Re: Chretien criminal

I have received an extremely partisan response to my posting, signed by S. Jenuth.  Well, who exactly are you, Mr. Jenuth?  Please, introduce yourself.  You claim knowledge of many things, without indicating, how do you know all this and without going into detail.  Here are some examples.

You claim that a Quebec bank also gave loan to the same man.  Which bank was it?  What was the amount?  When exactly did this happen, and how do YOU know about all this?

> There is little to suggest he actually is a personal friend, and the
> hotel purchase was a little more arms length than you suggest.

Well, please, elaborate, how little is that "little", how long is the arms length, and again, how do YOU know about all this?

> ... at the time of the sale, Mr. Chretien was not PM and when the
 >payments were made he was actually behind in the polls.

Please, give the date of the sale.  I do not recall a single moment when Chretien was behind in the polls. The country was so fed up with Mulroney, that Chretien was assured a big victory.  Is my memory wrong?

> The previous complaints were about whether Mr. Chretien's office had
> representatives at meetings regarding the giving of certain loans.

Please, elaborate, who made these complaints, when, whose exactly loans were discussed, and again, how do YOU know about this?

This part I love the most: I claimed that Ethics Commissioner, appointed by Chretien, can not pass a truthful judgment, to which Mr. Jenuth responded that Klien(sic!) did the same. Wow, some defense! If two people did the same immoral thing, then it is no longer immoral!  I love it!

> You think that Ethics Commissioner should be an opposition puppet?

I love you choice of words!  I bring to your attention that Special Prosecutor, investigating Clinton, was a Republican!  Yes, Sir, a watchdog should have interests opposite to those he is watching over!

> Mr. Chretien would not know why the loan was refused.  Such information  is private.

False.  Not only because no employee appointed by PM, would dare to refuse to explain to him why loan was refused, but because it is NOT private.  I myself asked on several occasions, according to Access to Information Act, and got various "private" grant applications, with only some numbers deleted, which were considered "trade secrets".

> Actually, he [Ethics Commissioner] requested and received lots of documents.

How do you know that?  Did he personally tell you so?

> Of course, information regarding loans would not have been received.

So, what did he receive, Sonnets of Shakespeare?

> Neither Ethics Commissioner nor the PM is entitled to get such information.

False again.  Any Commissioner has the power of Superior Court judge to subpoena any document relevant to his investigation.  He can also subpoena any person to testify under oath on the subject of his investigation (including PM).

My question with respect to all this is: are you deliberately trying to mislead the public, or do you sincerely not know what you are talking about?

> In a system of responsible government, this [principle of separation of administrative power from legislative one] is not an >important principle or a principle at all.

Well, if we have a "responsible government", we do not need any watchdog, we do not need the opposition as well.  Question is: do we have a responsible government?  Common wisdom and experience tell us that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.  This is why such a thing as responsible government is an utopia, and this is why all these principles of separation of powers are so important.  Government becomes responsible, or should I say, less irresponsible, when it knows that somebody is watching over its shoulder.

> ... your suggestion is that no one would be allowed to introduce a  piece of legislation and then also vote on it.

Not at all.  My suggestion is very simple: administrators should not be members of Parliament and should not have the right to vote in Parliament on anything, including legislation, introduced by them.


How jailers steal from prisoners - update

This is what I posted back in August of 2000:

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  ase,  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.

And now I have finally got the 1992-1997 contract between Cowansville jail and Bell Canada, which proves my suspicions:  jail gets OFFICIALLY kick-backs (they are called commission) of 11% of total revenue.  My estimation: jail gets about $30,000 of "commissions" per year, and it is prisoners families, who did not commit any crime, and who are being robbed blind.

