Dr. Fabrikant - update
 

 I have discovered that jailers lied to me when offering by-pass surgery  - they did it because they knew that I would refuse.  I had recommendations for by-pass surgery from cardiologists, who were not cardiac surgeons themselves.  The only cardiac surgeon, who examined me, was Dr. Pelletier from Montreal Heart Institute.

    I demanded to see his report, and when I have read this report, I discovered that Dr. Pelletier did not recommend by-pass surgery.

    To sum up, the situation now is as follows: there is no doctor in Quebec to perform either angioplasty or by-pass surgery.  There are doctors in US and British Columbia, ready to perform angioplasty, but jailers are refusing to deliver me to any of these doctors, falsely claiming that "all the medical treatment Fabrikant needs is available in Quebec".

    Jailers know that shooting at Concordia took place because I felt my life to be in danger.  Now they deliberately murdering me, hoping to provoke again into violent reaction.  They will not succeed: I shall not attack anyone. This time, I'll just let them kill me.

I lived all my life like a man, and I shall die like one.
 
Fabrikant.

Open letter to Prime Minister Chretien.

Cowansville, May 1, 2000
   

Mr. J. Chretien
Prime Minister
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario  K1A 0A6
                                Sir:

    Your government expressed its outrage by recent execution of a woman in Vietnam.  I suggest that you look at yourself first.  Vietnam government at least acted according to the law of that country.  Your government is murdering me cowardly and surreptitiously, in total disrespect of Canadian laws.

    Though there is no death penalty in Canada, I was effectively placed on the death row: I had a heart attack, I need a life-saving operation, which is available in Canada, but jailers are refusing to deliver me to the doctor, who is prepared to perform it.

    Your Solicitor General was informed many times and did nothing to correct the situation.  The reason why your government is murdering me - I am a political prisoner, though you, of course, would claim that Canada does not have political prisoners.  Here is my proof.  In my Preventive Security file in jail there is a notification from Vancouver police that they have observed that my son has posted on B.C. Internet group my account of what happened in Concordia in 1992.  Now, why would
Vancouver police spend its time, watching perfectly legal activity of my son ? Because your government does not like the ideas I disseminate.  Is not this the classical definition of a political criminal?

    Second, all my legal procedures designed to force jailers to bring me to the doctor, are being stopped, delayed, dismissed by your corrupt judges both in Federal and Provincial courts.  Is not this classical proof of a person being political criminal?

    And the last, but not least, Associate Chief Justice of the Superior Court took on himself to oversee all my legal proceedings for the sole purpose: to delay them as much as he could.  Not only is this illegal, it also shows quite clearly, how low your judiciary go: should not Ass. Chief Justice do more important things than supervise judicial proceedings of a convicted murderer?  Is not it clear from above that I am more than just a convicted murderer?
 
    Is there really a big difference between executing a prisoner by a firing squad and murdering a prisoner by denying him the life-saving operation? The final result in both cases is the same: the prisoner is dead.

    I suggest that you put your own house in order prior to expressing your outrage to another country.  You place before your name the title "Honourable" or even "Right Honourable" - well, are you?

                               Disrespectfully yours,
 
                                                     Dr. V.I. Fabrikant
                                                     prisoner #167932 D
---


My fathers's response to Mr. Wiertz.

Sir:  Since you expressed opinion that your call to jail Warden might  be "counterproductive" and make my life more difficult, my son has mailed  to  me his exchange of messages with you, and asked me to respond directly to you.

In your initial posting, you say all the right things, that no matter what  I have done, the Law dictates that I be given the same medical care as any other Canadian citizen, that to deny me medical treatment is a crime,  etc.   Having said all the "right" things, you needed an excuse to do nothing, and you found two lame excuses: a) probably, I am on the waiting list and just do  not  want to wait, while every Canadian does; b) I am  not  really  denied  transfer  to British Columbia - jail just does not have money for that.

My son responded to you that I am not on any waiting list, and that the reason for warden's refusal to transfer did not mention lack of  money. Instead  of behaving like a decent person, you effectively accused my son of lying, called him and me paranoid, and requested an independent proof.  My son gave it to you: who is more independent than jail warden?   He  gave  you  his  telephone number, so that you could get your independent confirmation. You were caught red-handed, so you
needed another excuse not to call, and you found a quite hypocritical one: you are concerned with MY well-being,  and  you  are afraid that your call may make my life more difficult.  Don't worry, whatever jailers could do to make my life difficult, they have already done, and in any case, I do not give a damn, what they do to me.

On the contrary, warden, as any other crook, is most afraid that people on the outside become aware of his illegal actions, so if many people start  calling him about me, he would have great difficulty refusing my transfer.

Some naive people think that jailers want me dead, because I killed four people.  On the contrary, jailers are good friends  with  top criminals,  who killed hundreds. I observed the VIP treatment these people get when they come to jail while in Donnacona,  Leclerc  and Cowansville  jails. They get an inmate, who cooks for them, wash their clothes, brings coffee  in  bed  etc.  They have conjugal visits every couple of weeks with wife and girlfriend(s), they have direct access to warden, whenever necessary,  etc.  As comparison, when I asked for a family visit in January, it was scheduled for the end of May.

So, why jailers want me dead?  Because I exposed their criminal activities: they create riots in jails, they steal from prisoners,  they bring  drugs  to jail, etc.  When you hear that someone was caught bringing drugs to jail, you might think that jailers are fighting drugs - not at all:  they are fighting COMPETITION. When UNAUTHORIZED inmate or lawyer brings drugs to jail, they arrest him, because these drugs drive the price down, - it is  the  turf  war. Jailers actively participate in any murder committed in jail.   Each time an inmate is murdered, jailers somehow manage not to see, who did it, and the security cameras mysteriously stop recording exactly at the time of murder.

You may ask: if it is so easy to kill an inmate in jail, why would not jailers just hire an inmate to kill me?  I think, the main reason is the fact that the great majority of inmates treat me with great respect. One inmate told me that if anyone tries to kill me, he would be killed himself.  You might be surprised, but inmates have their own code of honor, for example, I live 8 years among thieves and robbers, and nothing was ever stolen. I wish people like you had some sense of honor.

In his last message, my son has told you that if you do not want independent confirmation - this is your business, then you have no choice but to trust that the information given to you is true, so you should apologize for calling my son liar and paranoid.  You still did not have the decency to apologize, but now you try to change the subject: you ask my son, why he did not call any investigative reporter and asked to investigate. He did:  W5, The Fifth Estate, ABC 20/20, CBS 60 minutes, NBC Dateline, etc.  -  enough?  None is interested.  Please, feel free to call them and to ask why.

Foreseeing your next advise - to go to court - I did this too, on several occasions.  Imagine: a gravely ill prisoner comes  to  a Canadian  judge  and tells him that jailers are murdering him by denial of medical  treatment,  and this honourable judge Rolland refuses  to intervene,  declares  the  prisoner vexatious, just because this prisoner does not want to die quietly.   Are  you proud of your Canadian judiciary?  Want independent confirmation of this too?

I have a great pity for you: you have no courage and no decency.  Get some and apologize at least!
                                             (signed)
                                        _______________________
                                        Dr. V.I. Fabrikant
                                        prisoner #167932 D
                                        Cowansville jail
---


Heinz Wigges wrote:
    >How much money would be saved by executing multiple  murderers? Start
>with Clifford, Paul, Carla, and LeRoi.

    The fact that you did not include my name in the list,  indicates to me that  you  understand  the  difference  between  people  who kill for pleasure, and those who kill in self-defense.  I killed four people, and majority of inmates in  any  jail  treat  me  with  great respect;  Bernardo killed two, but if he ever released in general population,  he would be dead within 10 minutes.  And now to your main question:  how much money would be saved.  People, like Olson, are kept in protective custody (segregation 24 hours).  Since they do not work, they get $1 per day pay plus about $5 per day food.  Clothes and electricity expenses per day are almost zero, we can take another $1 per day.   The total then would be (5 + 1)x 365 + 1 x 250= $2440. This is a total saving.   Now expenses: CSC has to build an execution chamber (at least $100,000) plus to hire an executioner at an annual salary at least $50,000. Add to this lawyers fee: every execution involves numerous appeals, so add at least $250,000.  Add to this salaries of prosecutors, who would have to respond to appeals, and judges to hear these appeals. Do I need to compute the total?  On the other hand, you can have people like Olson dead for free: just
release him into a general population.

    Heinz Wigges continues:
    >Save some more money by having prisoners doing public works, instead of
    >pumping iron in the gym.

    For your information, majority of prisoners do work inside jail from about 8 a.m till 4 p.m., with a break for lunch.   Those, who do not work, are locked-up in their cells, so they can not pump iron during the day.  (I am not talking about big criminals, who can  do  whatever they please whenever).  Pumping iron takes pace after 6 p.m. or on week-end, and involves not more than 10% of population.  If you use prisoners on public works outside jail, you will see huge demonstrations of  protest from the people who would have to be fired from their jobs, and if  your father or brother was in public works, you
would not want  to  have  him fired, would you?

    Heinz Wigges continues:
    >When scum biker gangs can target CSC employees for death ==>outside of
    >prison<== then there is something severely wrong.

    There is something wrong in your perception of events: bikers get royal treatment from CSC, and they have no reason  to  target  CSC employees. You probably heard of two Provincial guards shot in Montreal some time ago.  The yellow press announced that bikers were trying to destabilize the system.  This is the stupidest propaganda, I ever heard: if you want to destabilize the system, you shoot Prime Minister or Minister of Justice, not a little guard.

    There are two possible reasons, why these two were shot. One, they participated in drug trafficking inside provincial jail, and stole large amount of drug money.  The other option:  they discovered that their colleagues were involved in drug trafficking and blew the whistle on them, which I doubt, because only a suicidal person would do such a thing.  Just look at the photo in the newspapers of shooting of guard Rouleau: he was shot 6 or seven times, while the assailants did not even try to shoot the other guard on the bus - clearly, they targeted Rouleau.  If their purpose was destabilization of system, they would have shot both. There is also no doubt that someone in the bus depot informed them on the bus timing, its route and
its occupants.

    Heinz Wigges continues:
    >The CSC crowd are a spectrum of people just like any other large
    >organization.

