression of unwelcome results, corruption of science advisory panels, university research falling under the influence of corporate sponsors, and many other conflicts of interest. It’s as if science were under siege. . . . (The full article is at 2005-08-05)

2. THINKERS OF THE DAY ON: PARTNERSHIPS BETWEEN GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS AND BUSINESS, please see: http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=5312

3. Earlier correspondence with the Board of Governors is posted at: http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=5309

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

2. REPLY RECEIVED (July 11, 2012)

Click on: IMG_0001

2012-05-07 Thinkers of the Day on the Unholy Alliances between Government (public institutions) and Industry

Culture and Ethics, Economy / Political Economy, Genetically Modified, Health, Peace or Violence, Sustainability, Take back the University, Technology, Trade Deals, PPPs, Integration Canada-U.S. No Responses »

May 072012

The statements are applicable to public institutions in general, not just “Government”.

They are compelling.

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

THINKERS OF THE DAY SAY:

(1) George Soros, “the best fund manager in history, a stateless statesman, and an original thinker“, turned philanthropist. From his book, “Open Society [Reforming Global Capitalism]”, published in 2000 by PublicAffairs. p. xi,

“… the greatest threat to freedom and democracy in the world today comes from the formation of unholy alliances between government (public institutions) and business.”

(2) Jane Jacobs‘ “Systems of Survival, the Moral Foundations of Commerce and Politics” sets forth a framework for understanding that the system of governance will succumb to corruption if we fail to appreciate the functional roles of two separately evolved sets of ethics, one for the commercial function in a society and the other for governance (guardianship). But,

“Societies need both commercial and guardian work … the two types are prone to corruption if they stray across either their functional or moral barriers.”

(3) John Ralston Saul, “Health Care at the End of the Twentieth Century”, 1999

“The Panel identified… serious concerns about the undermining of the scientific basis for risk regulation in Canada due to… the conflict of interest created by giving to regulatory (and training) agencies the mandates both to promote the development of agricultural technologies and to regulate it…”

Note: the ONLY people who get a job in the regulatory agencies are those who get trained by the University.

(4) From John Kenneth Galbraith’s “The Economics of Innocent Fraud – Truth for our Time“, published in 2004 :

“… As the corporate interest moves to power in what was the public sector, it serves, predictably, the corporate interest. That is its purpose. …One obvious result has been well-justified doubt as to the quality of much present regulatory (and educational / research) effort. There is no question but that corporate influence extends to the regulators. … Needed is independent, honest, professionally competent regulation (persons) … This last must be recognized and countered. There is no alternative to effective supervision. …”

(5) 2011-01-17 WATCH: President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s 1961 farewell speech Plus Words of Wisdom from Eisenhower.

I encourage you to click on the link and hear/read what Eisenhower said. Right down to the involvement of the university, he was remarkable in his ability to predict the road ahead. His words motivate us to find our better selves.

(6) We have Justice Krever, Commission of Inquiry on the Blood System in Canada, 1996

“Industry can’t be regulated by government – and for environmental and health reasons they must be – if that government is in bed with them.”

(7) Mae-Wan Ho, “Genetic engineering – Dream or Nightmare?”, 1998

You may not like this one, but it rings absolutely true for the me that worked with others to open up the debate on genetically-modified organisms. There are many postings about GMOs on this blog. April 2013, as time permits, I’m adding more from the email store that pre-dates the blog. There is important information collected by this network, still valid today, that documents some of the propaganda used by educated people, refuted by common sense about the real world and nature, that most people would understand.

“To reassure us, they lie to us, and then treat us as idiots by insisting on things we all know are untrue. Not only does this prevent a reasonable debate from taking place, but it also creates a very unhealthy relationship between citizens and their elected representatives”. (and the “intellectuals” who train the regulators)

(8) Excerpt from 1961 John F Kennedy (1917 to Nov 1963). (https://sandrafinley.ca/blog/?p=25991)

THE PRESIDENT AND THE PRESS: ADDRESS BEFORE THE AMERICAN NEWSPAPER PUBLISHERS ASSOCIATION, APRIL 27, 1961

― John F. Kennedy

EXCERPT:

“For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence — on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.

Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.”

2012-05-05 New documentary “The Greater Good” (the Vaccine Controversy)

Uncategorized No Responses »

May 062012

trailer: http://www.nextworldtv.com/page/10460.html

Thanks to Anita.

From: NextworldTV

Since the 1980’s, the numbers of doses of vaccines have tripled.

The recently released documentary film “The Greater Good,”about vaccination policy, safety, and history, is a runaway hit. It follows a few families whose children have been struck down by what they believe to be vaccine related adverse reactions, on one case the death of an infant–in another, the destruction of an entire family, following a teenage girl’s demise after Gardisil shots. It contrasts these heart-wrenching interviews and scenes with interviews from the head researchers and vaccine advocates from CDC, FDA, pharmaceutical companies, and others, creating not a”balanced” documentary but one with a carefully documented point of view.

There is no environmental concern that is more important–none–than the dumping of known neuro-toxins into our children’s bodies. See the trailer here: Video: (2:33) http://www.nextworldtv.com/page/10460.html

Older Entries Newer Entries