There exists Correctional Investigator, who is supposed to be a watchdog of Correctional Service.  Does he know about all this?  You bet!  Here is a quote from page 6 of the Correctional Investigator's 1998-1999 annual report:

       With respect to our  recommendation  that  the  inmate
population  be provided with a refund consistent with the
commission received by  the Service from the telephone companies,
we were advised that the Service would review the options

Well, Correctional Service reviewed the options available and responded to the Correctional Investigator as follows:

       The Correctional Investigator has  been  advised  that  CSC  does
not receive any revenue from inmate calls, and that the Service
is not  in a position and has never agreed to provide refunds.

    Now, what did Correctional Investigator do in the face of  this outright lie?  Nothing.  More than that: when I  complained  to  the Correctional Investigator on this subject, I was told that I was wrong, and  that  CSC was right.  This is the main problem with all the so-called watchdogs  in Canada: it is a big hypocritical spectacle made for public  consumption. All the annual reports of these watchdogs are very critical of those they watch, but in reality all of them are "in bed" with  those  they  watch.  Here is some statistics from  Correctional Investigator's  report:  they received 4529 complaints during 1998-1999
year; out of this  number  they resolved 362!  This says it all.

latest laugh from the gun nuts.

One Carter Lee posted a message; one Manning was so impressed by it, that re-posted it in can.general, and bc.general; then unnamed [email protected] (Segal or Segal-like) has forwarded it directly to me. I guess, a response from me
is expected.  Well, here it is.

> A great deal of sound of fury signifying precisely nothing.

I think, Carter is talking about his own posting; if so, he is right.

> If cars can be registered and drivers licensed (and prohibited) then
> firearms can also be revoked and permission to operated them (buy ammo)
> can also be revoked.

I have read this comparison hundred times, and there seems nobody to point out the difference between the car registration and firearm registration.  The cars are registered not as a security measure against violent crime: they are registered, so
that police can recover your car and bring it to you, if it is stolen.  This is the main reason for car registration, and every owner WANTS his car registered, so that he would have a documented proof of ownership.  Firearms, on the other hand, are
not left outside your house during the night, so they are much less likely to be stolen, and owners for that reason DO NOT WANT their firearms registered.  Is the difference clear?

It is the government, who wants the firearms registered, claiming that this registration would reduce crime.  Let us see if it would. It is well known that every major crime is committed with use of a car (stolen) and weapon (stolen or unregistered), so how on earth firearm registration will help solving (or reducing) crime?  What it can do - is to put innocent people in jail. Here is how. When your car is stolen, you notice it immediately and report to police, so when your car is found at the crime scene, they do not charge you with crime. Now, when your gun is stolen, you might not notice it for a while, and when it is found at the crime scene, with your (and only YOURS) fingerprints on it, and you have not reported it stolen, and you do not have a solid alibi - you are in trouble.

And now about licensing. The normal operation of a car is almost every day in the street or on a highway. You would not get into a car and start driving, if you do not know how to do it, and you do not want anyone else to be driving his car,
if this individual does not have proper qualification.  Driver's license is a document certifying that the owner knows how to operate car safely.  A car fatality is usually an accident.

The normal operation of a gun is NOT in the street or on a highway, it is in a sport club or on a hunting trip. Though every grown-up instinctively knows what is safe and what is unsafe handling of a gun, it might be useful to force every gun owner to
pass certain course and test on how to use a gun safely and how to store it safely, away from children.  So, gun license is a reasonable thing, and I do not think anyone objects to it.

As far as revocation is concerned, here Carter is trying to brake into an open door: provisions for revocation of a gun permit and confiscation of firearms is present in the old law and it is quite adequate.

> BTW, the USA handgun death rate is in the same ballpark as their auto
> fatality rate, so it is a very relevant comparison to make.

BTW, the USA fatality rate in hospitals due to medical mistakes is FOUR times greater that their auto fatality rate.  Using your logic, what should be do about it?  Run away from the hospital, when we get sick?

While a car fatality is usually an accident, a gun fatality is usually no accident, and this is why the whole analogy is false.

> Fabrikant's ravings on usenet are one of the best arguments in favor of
> a total ban on hand guns(sic!) and semiautomatic long guns.