    Wrong again: majority of CSC employees are criminals, with criminal mentality, who are on the wrong side of prison bars. Here is an example: if a guard commits a heinous crime, no other guard would agree to testify against him, and if he does, he would become a "rat"  (the same term criminals use), and he might be  killed, beaten,  etc. He certainly would not be able to keep his job.  The same mentality rules police.  Is this the same mentality as in any "other   large organization"?

    Heinz Wigges continues:
    >In the July 29 Globe and Mail one of their major asswipes refused to
    >let a prisoner get a subscription to Scientific American magazine.

    I said that CSC employees are criminals, but they are not stupid: the "asswipe" refused subscription not because he could not understand usefulness of science: he refused subscription, because he understood perfectly well, that if a prisoner gets into science, there is a chance he would stop his criminal activity, co CSC would lose a client, and they can not possibly allow this.  This is their official position from the top: to discourage higher education!

    Heinz Wigges ends with:
    >But when one looks at the majority of inmates they supervise, it's no
    >wonder that there are problems in jails.

    Translation: CSC employees are good an honest people, they are just under bad influence coming from bad, bad criminals they supervise! I have never heard such a lame excuse!

---


How jailers steal from prisoners.

    The major item is, of course, drugs.  Jailers bring drugs to jail and make big money on selling drugs to prisoners. Yet another item is telephone.  Prisoners are allowed only to call collect. So, prisoners' families are charged at least 5 times more than regular dialing would cost. I tried an alternative: my wife got an 800- number, which is much cheaper, but jailers do not allow me to dial it. They claim that jail security would be jeopardized.  I can call 800- numbers of Information Commissioner, Correctional Investigator, etc., jail security is not jeopardized, but if I call my family, it would be jeopardized! I made complaints up to the National Headquarters, to no avail: this stealing is sanctioned from above.
There is no doubt that jail warden gets kick-backs from the telephone company, otherwise, why would he do it?

    Yet another telephone steal: the telephone programmed in such a way, that it cuts off the conversation after 20 minutes and  25 seconds. Why?  Because the phone company then charges the family 21 minutes.  It is much easier to program the computer exactly 20 minutes or exactly 21 minutes, but they add seconds.  You may say, it is about 25 cents. Well, multiply these 25 cents by the number of prisoners times the number of calls, and you get good sum, and somebody in jail gets kick-
backs from the telephone company, otherwise, why would they do that?   The same timing is programmed in Donnacona jail and in Cowansville jail. Is this just a coincidence?

    I am trying for two years by now to get the telephone contract between jail and telephone company. I got so far the contract up to 1997, but with the amounts of money deleted, under pretext of commercial secrets. There is a court case, where it was decided that when contract is finished, commercial secrets section does not apply.  Jailers still have not given me the contemporary contract.  I filed a complaint with the Information Commissioner, who is supposed to be a "watchdog"  doing  his best to provide citizens with information they requested.  In reality, he does his best to deny access to information. Almost a year has passed since I filed a complaint - no result.

    Yet another place stealing from prisoners  -  Finance Department.  Prisoners are paid between $5.25 and $6.90 per day of work.   One might think, there is not much to steal from! Nevertheless, jailers do steal. Majority of prisoners do not check their pay sheet, some do not have enough education to check even if they wanted, so jailers just underpay. Jailers do know that I check my pay, still they paid me for 9.5 days instead of 10.  If they did this to me, can you imagine what they do to other prisoners?  It is just $3, but again, multiply it by 500 prisoners, and you get $1, 500 every two weeks.  Not bad as additional  pay for the Head of Finance Department.  I just do not know, how they manage to transform these underpayments into cash  which  they  can  put  in  their pockets, but one thing is clear: they would not do it, if they could  not profit from this.

    Jailers do not hesitate to steal just several pennies.   When I was in Donnacona, I used the Fund Disbursement  Form  (it  is  like  a personal cheque in jail) to pay for my postal expenses.   On  numerous occasions, jailers changed the amount written by me to a greater  one. Example:  I sent a letter to US and wrote amount,  which  at  that  time was  $0.52, jailers changed it $0.90.  One could not argue that  my letter  was  too heavy - the rate of $0.90 to US just did not exist. I decided to make an experiment: the matter is so obvious, if I file a complaint, can  I  win?  The answer is no.  I went with this complaint
all  the  way  to  National Headquarters.  Their response: "We have no power over Canada Post rates".  This stealing is sanctioned at the top level.  I must note that I did not see this kind of stealing in Cowansville jail, at least, not from me.

    Yet another place  to  steal  from  prisoners  is  the  Personal Effects Department, which is in charge of all purchases prisoners make. When  a prisoner wants to buy a computer, he has to buy from one store authorized by jailers.  I made an experiment: my wife called the store and described all the details of computer to buy.  They quoted her the price.   Then  I submitted my request to buy this computer and indicated the quoted price. They refused to sell it and gave me a price $300
greater  than  the  one quoted to my wife.  The picture is clear: the store gets  monopoly  price and jailers get kick-backs in exchange.

    When a new prisoner wants to bring  a  computer  from  his  home, he  is charged $110 for "verification", yet another monopoly, which  the chosen store has.  Each jail has several computer specialists who, according  to the rules, are supposed to do the verification, and it should be free.

    Yet another trick is being used when a prisoner wants to buy something.  When I wanted to buy a walkman from Sears, the price is in the  catalog, so guard Leduc, who works in the Personal  Effects Department,  did  the following: he ordered a walkman of a cheaper model and tried to charge me the amount for the one I ordered.  I noticed the fraud and  returned  the walkman, but another prisoner might not notice. It would be  interesting to learn, how guard Leduc can pocket the
difference.

    Many items prisoners need to buy are not in the catalogue, and here Leduc is given free reign.  First, he stalls the order for several months,  and when prisoner becomes desperate, he offers the thing  for double  price. For example, when I needed to buy  a  new  cartridge  for my  dot-matrix printer, Leduc tried to get me pay double price ($10). When  I  refused, he told me that the cartridge I needed was not available.  Then I did the following: I called Club DOS in Quebec-City, they quoted me the price  of $5, and I made a new order to buy specifically from Club DOS.  All  of  a sudden, Leduc called me and told me that the cartridge was available from his store at $8.  What could I do?  I agreed.  How much would  Leduc  put in his pocket from this transaction?  Not more than $1, but  for  jailers no amount is too small to steal.  Have in mind that his pay is  at  least $50,000 per year.

    A good place to steal from prisoners is kitchen.  For example, I noticed that jailers often buy cheese, which no regular customer would buy: it is either with expired date or the vacuum is broken.  If jailers pay regular price for such products, guess who gets the kick-backs.  I am  the  only one who protests: majority of prisoners are too scared  to protest,  and indeed, they are at the mercy of jailers:  jailers  decide to  recommend early release or not, jailers decide  to  transfer  to minimum  security jail, jailers decide on when prisoners get their conjugal  visits,  etc.  It is better not to rock the boat.


---

 Quite some time ago, my son has posted my response to Wiertz, who claimed that I was just frustrated by long wait for operation, and being paranoidal, invented the story that jailers were murdering me by denial of medical care.  It looks like my response was so convincing to Wiertz, that he had nothing to respond, but now we have Wiertz number 2,  named Newton, but with a new twist: there is nothing wrong with my heart  -  I am just a paranoidal liar.  What is his proof?  A "scientific"  one:   a simple explanation is always the right one. Since all  the  judges  and all media refused to intervene, it is more
simple  to  assume  that  my heart is fine, than to assume that every judge is dishonest and that the media is yellow.

     The problem with Newton's (please, do not confuse him with  great Isaac Newton!) "scientific" theory is that we can measure length, mass, time, but we can not measure simplicity, and there is no unit  of simplicity. One newton is a unit of force, so if Darren Newton wants to introduce  a unit of simplicity, he should call it one darren.  But since  such  unit is not yet defined, to me it is much more simple to say  that  Canadian politicians, including Prime Minister, are crooks, Canadian judiciary is corrupt, and yellow media can not possible say the truth, if this  truth is politically incorrect.  I  just  remind  the
"investigative  report" published in The Gazette in 1993, where they "discovered" that I  was  a false scientist and knew  nothing  about Mechanical  Engineering!   And these yellow journalists got Canadian equivalent of Pulitzer  Prize  for their lies about me!  Need I say more?

     As far as my heart condition is concerned, let us look at the facts.   I have several medical  reports  which  say  that  I  have  the following blockages in my coronary  arteries:  Circumflex  -  70%,  Left Anterior Descending (LAD) - 90%, First Diagonal -95%, Marginal 100%.  I suggest, that Mr. Newton go to any library, take Encyclopedia Britannica and look up Heart.  He will see  that  Circumflex  and  LAD  are  major coronary arteries, and one can not survive if both get blocked 100%. Now if  Mr. Newton thinks that those reports are product of my paranoidal mind, I am ready to mail him copies of these reports.

     Using Newton's theory of simplicity, it was much simpler to presume that Milgaard was guilty, rather than to think that police investigation was false, that prosecutor was wrong, that 12 of his peers,  who  found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt, made a terrible mistake, the Honourable judges of the Court of Appeal were too corrupt, etc.  What do
you think, Darren?
                    Disrespectfully, Fabrikant.

     P.S. I made an interesting observation: all the messages against me are posted in the groups, all messages of support are sent  directly  to my son.  When one such  "supporter"  was  asked  permission  to  place his support message in the group, he was too scared  to  give  his consent.  Now, Darren, tell me that we are NOT living in a police state?

---

Re: how  jailers  steal from prisoners

I have posted recently account of numerous way  how  jailers  steal from prisoners.  [email protected] responded saying that she  had "friends" in many jails across Canada and in the US.  She was quiet about what she does for living, but I suspect,  she  is  a  member of  one  of "societies" which claim to help prisoners.  In reality, these people  are jailers  in  disguise.   They  get  paid  either  by Government  or   by Correctional Service.  I met one member of John
Howard Society in Leclerc jail, and he  told  me  how  he  "suffered" because  of  his  work  with criminals: his office was broken into 4 time in 5 years!  Later I learned that he had good insurance and was paid  handsomely  each  time  break-in took place.  This scum of the earth used his criminal  friends  to  stage break-ins in order to collect insurance!

    Now about Shelly.  She states that all prisons in Canada and US use the same rule: prisoners have to call collect, and only to approved numbers, and this is done to prevent prisoners harassing their victims. I  fully agree, that criminals should not be allowed to harass their victims.  But what this has to do with me dialing my wife's 800- number?

    Besides, contemporary  technology  makes  it  practically impossible  to prevent a prisoner to call wherever he wants.  He just calls his  friend, and his friend can dial for him any number he pleases.

    Shelly also claims that she has not heard from her "friends" about other types of stealing.  Well, majority of prisoners do not realize they  are being robbed.  It is that simple.  For example, if a prisoner is told  to pay $110 for "verification" of his computer, he pays, and that is the end of it.
---

Re: how  jailers  steal from prisoners

Spragg <[email protected]> wrote his response effectively saying that it is OK to steal from thieves and robbers.  Well,  let  us  go further: since many criminals have beaten  up  their  victims,  let  us introduce corporal punishment in jails.  Was it a mistake to abolish it in 1972?

    Spragg and others do  not  seem  to  understand  that  majority  of jail population are coming out (about 90% are out within 2  years),  and they are coming to YOUR neighborhood.  And many are angry.  And they are  not going to beat up the jailer, who made them angry, -  they  are going  to beat up and rob an elderly gentleman in a park - just to get their  anger out.  And jailers make them angry by design: jailers want them to commit another crime and to come back to jail.  The worst
nightmare for jailers: crime has disappeared - they all will become unemployed and unemployable, since they have no useful skills: they know how to beat up people,  and they know how to steal, that's it.

    Majority of jailers are criminals, who are on the wrong  side  of prison bars.  When I first came to jail, I was told in no uncertain terms that I had a choice: to have easy time, or to serve hard  time. In  order  to have easy time, all I had to do, was to close my  eyes  on what  jailers were doing, which I just could not do, because in this case I would loose my respect for myself.  So, I opted for hard time.

 Would it be a great pleasure for you to learn that jailers have broken my ribs?  They did it on August 24, 1994, anniversary of
Concordia shooting. But if you think that this was done as a revenge for 4 professors I  shot at Concordia, you would be sadly mistaken.  Jailers are good friends with all big criminals, they do not give a damn about victims.  They broken my ribs on the day when I was scheduled to appear in Quebec Court  to  press criminal charges against them, so they wanted to teach me  a  lesson.  I did not get the lesson, I am still continuing to expose criminal jailers, and I shall do it until I die.

    The latest twist in the story how jailers steal from prisoners.   My pay was reduced to 7.5 days instead of 10.  When I wrote a memo  asking why, the response was that it was a mistake and I would get credit on the next statement.  Next statement came, - there is no credit.  The message  from thieves is loud and clear: "We have read your letter, we
are thieves  and proud of it, we shall continue stealing as much as we want, and there  is nothing you can do about it, because  we  are supported  by  yet  bigger thieves from above".

    Is this what the society expects from its Correctional Service?

    At the end, Spragg asks me what am  I  doing  in  my  free  time, except whining.  Whining and exposing crooks are two different  things: I  never whine.  90% of my time is devoted to my scientific research. My body  is in jail, my brain is not.  While in  jail,  I  have published  about  20 scientific papers in the best journals in US and Europe.   My  scientific output is better than that of 90% of scientists in my field, who are NOT in jail, - not bad at all.
 

---

How jailers steal from prisoners

    Here is a new twist in the saga on how jailers steal from prisoners.   I have written before, that jailers wanted to show  their
defiance,  stole 2.5 days pay (about $16) four weeks ago;  then they admitted  the  error, promised to reimburse, but did not.  The latest pay they  did  reimburse, but still managed to steal $1.10  (no  amount is  too  small  for  these thieves!).  Here is how they  did  it. There  is  a  rule,  that  if  a prisoner's  pay  for  two  weeks exceeds  $69,  he  is  charged  certain percentage for "room and board". So, instead of marking the amount as  a correction, they marked it as a premium and  subtracted  this  "room  and board" charge.

    I would have said that jailers in general have an intellect of gorillas, but this would be  insulting  to  the  noble  animals.
(Once,  I  asked permission to buy a book "To Kill All Lawyers". Jailers  did  not  allow me, because it would endanger jail security.  I explained that this was a book of jokes, and the title was the famous quote from Shakespeare, to no avail).  But as far as stealing is concerned - they are all Einsteins.

    One prisoner has told me recently yet another ingenious way  for jailers to steal.  He decided to take a correspondence course - Diesel Mechanic. He submitted his request to Unit Manager Page,  she  approved, and  $199 were transferred to International Correspondence School.  Now, his  first book arrived, and jailers do not give it to him,  claiming (you  guessed it) that jail security would be jeopardized.  Now, suppose, that they are right.  Should not then Page refuse him permission to  take  the  course, BEFORE she authorized the transfer of money?  The case is clear: Page got kickback from ICS by allowing the transfer of money, and the prisoner got robbed.  In addition, jailers achieved  yet  another  goal:  to  prevent prisoners from getting special education.  Jailers do their best in  this field, because they know, that the more educated  is  the  prisoner,  the less is the chance that he would come back, and they do not like it.

    Jailers also do their best to prevent prisoners getting high school education.  After 8 years of being in jail, jailers finally
allowed me to teach Mathematics to prisoners, from April 17, 2000, but if you think,  I started teaching on that day, think again.  Each day I was coming to school, the jailer, who was to supervise me (I  can not  be  trusted  to teach alone in the classroom), was not there.  This lasted until May 29, when this jailer retired, and another jailer was appointed.  They gave me 4 students, and promptly fired 3 of them, so I was left with one student.  Many prisoners approach me, asking to be in
my class, but jailers refuse.  Recently, they allowed one of the fired students  to  come  back.  And jailers have the nerve to  reproach  to me,  how  come  I  have  only  2 students!

    Discouragement  of  post-secondary  education  comes  from  the National Headquarters.   Commissioner's  Directive  allows   prisoners to   take correspondence courses mainly in Humanities, which is  quite useless  in terms of getting a decent job on  the  outside.   Prisoners, who  go  to school in jail, get paid from $5.25 to $6.90  per  day. Prisoners,  who take any correspondence course, not only do not get paid this  miserable amount, they also have to pay all the expenses related to  the  courses. In addition, in order to get paid this $6 per day, they have to take  yet another full-time job, so for their post-secondary  education  they  only have evenings and week-ends.  It is not surprising that less than  1%  of prisoners decide to take such courses. I made a complaint requesting to repeal this Commissioner's Directive, and of course, I lost: jailers want prisoners to continue their criminal activities and to come back.
                                                 
---

Shooting of Auger

    I watched with amazement the news  about  shooting  or  reporter Auger.  Something there did not fit. Let us review the facts.  He was threatened on numerous occasions.  He kept his telephone and  address confidential, he  took  each  time  different  route  to  work.   He DID  NOT  wear  a bullet-proof west.  Does all this make sense?

    What is the point to take different route to work, if your  enemies know where you work, so that you would eventually come to the parking, open to the public?  What is the point to keep your home address confidential, if your enemies can wait until you get into your car at the end of the  day, and they can follow you to your home?  And  if  you took  those  threats seriously, would not you, at least, wear a bullet-proof vest?

    My amazement does not stop here.  He  was  shot  5  times,  yet when  he arrived at the hospital, doctors immediately declared that his life  was not in danger.  Does all this look like somebody wanted to kill  him  and did not succeed?  Clearly, his attackers had all the opportunities in the world, after shooting him 5 times in the back, to shoot him in the  head, and they did not.  Was this shooting just a warning?  Media  claims  that the  shooting  was  organized  crime's retribution  to  Auger  for   his publications.  If this was really a warning, it is the first  time,  that organized crime gives warnings with bullets:  all  the  previous  history mainly demonstrates that warnings are given by words or by beatings.

Let us analyze this.  He did publish certain information, which is new to me, though I have been in jail for 8 years, and  could  have heard  many things from other prisoners.  Now, a good question to ask is:  where  did he get his information?  There are two possible sources: police and other criminals.  Suppose, he  got  his  information  from the  police.   Then organized crime would be quite happy to  learn, what  the  police  knows about them, and would have no reason to harm Auger.  In order  to  get information from other criminals, Auger had to be "their guy", namely, to actually participate in criminal activity. Majority of inmates treat  me with great respect, but since I do not participate in  anything  illegal, they would never tell me something really sensitive  (sometimes,  someone tells me something, which looks like sensitive, but I know they are  just checking whether I will "rat" on them; I know this, and I never do).

One can also notice that some of  the  members  of  organized  crime had agreed to give interview to Auger.   One  would  not  agree  to give  an interview to a reporter who is considered as a mortal enemy.

There is yet another explanation of  the  shooting,  which  sounds quite incredible and sick: Auger has organized with his criminal friends a fake shooting.  Clearly, that after this shooting, he will come  back to  his journal as a hero, he will get all  the  journalistic  prizes available, etc.  Future will show whether this sick idea has any  sense. If  Auger returns back to his  work,  and  stays  alive,  without  24 hour  police protection, then the sick idea is not so sick after all. One  thing  is clear though: the shooting originates in his criminal activity  (as  all shootings of prison guards), not in his work as an honest  reporter:  if organized crime wanted to intimidate someone, don't you think, they would try to intimidate a judge or a prosecutor,
not a journalist.  After  all, it is a judge or a prosecutor, who puts them in jail, or DO THEY?

Speaking about organized crime: the number one organized crime in Canada (as in any other country) is Canadian Government: poor bank robbers  get on average several thousand dollars,  politicians  rob this  country  by millions.  Organized crime number two is the police. Whenever they seize drugs, certain part of the catch they give to their
trusted  dealers  to sell.  This was reported once in  the  press,  but have  no  doubt,  the captain caught was just a tip of  an  iceberg. Remember  the  top  RCMP officer who shot himself about 8 years ago, when he was exposed to  be on the payroll of organized crime?

Just look at the public relations exercise they displayed right after the shooting of Auger: about 400 police made a raid  on  certain bar.   Why? What was the need?  According to the  reports,  they arrested  about  10 people, because they found some drugs in their pockets.  Was  this  worth the effort?  And what it has to do with the shooting?   Government  also gets into action.  What do they plan to do against organized crime?  They want to forbid them  to  wear  their club  jackets!   This  will  really paralyze their activity!  They consider population totally stupid.

Recently, RCMP proudly announced major seizure of drugs  (70  kg.), with the street value of quarter billion.   They  claimed  that  this seizure would save many lives, because the price of drugs will increase. First, 70 kg of drugs is just a drop in a bucket: drugs  are imported by  tons.  Now, assume that this seizure will increase the  price  of drugs,  would this save lives?  The only way to die of drugs  is overdose.   How  many people overdose?  In Donnacona jail over 90% of population use drugs on a daily basis.  I have been there for 5 years, and during  this  time  only one person died of overdose.  On the other
hand,  increase  in  price  of drugs will drive more addicts into robbing  banks  and  other  people  in order to satisfy their drug
habits, and there is a  much  greater  chance that someone will die during these robberies (remember a taxi driver, who was killed just for  $10?).  So, should we  congratulate  RCMP  with  this seizure or should we tell them to stop this stupid loosing war on drugs?
                                                           
---

Trudeau/FLQ crisis

P.Trudeau died.  Media claims that the whole nation is in  mourning, that he was a creator of new Canada, kinder and gentler nation.  Let  us just look at the facts.  October 1970 - FLQ  crisis.   A  Quebec Minister  is kidnapped and killed. He has panicked and introduced  War Measures  Act, hundreds of innocent people were rounded up overnight and put in jail, no accusations of any kind.  What is interesting here - police could  do  it overnight.  This means that  police  were  spying
on  people,  who  just publicly expressed opinions which government did not like,  and  had  the list of such people ready.  Kinder and gentler nation?

    Too gentle: in any normal country, a Prime Minister, who  orders jailing of hundreds of people, he knew to be innocent  of  any  crime, would  be treated as criminal and put in jail.   Army  is  for protection  against foreign enemies, not for shooting its own citizens. Law and order is for the police to protect, and if there is a situation where  police  is  not enough, this means that too great part of population is too unhappy  with government, so the government should either resign or satisfy the unhappy part of population.  In October of 1970,  after  the  first  kidnapping, Trudeau  should  have  announced holding   of   referendum on Quebec independence, and to respect whatever the result might be.

    He was the one, who started unbalanced  budget,  borrowing  and national debt. He was the one, who  presided  over  increased unemployment,  huge inflation and 20% interest rates.  Remember all this?

    Last, but not least: prior to his departure, he  decided  to  go with  a bang: he made hundreds of appointments, giving his  cronies nice  places with huge salaries for life.  He even had a stupid guy Turner  to  do  a dirty job for him, which cost Turner dearly.  Remember Mulroney  slamming him during their debate?

    Trudeau's son, in his eulogy  said  that  we  all  should  work hard  to continue the great things started by his father, and to be worthy of  his father.  In view of the above, what the hell was he talking about?
                                       
---

Re: Trudeau/FLQ crisis

Faulkenham wrote <[email protected]>:
   > Well, I agree with you on a few counts, but not all.  In October crisis
   > there is something you forgot to mention.  There were  two  deaths, one
   > was Cross, and the other was La Porte.

   Sir, I was in Russia at that time, you were  here,  and  you  should know better than that.  I suggest that you read about it  again  and learn  at least, how many people were killed and how to spell the name Laporte.

   > ... and to this day, no one is really sure, on who exactly  killed that
   > person, be it Cross or La Porte.

   Did not you write that both were killed?

   > Another thing that Trudeau did was to convert us Canadians over  to the
   > metric system, and that was a terrible mistake.

   Wow, I thought that it was the only sensible thing he did.  Stupid me!

   > Imagine, now in Quebec, we pay on average 78 cents to 82  cents  a ltr.
   > for gasoline.  Imagine that he left the system alone,  can  you imagine
   > driving up to the gas pumps and paying over $4.00 for a gallon of gas,
   > but that's what we are paying.

   Let us do some arithmetics.  In US they did leave  the  system alone.   I have heard they paid in Illinois US$2.18 for a gallon.
American gallon is 3.785 liters, which gives US$0.58 per liter or $0.86 Canadian  per  liter.  Conclusion: Americans are paying more  than  we, and  of  course,  it  is because we are metric!  Now let us check your second statement.   Canadian gallon is 4.544 liters, so Canadians are paying about  $3.63  per  gallon, and your claim that  you  are  paying over  $4  per  gallon  is  slightly exaggerated.

   I must admit: this was the most ridiculous argument against metric system, which I have ever heard!  I hate to disappoint you,  Sir,  but sooner  or later, stubborn Americans will have no choice, but to join the rest of the world in metric system.

   > One great thing that Trudeau did ... he put Canada on the map.

   Are  you better off, because Canada is now "on the map", and was your life really that miserable, when Canada wasn't?  Is, for example, Bahrain  "on the map"?  Would you rather live in a country, which is not on  the  map, but where you pay no taxes, government pays  for  your house,  education, wedding, etc., you have highest in the world per capita income,  or  would you prefer to live in Canada, as it is - on the map?

   > What  did  Deifenbaker  or  Stanfield  who  were  both  Canadian Prime
   > Ministers, ever do for Canada besides line their  own  pockets  and put
   > Canada deeper in debt?

   Every politician is a crook and a thief by definition: honest person would not go into politics, and if he would go, he would not survive for  long.  As far as debt is concerned, it was Trudeau who introduced debt  to  this country.

---

Re: Trudeau/FLQ crisis

Jonh Joice <[email protected]> wrote on October 27, 2000
   > Is your head completely up your ass or  are  just  plain  stupid? this
   > referendum crap is just that, plain crap!!!!  here we are advocating the
   > breakup of our country.  This is one thing: TREASON!!!!!

   I reproduced exactly spelling of the  author.   Treason  -  this  is what Milosovic was shouting when Jugoslavia started disintegrating;  he killed thousands of "traitors", and where is his Jugoslavia now?   This is  what Stalin would shout, is someone suggested to him  break-up  of the  Soviet Union.  Break-up of old Soviet Union took place anyway.  Was it a treason?

   I  am  sure,  England  called  people,  like  Washington,   traitors and terrorists, because they wanted to break-up British Empire - now they  are heroes.  Members of FLQ are terrorists for one reason only  - they  lost.  Had they won independence of Quebec,  they  would  be hailed  as  heroes, fathers of a nation.

   If you have in a country two or more groups of people, speaking different languages and hating each other, they are better off  living in  separate countries.  Of course, it would be much better, if they learned to respect and love each other, but if this  is  impossible, they  should  separate.  Treason is an action harmful to your country. Separation of  two  hostile groups of people is beneficial to both, and therefore is not a treason.

   Look at the recent history.  Eritrea was part of Ethiopia and  was waging war of independence for over 20 years.  After millions dead  and billions dollars of damage to the country economy, they  finally separated,  still being enemies and still fighting now and then.  Would not it be better  to separate amicably at the first signs of trouble? Similar situation is  in Sri Lanka, and nobody there has the  courage to  say:  "Let  us  separate amicably", because there  are too many hot-heads,  like  Joice,  shouting TREASON!!!!  Take the situation in Spain: they have their  own  Quebec  in Basque region.  Do you want
bombs exploding near you?  Do you want  to  go to war and die there, in order to keep Quebec in Canada?  Do you want your son to die in that stupid war?  I do not.

   If you think that I am a separatist, you are wrong.  I personally think, that Quebec is much better off inside Canada,  than  it  would have  been outside, but the only way to prove it is to let them separate. And should this ever happen, it should be done in an amicable manner.

 
How doctors kill patients with impunity

    I have become aware of the story many months ago, and I was hesitating whether to make it public.  There is no doubt that medical community will be outraged by this story.  There is also no doubt, that pretty soon my own survival will be at the mercy of  these  doctors: my  next  heart attack, if do not die  right  away,  will  bring  me  to one  of  Quebec hospitals, and these murderous doctors will have all the opportunities in the world to take their sweet revenge and to kill me.
I  thought  about this long and hard, and I have come to the conclusion that I can not keep quiet, even if I have to pay with my own life for speaking out.  This  is just the way I have always been and still am.

    Here is the story.  In August 1998, Tina Diaz died in St-Mary's Hospital. She was only 18 years old.  I have  learned  about  the  story from  her boyfriend, who  was  convicted  of  second  degree  murder and  sent  to Cowansville jail.  He showed me the coroner's report and statements  made to police by a nurse.  Here are the facts, as they are described in these two documents.

    From the nurse's statement.  Tina Diaz was brought to St-Mary's hospital in a taxi by her boyfriend at about 4 a.m. one August night. She  had  a stab wound in her chest, left side, where the  heart  is. She  declared that somebody else, person  she  did  not  know,  stabbed her,  not  her boyfriend.  She was placed in  the  intensive  care unit,  and  she  was conscious and stable until noon next  day,  when her  state  started  to deteriorate.  At certain point, nurse describes 3 doctors  standing  near her bed, "begging" her to give the names of relatives, so that they could be contacted.  She refused, and continued to maintain that it was not her boyfriend, who stabbed her.  Several hours later,  she  died  of  cardiac arrest.  After her heart stopped, a surgeon opened her chest and tried to restart her heart by a direct heart massage  by  hand,  without  success.  This is what the nurse told the police.

    From the Coroner's report.  Coroner determined that Tina Diaz was stabbed by a knife which perforated the heart ventricle, so there was an internal bleeding from the heart into the surrounding.  Accumulated blood  finally "suffocated" the heart.  He also noticed that no X-rays were taken.

    My comments and conclusions. When there is a stab wound  in  the heart area, such situation should be treated by any doctor as life-threatening.  A detailed X-ray should be taken to determine the place and  volume  of internal bleeding.  An emergency surgery should be performed to repair the heart ventricle and to stop the internal bleeding.  None of this was done.  Why?  A similar medical situation was reported recently on TV:  a school girl had accidentally fallen on a sharp pencil,  which  perforated her chest.  She was delivered to a hospital, where an emergency  surgery was performed, her heart repaired, and now she is alive  and  well.   The same could be done with Tina Diaz, but was not.  Why?

    There are two possibilities: professional negligence  (ignorance) and a cold premeditated murder.  To decide, which  one  this  was, recall  the picture, described above by the nurse: 3(!) doctors, standing  near  her bed, "begging" her to give the names of relatives, so that they could  be contacted.  The doctors usually do not come even  two-some,  let  alone three, and they would not "beg" a patient for  the  names  of  relatives, unless they know that the patient is about to die.  So, if they knew that Tina was about to die, then the fact that they did nothing  to  save  her makes their behavior fit for the crime of premeditated murder.

    Doctors at St-Mary's had at least 10 hours to save  Tina, and  they did nothing.  If someone thinks that opening up her chest  and  doing direct heart massage was an attempt to save her - it was not.   Coroner noticed that all blood around the heart disappeared: they opened her chest not to revive her, but to eliminate incriminating evidence -  to wipe  out  the blood around her heart, hoping that coroner would not understand that she died because this blood "suffocated" her heart.

    Now a good question to ask is: why did the doctors at St-Mary's killed Tina Diaz?  Having been in jail for  8  years  and  having observed  the police and jailers in action, I can make a good educated guess.  There is no doubt that doctors immediately upon Tina's arrival called the  police, and police was questioning Tina as to who stabbed her.  She insisted that it was not her boyfriend, but an unknown assailant. Police did not believe it.  They knew that the boyfriend had a long rap sheet, and  they saw this stabbing as a good opportunity to put him in jail for long time, but Tina was stubborn: she insisted that it was not  her  boyfriend,  who stabbed her.

    Should she survive, they would have no case against the  boyfriend, they needed her either dead or admitting that it was indeed the boyfriend, who stabbed her.  Having Tina dead was the best of two options:  they  could charge the boyfriend with a murder (which they did).  So, police told the doctors to withhold the treatment, until she admitted  that  it  was  the boyfriend, who stabbed her, and they were happy to oblige.  The  nurse in her statement admits that Tina was asked repeatedly,  who  stabbed  her.
 
    Now look once again at the picture, described by the nurse -  3 doctors, "begging" her to give the names of relatives.  Does not the picture  look strange or incomplete?  What I think  was  really happening  there:  the doctors were "begging" her to  admit  that  it was  the  boyfriend,  who stabbed her, so that they could start the surgery,  without  which  they knew she would die.  Tragically, Tina stood her  ground.   The  murderers doctors stood their ground as well: no admission - no treatment.

    If one day you read in the newspapers that I have died in a hospital  of "natural causes" - do not believe it: I was murdered.
                                                     
---

Chretien  - criminal?

The media has reported that Prime Minister has made several phone calls to a person he himself appointed in order to secure a loan of about $600,000 for his personal friend, who also happened to have a criminal record.  Day and Clark made requests to investigate whether a criminal offense has been committed.  All the media attacked them, saying that they went too far.  Wow!  Is this really too far?  What is the difference between Chretien's actions and British Columbia past Premier?  He got charged with a criminal offense, why should not Chretien be charged with the same?  Chretien claims that he did what he did,
because he was a Member of Parliament, acting on behalf of his constituency. Let us see, whether this explanation holds water.  He did not act on behalf of John Doe, - it was his PERSONAL FRIEND, who in the past bough from Chretien a hotel, and now he wanted a loan for this particular hotel.  Even presuming that at the time of purchase his friend did not give Chretien some amount of money against Chretien's promise to guarantee him a loan, the appearance of impropriety is so flagrant, that in any normal country Prime Minister caught with similar thing, would have at least to resign.  Media also reported
that when this accusation surfaced in the past, Chretien lied, denying making any calls. Now he admits it.  The impeachment proceedings in US against Clinton was not because he had sex with an intern, but because he lied about it.  Now, which lie is more important? After all, with who Clinton had sex is of importance to his wife, and nobody else; and how Chretien spends taxpayer's money is of everyone's concern.

Then the media triumphantly announced that Chretien was "exonerated".  How was he exonerated?  A person, who Chretien himself appointed (Ethics Commissioner) ruled that there was no impropriety in Chretien's actions!  For God's sake, is not all this ridiculous?  A watchdog, who reports to the one, he is supposed to watch!  What kind of credibility such a watchdog has?  None.  Ethics Commissioner's mandate is to watch over government's behavior.  Is not it obvious that such a person should be independent from the government? More than that, such person should be appointed by the Parliament, and only the opposition members should be allowed to vote for such an appointment.

What should a NORMAL Ethics Commissioner have done in this case?  He should have examined the Chretien's friend loan application and see whether initial refusal was justified. If yes, then it is clear that Chretien misused his power of Prime Minister in twisting hands of one of his employees, which is a criminal offense.  The present Ethics Commissioner did none of this, he interviewed nobody, he requested no documents.

And now about the whole thing of a Member of Parliament acting on behalf of his constituency.  Not only the Prime Minister, but also all the Ministers in his government are members of Parliament.  This is abnormal from two points of view.  First, each Minister is using his power to lobby for his constituency, and I am not talking about lobbying for a friend with a criminal record.  Even an "honest" lobbying looks improper, because every Minister is supposed to work for the good of the whole Canada, not for a little piece of it.  Second, the fact that every Minister is also a member of Parliament, breaches the important principle of separation of administrative power and the legislative one.  Indeed, what we have now is as follows: government tables a piece of legislation, and then goes to the Parliament and VOTES to approve such a legislation.  Every Minister is an administrator AND a legislator at the same time.  This should never be allowed.

Take, for example, USA.  They do not allow this kind of conflict of interest.  If a senator is appointed to a government position, he loses his Senate seat.  The same should be done in Canada.  This way, we would be able to stop the improper lobbying of various Ministers for their friends under the cover of working for their constituency, and on the other hand, we would avoid the ridiculous situation where an administrator is also a legislator.  Every Minister, including Prime Minister, should work for the good of the whole Canada, not just for his constituency.  And there would be an additional bonus: right now a sitting Prime Minister has an unfair advantage over any other candidate from any party: electors understand that Prime Minister can do a lot for constituency, and would be inclined to vote for him.  If we really separate legislators from administrators, Prime Minister and other Ministers would no longer be members of Parliament, and this abomination would stop.
---

Fabrikant is creating headaches

I have observed a peculiar situation on or about November 24-25, 2000.  First, television station TQS played SEVERAL TIMES report stating that Fabrikant was declared vexatious pleader by court, so he can no longer go to court, and now
Fabrikant is creating headaches in administrative tribunals by filing complaints. What Fabrikant is complaining about?  His medical appointment was cancelled. What is interesting, the reporter was not really reporting, but rather reading from a
sheet of paper, which someone gave him.

Then I have seen an article in Journal de Montreal and another one in The Gazette. What is interesting: the TV report and both articles, though one in English and the other in French, convey exactly the same message, as described above.  I know of yet
another article which is to appear in local press, since its reporter was present during the hearing and was making surreptitious pictures of me.

Now, what is the probability, that TQS, Journal de Montreal, The Gazette, local newspaper (and may be some other media) would make on the same date essentially the same report, especially taking into consideration that nothing really newsworthy
happened that day?  Zero.  I never before observed TQS repeating its reports again and again.  Would it be plausible to assume that someone in position of power was directing all these media?  Can I make a better proof that I am a POLITICAL
criminal?

There was a three day hearing of my complaint against Jail doctor Corbin, no reports of this hearing anywhere.  I was declared vexatious pleader in 1999 - I do not recall anyone reporting this.  So, why all this hoopla now?  After all, a complaint made by a convicted murderer against a jail nurse - Is this really so newsworthy as to play many times on TV and to mention in several newspapers?

In order to understand, why this is being done, one need to know the truth, because what the media reported is a half-truth, which worse than a lie.  And here is the full truth.  The essence of my complaint against Boissoneault is that she is helping jailers to murder me, together with the former jail doctor Corbin and the present Jail doctor Rainville.  Denial of medical care, without which a person would die, in my books is called a murder.  None of the media mentioned that.

I reproduce below the text of my complaint against Boissoneault. which speaks for itself:

Cowansville, June 27,
2000
Committee on Discipline
Ordre des Infirmiers
et Infirmieres
4200 Dorchester, West                       Re: 20-2000-00227
Montreal, Quebec H3Z lV4

Sir/Madam:

Please, consider this letter as a private complaint against nurse Boissoneault.  She is in charge of
Infirmary at Cowansville Jail. I reproach to her the following.

1. I was transferred to Cowansville Jail on January 7, 1999. Nurse Boissoneault knew that I
had a heart attack in May of 1998, that I had 4 major coronary arteries blocked, 70%,
90%, 95% and 100% respectively.  She also knew that I have received no treatment since
my heart attack.  I showed her recommendations from top world class doctors from
Harvard Medical School, New York University, Columbia University, all recommending
and ready to perform angioplasty, without which I can die any day.

2. It was her duty, as Head of Infirmary, to find a doctor in Quebec, sufficiently qualified to
perform an angioplasty.  I asked her several times to make at least 5 copies of the
angiography film and mail it out to different specialists performing angioplasty.  She
refused, thus breaching the Integrity part of the Code, Sec. 3.02.01 and 3.02.02.

3. My wife did her job and found a doctor in British Columbia who agreed to perform
angioplasty.  At the beginning of June, she has received a copy of the letter from that
doctor (Exhibit 1), where he outlined the necessary conditions for him to perform
angioplasty.  She delayed the response for over a month, and she only sent to the doctor the
reports from Quebec doctors, who did not recommend angioplasty, thus effectively
exerting on him psychological pressure to refuse to perform angioplasty.  She never
provided that doctor with items he requested in paragraphs 1, 3 and 4. Thus, she breached
Sec. 3.04.01 of the Code (civil responsibility).

4. In February, 2000, a request was made to BMP Hospital for the Halter test.  On April 6, at
about 7.30 in the morning, I was told to get ready to go to BMP Hospital for the test.  I was
never told whether there was any deadline.  I prepared myself as fast as I could, but when I
came to the Keepers' Hall in jail, I was told that my appointment was canceled by nurse
Boissoneault, under pretext that I was late.  My wife has checked with BMP Hospital and
they confirmed to her that the Hospital has not canceled the appointment.  Her behavior was
malicious, even if it was hospital canceling the appointment, because she should have awaken
me early enough, so that I be on time.  Thus, she breached, yet again, Sec. 3.04.01 of the
Code (civil responsibility).

5. I was expecting that she would re-schedule my appointment.  This did not happen.  In mid-
May, I asked my wife to make an appointment for me, and she made an appointment for
June 20, 2000.  In mid-June, my wife called the hospital to check on my appointment, and
she was told that nurse Boissoneault canceled my appointment, yet again, and re-scheduled
it for July 19.  When I asked her, why she did it, she responded that security considerations
do not allow me to know the date of appointment.  When I go to court, I know exactly the
date and time, and this does not breach the security.  But even assuming that security
requires that I did not know the date, she could have easily re-arrange it for June 21 or 22,
without telling me, there was no need to delay for yet another month, especially taking into
consideration my irregular heartbeat, and the fact that my life is in danger.  It is my
understanding that she has canceled the July appointment as well.  There is no doubt that
jailers want me dead, and she is helping them to the best of her abilities, thus breaching Sec.
3.05.02 (prejudice to client under influence of the third party).

6. Recently, I have requested access to my file to see the documents related to the Halter test
appointments.  She refused thus breaching See. 3.07.01 of the Code.

I hereby request that nurse Boissoneault's license to practice medicine be revoked.

An affidavit attesting to the truth of the foregoing is attached.

I request that my complaint be adjudicated on merit as soon as possible.

Yours Sincerely, (signed) Fabrikant

Presume that what I am complaining about is true - does it look like the purpose of my
complaint is to create headache or does it look like I am trying to use all the legal ways to
save my life, to no avail so far, and the time is running out: my heart is getting worse every
day.

I reproduce below the text of my complaint against jail doctor Corbin which also speaks
for itself

 Cowansville, February 8, 2000

Committee on Discipline
College des medecins
du Quebec
2170 boul.  Rene-Levesque W
Montreal, Quebec H3H 2T8

24-00-00497
Sir/Madam:

Please consider this as a new official private complaint against jail doctor Corbin.  I have initially
filed a complaint against him dated April 14, 1999.  As a good will gesture, I had it later
withdrawn, hoping that Jail doctor Corbin would start acting in a responsible and professional
manner.
 

Regretfully, I was wrong: almost a year has passed, and I still have not treatment.  I feel that my
life is in danger, because my often irregular.  This is why I request that the old re-activated and
joined with the new complaint.

As before, I accuse accuse Jail doctor Corbin of placing my life in danger and maliciously by
refusing me the life-saving treatment I need urgently.  Here are the facts.

1. I had a heart attack in May of 1998.  Angiography have shown 4 coronary arteries blocked,
two of them 90% and 95%.  There is need for intervention.

2. I have received no treatment while in Donnacona and Leclerc Jails in 1998 due to malicious
behavior of Jail doctors Verrette and Harris.

3. I was transferred to Cowansville jail in January of 1999.  At the beginning, Jail doctor
Corbin told me that he recommended by-pass surgery.  Then I discovered that he lied to me,
offering by-pass surgery, because he knew I would refuse.  He knew very well, that all the
cardiologists, who recommended by-pass surgery, were not surgeons themselves.  The only
surgeon, who saw me, was Dr. Pelletier, and he did NOT recommend by-pass surgery.

4. When I caught jail doctor Corbin on this lie, he told me that his friend Dr. Gervais
(Sherbrooke) would consider angioplasty, if I submit to a thallium test.  This was just a
maneuver to waste time, because clearly the only test needed to decide whether one can
perform angioplasty - is angiogram, and it was available.  I refused to do thallium test, and
asked that my angiography film be transmitted to Dr. Gervais, so that he could decide
whether he could perform angioplasty.  This was not done.

5. On October 18, 1999, jail doctor Corbin offered me another of his tricks: Dr. Gervais was
prepared to perform angiography the next day, October 19, and depending on the results of
his own angiography, Dr. Gervais would decide whether to do angioplasty.  This made little
sense.

6. I asked once again if Dr. Gervais saw my old angiogram, and the response was negative.
So, I asked once again that my old angiogram be sent to Dr. Gervais, and if viewing the old
angiogram, he would agree to do angioplasty, I was prepared to submit to yet another
angiography.  This time, jail doctor Corbin agreed to send my 1998 angiogram to Dr.
Gervais.

7. I thought that the delay might be one week at the most.  I was wrong.  I have finally met Dr.
Gervais three months later, on January 17, 2000, and he told me that he viewed my old
angiogram and that he could not do angioplasty, and he never mentioned any need for a new
angiogram, which means that I was right when I refused.

8. There is a doctor in British Columbia, who is prepared to perform angioplasty if jailers
 bring me to Victoria.  Correctional Service Rules allow temporary absence from jail for
 medical reasons, so all what required is recommendation of Jail doctor Corbin that I be
 brought to Victoria, and he refuses to do so, claiming that he still have not received the
 report from his friend Dr. Gervais.

9. One may think that there exists telephone, so jail doctor Corbin could ask Dr. Gervais by
telephone what was his opinion.  Here jail doctor Corbin lies to me again, Baying that he
could not contact Dr. Gervais because Dr. Gervais was absent from hospital.  I asked my
wife to call Sherbrooke hospital, and of course, Dr. Gervais was there.

10. As low, as a human being can sink, jail doctor Corbin bombarded the doctor in B.C. with
letters urging him to refuse to perform angioplasty.  To the honor of this doctor, he is still
prepared to perform angioplasty.

11. In the meantime, the state of my health has deteriorated: I have very often irregular
heartbeat.  To me this is a signal that the third heart attack is coming, and it might be the
last.  What did jail doctor Corbin do when he learned about my irregular heartbeat?  He sent
me to a local hospital, which has no cardiologist on staff and is not equipped to deal with a
heart attack.  They offered me Halter test, which is of no use in my case.

Due to the urgency of the situation, I ask the Committee on Discipline to revoke immediately jail
doctor Corbin's license to practice medicine.  Jail will have to hire another doctor, which I hope,
will behave professionally.

I attach the following evidence:

a) Exhibit 1: letter from Dr. Gosselin (Montreal Heart Institute) dated November 23, 1999, in
which Dr. Gosselin confirms that I have no treatment available in Quebec, neither
angioplasty, nor by-pass surgery).

b) Exhibit 2: my request of October 24, where I wrote: "Please, call me Monday, October 25,
and let me know Dr. Gervais opinion on my angiography film: is he prepared to do
angioplasty?  " The "response" reads: "Dr.  Gervais wants to do an angiography".  Clearly,
this is not a response to my question.

c) Exhibit 3: my request of November 3, where I wrote: "Please, let me know Dr. Gervais
opinion on my angiography film: is he prepared to do angioplasty?" Response: "Dr.  Gervais
was not able to read the film from Laval hospital as they are bad copies.  He needs to do
angiography again, and according to the results the best solution for you will be discussed."
Strange response, to say the least: if he could not read a bad copy, ask to see the original.

d) Exhibit 4: my request of November 22, where I wrote: "Please, elaborate as to why Laval
 Hospital 'can not' send the original; it did send at least 6 times before." Response: "Laval
 hospital will only send the film to Dr. Gervais if he requests them".  Well, why would not
 he "request them"?  Because the purpose was to waste time.

e) Exhibit 5: my request of December 16, where I wrote: "Please, let me know Dr.
Gervais' opinion on the old angiography film.  Would he be prepared to do angioplasty,
presuming that my state did not change very much?" Response: "It is not available yet."
Imagine, TWO MONTHS have passed, and jail doctor Corbin still can not get his
friend's opinion on the angiography film!

f) Exhibit 6: my request of December 16, where I wrote: "I am asking you for the last time
the same questions:
1. Did Dr. Gervais see the original angiography film?  Yes______    No_____
2. If yes, is he prepared to do angioplasty, assuming that my present state is the
same?  Yes______    No_____"
Response: "We are still waiting for the answer".

The dishonest purpose of Jail doctor Corbin is obvious: to waste as much time as possible,
hoping that in the meantime I will die.  Is this in agreement with the Hippocratic Oath?

An affidavit attesting to the truth of the foregoing is attached.

Yours Sincerely, (signed) Fabrikant
 

Imagine a situation: a prisoner comes to a Canadian judge and tells him that a Jail doctor Corbin is helping jailers to kill him by denial of medical care, which he needs to survive after a heart attack.  And this Judge, instead of helping prisoner, declares
him VEXATIOUS pleader - can there be a greater outrage?  The word vexatious means that someone is instituting court proceedings just to annoy the other party. Did this judge really believed that my legal attempts to save my life are made just to
annoy murderous doctor Corbin or murderous Jailers?

Fabrikant
---

Fabrikant about insanity

Each time I see myself on TV, they show always the same shots: I am on the stretcher. Everyone, who sees these shots, thinks that this was the way I was taken from the university after the shooting, because I was completely insane.  The truth is that I was taken from the university in a "normal" way: policemen escorted me to the police car, parked in the basement, I got inside, and off we go.  While at the police station, I started feeling chest pain, and fearing for my heart, I asked policemen to get me to a hospital, and they were glad to oblige.  Little did I know, that they seized this opportunity to film me on a stretcher, and
then yellow media used it on and on, without telling population, what really happened and why I was on a stretcher.

Recently, I had another proof just how desperate authorities are to make me insane.  This time, they are again using my heart problems, but in a much more sinister way.  They know, that I have 4 major coronary arteries heavily blocked, and unless I have them opened, I will most certainly die, and probably, pretty soon.  Jailers, with support of corrupt Canadian judges and doctors, are murdering me by denial of medical care I need to survive.

In this situation, they figured out that I must be pretty desperate to save my life, and would do anything for that, but they were in for a big disappointment.  This is what happened.  I got a visit from a lawyer, named Barbant.  He told me that he knew a way to save my life and provide for me the opportunity to get angioplasty, which I need to survive.  What do you think he suggested to me?  You got it - insanity.  He told me that he would arrange my transfer to Pinel, where psychiatrist Morissette (crook, who testified at my trial, that I was so insane that even was not fit to stand trial) would do "proper assessment", meaning would declare me insane.  After that, Barbant would be prepared to address proper court and win a
new trial, where I would be declared not guilty by reason of insanity, and then, according to Barbant, I would be free to go anywhere I wanted, not guilty of anything and free.  And Barbant would do all this free of charge, because he loved me.

I listened to all this in a quiet disbelief: how stupid does he think I am? I guess, authorities, who sent him, (clearly, he would not undertake all this on his own) thought that desperation to save my life would blind me so much that I would grab any opportunity to survive.  They were wrong.  Pretending to be stupid, I asked Barbant, how all this would help me to get
angioplasty done, and his response was, that when I am in Pinel, insane, and not a murderer, he was sure that some of Quebec doctors would be ready to perform angioplasty to save me. At this moment I stood up and asked Barbant whether he new the difference between a lawyer and a spermatozoa.  He knew, and I left. (For those, who do not, the answer is: spermatozoa has one in ten million chance to become a human being).

I have always preferred to die standing up, rather then live on my knees, I still do.

---

Supreme Court judges are aiding and abetting jailers in murdering a prisoner

I have just received a paper from the Supreme Court signed by Gonthier, Binnie and Arbour and claiming to be their judgment on my application for leave to appeal (the application itself was posted earlier on Internet, and I post it again).  I reproduce the judgment verbatim:

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

That's it, the whole judgment is just one sentence.  In the accompanying letter from registry, it is written that the judgment is made "pursuant to paragraph 26(1)(b) of the Supreme Court Act".  I reproduce below the paragraph 26(1)(b) of the Supreme Court Act:

A judgment of the Supreme Court may be delivered
a)..........
b) by depositing with the Registrar, for each judge who has heard the case, a written opinion, a copy, signed by the judge, of the written opinion with which Judge concurs or a statement certifying the Judge's concurrence.

The article is clear: each judge should deposit either his OPINION of sign his concurrence with another judge's OPINION.  The word OPINION in every dictionary is uniformly defined as, and I quote: "In law, a statement by a judge of the REASONS for the decision of the court".  Now, did you find any REASONS in the judgment quoted above?  None.  Why?
Because there is no reason to justify murdering of a prisoner by jailers.

It is a shame, when Judges of the highest court in the country are aiding and abetting jailers in murdering of a prisoner.  As far as I know, judge Arbour in the past was very active in Civil Liberties Union, she also was the Prosecutor of crimes against humanity; she gave numerous interviews, denouncing murders of prisoners in Jugoslavia.  Is there really such a big difference between killing a prisoner by a bullet or killing a prisoner by denying him a life-saving medical care?  Judge Arbour seems to have double standard: it is crime against humanity to kill a prisoner in Jugoslavia, but it is OK to kill a prisoner in her own country, especially a prisoner, who expresses views, which her government does not like.
 
---

Jail  informants testifying about admissions.

    I hear now and  then  public  discussion  about  using  jail informants, testifying that such and such  accused  admitted  commission of  certain crime, especially such crimes as abduction and rape.  I have been in jail by now for over 8 years, and I can assure  public,  that nobody  in  his right mind would ever confess here to anyone, especially, when he is  not yet convicted.  Everyone here understands that at least half  of  inmates are informants, so nobody would risk divulging to anyone  anything,  more than that, it is considered inappropriate to ask  anyone,  what  was  his crime.

    Prison moral has its own table of values:  there  exists  very honorable crime, when  someone  stands  up  for  his  rights,  for
example,  I  am considered a very honorable criminal.  Robbing banks is a  "good"  crime, robbing an elderly lady is not.  The worst crimes are rape, abduction and murder of children.  Nobody in his right mind would ever admit  any  such crime, because very soon after such an admission he  would  be  killed  - unless he runs into protective segregation.

    I was approached at least 20 times  by  various  informants, essentially with the same story: they express their admiration over my actions,  and then they ask me why did not I  hire  someone to  kill these  people  in Concordia, rather than doing it myself, to which I always respond that  I did not hire anyone, because I did not plan to kill anyone in  the  first place.  I am ashamed to admit that one of such informants was  my  former graduate student Karapetian.  One day he told me that he could arrange  a good beating of these individuals through  his  connections  in  Armenian community.  To me this was like a blow over my head: my own student is an informant!  Of course, I did not tell him  anything,  but  this  was  the turning moment in our relationship.

    There were several inmates, who approached  me with  the  same words  of admiration, and then they would tell me that they are going out soon, and if I need someone killed, they would be happy to do  it for  me  out  of great respect, to which I have always responded no, thank you, no.

    I am telling all this for one reason only: public, who  serves  in jury, should understand, that nobody in his right mind confesses to any crime, especially to those which are considered heinous by jail standards.   If prosecution  wants  to  introduce  an  informant, testifying  about   an admission of a crime,  there  should  be  a tape-recording  of  such  an admission, otherwise such a testimony should not be allowed.

    Not long ago, there was a trial in British Columbia of a man accused  of rape and murder of  a  little  girl.   There  was  a
testimony  of  jail informant who claimed that the accused confessed of committing the crime.  The accused was lucky, he was acquitted, but he could have been convicted as well, and all on the basis of a professional  informant's  testimony, who had a lot to gain, due to the deal  with  prosecution.   This  kind of things should not be allowed.
How  many  people  are  still  rotting in jails, convicted on the basis
of a jailhouse informant's testimony?

---

Fabrikant about drugs, prostitution and crime

I personally never used any drugs (with inhaling or without), I do not drink alcohol, not even beer, never smoked tobacco (or anything else).  I have been in jail for almost 8 years, and I observed people using various kinds of drugs. I was offered drugs on many occasions, and each time I refused.  I am telling all this for one reason: I favor decriminalization of all drugs, and my
opinion may be trusted, because I am a disinterested party.

The first 52 years of my life I was the so-called law-abiding citizen, never had even a speeding ticket, and as majority of such citizens, I believed that drugs push people to commit crime, and this is why they should be banned. Only in jail I understood a very simple thing: people on drugs are either sleeping or, if not sleeping, look very happy, love everyone, and certainly not violent.

Crime starts when addicted people can not get drugs, they get so desperate, that they can, for example, kill a taxi driver for $10 just to get their next fix.  I spoke to many prisoners during the years, and I have heard the same story again and again: an ordinary law-abiding citizen somehow gets hooked on drugs.  Drugs are expensive, no salary is enough, so out of desperation, this law-abiding citizen starts robbing banks, houses, etc., and ends up in jail, because he was, for example, a good baker, but he is not a good robber, so he gets caught.  He serves his time, gets out, his addiction is as strong as ever, he gets back into crime, and the "revolving door" is in action.

I estimate that about 60% of federal prisoners fit the above story.  These people are sick, they do not belong in jail.  Give them drugs free of charge, and they would harm nobody.  Let us do a little arithmetics.  Correctional Service spends over 1 BILLION dollars per year to keep about 14,000 prisoners, which comes to about $71,000 per prisoner.  If you release 60% of prisoners, you save right away over 600 million dollars.  Even if you spend $35,000 per year per released prisoner for his welfare and free drugs, you will still end up with 300 million dollars savings, and this is just in Correctional Service. Much greater amounts will be saved in the expenses on police, judges, lawyers and prosecutors.  These money will be better spent on drug rehabilitation and testing.

I have lived for 5 years in a maximum security jail, where about 90% of population consumes drugs and alcohol on a daily basis, and this does not prevent them to get up in the morning and go to work, and perform normally. It is a myth that drugs undermine jail security, on the contrary, drugged people feel happy and non-aggressive.  Alcohol sometimes makes people
aggressive, but not drugs.  Several years ago, guards a Bordeaux jail made public demonstrations of protest, because someone was throwing tennis balls with drugs over the fence and into the jail yard, where inmates collected them. What the protest was really about - guards were fighting competition: we have seen in one Fifth Estate show, that guards are bringing drugs to jail, so if somebody else does it too, this drives prices down, and they would fight this competition as hard as they can, and they do.

All the drug related violence in jails is either turf war between different groups for the right to sell drugs, or someone gets more drugs on credit than he can pay - so he gets stabbed or killed.  Decriminalization of drugs would end all this.

Let us imagine a situation: all drugs are decriminalized in the whole world and are treated in exactly the same way as tobacco and alcohol (which, by the way, kill many more people than all the other drugs combined).  Huge number of prisoners will be released, and savings in judicial system, police and Corrections will be more that sufficient to accommodate all them.  The price of drugs will fall dramatically.  The drug producers will start paying taxes, thus increasing tax revenue.  Crime rate will fall drastically, because turf war will disappear.  Organized crime, which draw its power from drug trade, will disappear.  Police corruption will be reduced significantly, because the organized crime will no longer have either the money or need to pay-off the police.   Everybody knows well publicized cases where police was confiscating drugs, and then turn around and re-sold those drugs to their trusted dealers.

Now, what are the negative consequences of decriminalization of drugs?  People think that in this case everybody will become a drug addict.  The same reasoning was used in the time of prohibition: people were somehow duped to believe that everybody will become an alcoholic - now we know better.  Take me as an example.  I have been living in society where majority consumes drugs on a daily basis.  I was offered various drugs on numerous occasions (even free of charge), and each time I refused.  It is not that I have some extra strong will, which allows me to resist temptation - there is nothing to resist to: I
am not tempted at all, period.  I like my state of mind, and I do not believe that any drug can make it any better - it is that simple, and I do not believe that I am unique.  I am sure that if all drugs are decriminalized, the number of people trying to use them will even decrease, because the "forbidden pleasure" phenomenon will no longer be there.

Some European countries have made first steps on decriminalizing marijuana
(The Netherlands and Switzerland), and they had a dramatic reduction in crime rate of 60%.  I fail to understand, why other countries do not follow suit, especially taking into consideration the beneficial effect of marijuana on terminally ill patients.  England has introduced a program of free drugs distribution to drug addicts, and all countries should do the same: drug
addicts are sick people, and they should be treated as such - give them drugs, before they are forced to commit a crime.  They do not belong in jail - it is waste of time and money.

Now about prostitution

It is as stupid to fight prostitution as it is stupid to fight drugs.  Both wars are lost by definition: as long as there is a strong demand for certain thing or certain service - there always be people ready to provide it.  Making the thing or service a crime does not, and never will solve the problem.  The only result of such criminalization is that organized crime takes over and
makes huge profits.  These profits are then used to corrupt police. Introduction  of any new crime enriches only jailers, judges, lawyers and prosecutors, and the ordinary people who pay taxes are the losers.

The argument, that legalization of prostitution sends a wrong message that prostitution is OK, does not hold water: alcohol is legal, nobody presumes that alcoholism is OK - the same goes for prostitution.  One can observe a reasonable approach to prostitution in such countries as Austria, The Netherlands and others, which regulate rather than criminalize prostitution. The advantage is obvious: prostitutes pay taxes, like everybody else, they pass medical check-ups, they force their clients to use condoms, etc.  This is the way to go. Canada claims to be a free country.  Now, how anyone can justify that in a FREE
country government can dictate its citizens what they can and can not do with their bodies?  It is none of the government business, if two consenting adults want to engage in sex, and it is none of government business if certain amount of money exchanges hands by mutual consent.  And, by mathematical induction, we can say the same for any number of consenting individuals willing to engage in any activity, as long as nobody gets hurt - this is none of government business.

Take the crime of keeping the so-called gaming or betting house.  What is the difference between government lottery or casino and any gaming house?  None. Government is, in effect, involved in activity, which for any citizen would be
considered criminal.

It is about time to re-think the definition of crime.  It should be accepted that any activity, no matter how repugnant it might look, can not be considered a crime where there is no victim.  A good example of such an idiotic prosecution - the case of Letourneau.  She was the school-teacher who had sex with her 13-year-old student.  Obviously, a teacher should not behave that way, but is she a criminal?  The boy stated on several occasions that he was a willing participant, so, where is the victim?

There are countries where people at 13 years of age can legally marry.  The 18 years of age accepted in Canada is an arbitrary number, which is not justified in any shape or form.  My little brain can not understand, why having sex with
a person, who is 17 years and 364 days old is a crime, but one day later it is no longer a crime?   The case of Letourneau is a very sad story where nobody had the courage to say it loudly to the prosecution: leave these two people alone!  They are happy, they have by now two small children, let them be! Instead, we have two small children deprived of their mother, who is in jail. There are no winners in this story - everybody is a looser, and the society as a whole is the greatest looser.

I looked through the Canadian Criminal Code.  There are so many sections there, declaring such and such action to be a crime, which do not make any sense to me.  For example, a person exposes himself in public.  Why is this a crime?
They say: children can see him. So what?  Suppose, parents take their children to a naturalist beach.  They can see there huge number of totally naked people. Is this harmful to children?  Naturalists say no, and nobody considers naturalist parents as criminals.  A person, who exposes himself, is sick, but he is certainly not a criminal and does not belong in jail.

There are quite a number of ridiculous sections related to sexual offenses. For example, if a brother and sister (even half-brother and half-sister) decide to marry each other, it is a crime punishable by maximum of 14 years in jail. Do this people belong in jail?

Another ridiculous crime: anal intercourse between two consenting adults is OK, but when a third person is present, then it is a crime.

There is more: bestiality is a crime punishable by maximum of 10 years in jail. I would have understood it as protection of animals, but if an animal was not hurt, why should this be of government business?  I know the cases where women had sex with their dogs and donkeys, and those animals seemed to like it otherwise they would not do it.  As repugnant as it might look, this is not a crime.

One more victimless crime: possession.  Unless I possess something stolen, why
should it be government business, what I possess?  Take, for example, drugs. If a person wants to swallow, inject or inhale any substance, he should be free to do so.

Now some thoughts about fight with sexual predators.  There is no doubt that we are loosing this fight: rapists and child molesters are as numerous as ever. Sexual offenders are having a very hard time while in jail.  General jail population despises them, they are often beaten up, then they are placed in protective segregation, which is a jail inside jail.  They are confined to
their cell 23 hours per day, they are allowed in a tiny yard for 1 hour, but many of them do not dare to leave their cells because of fear to be beaten again.  And after all this, when they are released from jail, they are being chased from one apartment to another, because police informs citizens that a sexual predator lives nearby.  Despite all this hell, they continue their sexual deviant activity, and end up in jail again.

Let us ask ourselves a question: why all this punishment has no dissuasive effect on sexual offenders?  My impression is that they are compelled to do what they are doing, and this compulsion is so strong that they can not resist. I am not trying to justify in any shape or form what they are doing, but we can not fight something, which we do not understand.  One case proves my point. In January of 1995, one rapist was released from a B.C. jail. Soon after that, he abducted a young woman (Melanie Carpenter), who was later found dead, and he committed suicide.  I do not think that he wanted to die when he was released
from jail, but when he did his crime, he realized what he has done, and decided to kill himself.  Clearly, he despised himself, but his actions were beyond his control.

Now, what is the solution of the sexual offenders problem?  In some Muslim countries they are stoned to death.  This solution is not acceptable for Canada.  Another solution is to keep them in jail until they die, which is also not so easy to do.  Third solution is to keep each sexual offender under 24-hour police surveillance, which can be done, if we legalize all drugs -
many policemen will have nothing else to do.

Fourth solution came to my mind when I was watching one TV show, where several women phoned in to say that they were fantasizing of being raped.  (By the way, this is the best proof that human being was not created by God - why would He
make a creature so sexually deviant?)  When I heard this, I thought to myself: here is the solution - we need somehow to connect rapists with those women who are fantasizing of being raped.

Of course, this is easier said than done.  First, the society is not ready for this: any woman, who would dare to declare openly that she wants to be raped, would be shunned.  Society needs to change its attitude towards all people who have sexuality different from mainstream.  We need to reach out and try to help these individuals, BEFORE they commit any crime.  I understand that what I am saying is "politically incorrect", but 50 years ago, if I would say that we need to reach out to homosexuals and to include them into normal society, I would be unanimously declared insane.   Not that I equate homosexuals with criminals, but 50 years ago homosexuality was a crime, and in many countries it still is.

We have a choice: to stand on our high "moral" ground and to prosecute every rapist and child molester AFTER the crime, or to try to do something to prevent the crime in the first place.  In order to do this preventive work, we need that people with tendency to rape came forward before they actually rape someone.  This can only happen, if they are sure that they will be treated with respect and that they will get help they need.  It looks like nature created humans in such a way that for every sadist there exists a masochist.  We just need to find them and get them together, so that they can enjoy each other,
and nobody gets hurt.

The case of child molesters is more difficult: nobody would sacrifice his child to satisfy a pedophile.  So, what can be done to divert pedophiles from real children?  This subject has to be discussed with them in an open-minded way.  Probably, good quality dolls could do the job.  Contemporary mechatronics can do amazing things.  May be, some kinds of child pornography could help. Oops, possession of child pornography is a crime.  Well, should it be?  There are different kinds of child pornography.  We know that in real life teenagers are often engage in sex with each other - this is a fact of life, and this is
not a crime.  Now, is it a crime to film such a process?  If a process itself is not a crime, then why filming it is a crime?

Of course, there exists a different kind of child pornography, depicting rape of children by adults, this is a filming of a crime in progress, and it is a different story.  On the other hand, if a pedophile claims that such a pornography would divert him from real children, one can produce such a film for him, and it does not have to be a real rape, now anything can be simulated.

One may be indignant by my advice to try to please a pedophile, but look at the alternative: after many beatings in jail, a pedophile finally gets out, he is now much smarter and extremely angry, and he will strike again, and this time he will kill a child, so that there would be no witness.  Even if he gets caught and sentenced to life in jail, it does not revive the girl he killed.
And there always is a possibility that a wrong man was convicted - police is so eager to convict someone, that they lie and cheat and fabricate evidence. Remember the case of Guy-Paul Morin, who was convicted for a rape and murder
of a little girl?  Well, 10 years later we learned that he had nothing to do with this crime, and the real murderer is still walking free.  When you weigh all these facts, my advice does not look that bad after all.

It happens sometimes that a child falls in love with the pedophile, and such a case can end up in a tragedy if the parents do not behave properly.  Many people watched on October 31, 1997 the report of Barbara Walters about a 16-year-old boy who killed and raped an 11-year-old boy who accidentally came by selling chocolate.

Parents claimed that they did not want to take their son home, they wanted to keep him in "Center for Changing Behavior" - kind of mental institution.  The media blamed the judge who let the boy out of mental institution, while I think that the blame lies squarely with his parents.  Not only they placed the boy in a mental institution against his will, but also went to court to keep him there.

Why was he there in the first place?  We learn that he admitted to his mother that he was gay.  Then he met on Internet a man from another city and sneaked out to have an affair with him.  His parents learned about it and forced the boy to cooperate with police to trap the man.  Clearly, they made his life a living hell.   They placed him in a psychiatric institution thinking that they could change his behavior.  Can you imagine the terror and frustration of a perfectly normal child, betrayed by parents, who refuse to accept him into the family?  Of course, all his friends learned that he was placed in mental institution, so he obviously lost all his friends.  And all this only because he was gay, as if this was his fault.

I am sure, this is one of the "invited" crimes.  The boy should have been left alone.  He wanted to have an affair with a man - let him be.  Had this happened two years later, he would have been 18 years old, and his affair with a man would be none of anyone's business.  Does two years difference justify the behavior of his parents?  Of course, not.  The parents claimed in court that the boy was so angry, that they feared for their lives.  Well, would not you be angry as hell if your parents did to you what they have done to this boy? When a human being is abused, sooner or later he would explode, and very often
it is an innocent bystander who gets killed.

In conclusion, we have to try some new ways in dealing with crime.  One thing is clear: jail does not work.  Government is too quick to send people to jail. For example: a person steals something.  What is better: to put him in jail or to make him to pay back double of what he stole?  Native people have a very healthy notion of restitution rather than pure punishment.

I saw in provincial jails people being incarcerated for not paying parking tickets.  This is ridiculous: it costs government more to keep these people in jail than the cost of the tickets being own to the government.  There are alternative ways to get tickets paid, including confiscation of personal effects.

I have heard that in one of Alberta towns police has hired a street gang to keep the order in the streets, and it seems to pay off: street crime reduced dramatically.  I think, it is a good idea to pay off big criminals, so that they would keep the smaller criminals in check.  Anyone who is offended by the idea of paying criminals, think about the following: don't we pay our
politicians?