Here is a definition of a word "raving" from a dictionary: "delirious, incoherent talk". Here is the deal: take any of my postings, including this one, show that it fits the definition, namely, that it is delirious and incoherent, and I promise to never make any
posting again; and if you can not do it, then apologize.  Agreed?

> He was not able to legally obtain guns under the regs at the time.

False: one of the three guns was mine, purchased perfectly legally.  More than that: under new regulations, I would still be able to purchase a gun and so would my wife.

> He had to find an accessory to help him murder so many people at one
> time.  Why was not his wife ever charged?

Here is why.  My wife was never an accessory, because there was no crime planned: I never planned to kill anyone.  But even if you think, that I had committed a premeditated murder and used my wife to buy guns, do you sincerely believe me to be so stupid as to tell my wife about my plans? So, if the second scenario is correct (which it is not), my wife is just yet another innocent victim of this vicious murderer Fabrikant, so what are you going to charge her with?  Grow up!

> We should all thank the gun nuts for pointing out areas where
> improvement or enforcement is needed.

I regret to disappoint you, but you understood nothing from the lessons, which gun nuts are teaching you.  If you sincerely think that the new legislation will reduce any kind of violent crime, I can bet anything that it will not. As far as my own case is concerned, I repeat, the new legislation would still allow me to buy a gun, as did previous.

The real lesson from gun nuts is as follows: you should not abuse another human being and to place him in the situation, where he can not get justice from crooked superiors, inefficient and indifferent MP, when his lawyer is trying to rip him off,
instead of defending him, when President of his union is "in bed" with administration; add to this corrupt Judicial system and corrupt media, and you have an explosive package, and no gun legislation will prevent an explosion.  I had in my briefcase
a hammer, because I wanted to tell Concordia crooks, that even if they took away my guns, I would smash their heads with a hammer. Unless and until humanity learns this simple lesson, you will see explosions again and again. The only way to stop killings at school and at a workplace is to stop abuse of children and adults, before it deteriorates to the situations where the abused individual kills his abusers, himself or both.

Carter advocates total ban on handguns and semi-automatic guns. I know the country which banned all firearms, and I mean, all: USSR. In the USSR, even police (militia) was not armed, not even with a stick. Even hunters could not buy an ammunition with bullets, they had to use pellets instead. Do you think it was a safe country to live? Not at all. In Montreal you have about 60 murders per year.  I lived in a city with about one sixth of Montreal population, and we had well more than 60 murders per year: people used knives instead of guns.  As you know, Kain did not have a knife, so he succeeded with a stone.  The real problem with murder is not availability of means, but the desire of one individual to kill another.  In Rwanda, they managed to kill almost a million people, without any firearms.  On the other hand, we have country like Switzerland, where each citizen is OBLIGED to have a firearm in his house, and they have one of the lowest murder rates in the world.  The reason: they do not need to kill one another.  Learn the lesson.


Education in jail

Every jail has a school, where theoretically prisoners can get their high school diploma. Here is my account of what is really going on at the jail school.  All what I observed proves one thing: jailers are doing their best to prevent prisoners from getting real education, and it is easy to understand why - they want a criminal to stay a criminal.  They know, that there is
a great chance that a well educated prisoner will stop his criminal activity, and jailers will lose a client.  Where else you can find a job, where you can come, read a newspaper, a book, solve a crossword puzzle, listen to radio or watch TV, and then your time is up, you go home, and all the time you spent doing all the above is paid at least $25 an hour?  In addition, you can claim that you are overworked, underpaid and your life is in danger every day.

Jailers discourage higher education.  If a prisoner is illiterate, the prisoner can go to school, and he will be paid about $6 per day. If a prisoner already has a high school diploma, and wants to study, say, computer science, not only jailers would not pay a prisoner those miserable $6 per day, a prisoner has to pay for his education, and if a prisoner wants those $6, he has to find a day job in jail, and study in the evening. Can a prisoner afford buying just textbooks from his daily pay of $6?  Of course, not.

Jailers claim that they have no money to pay for higher education.  Let us see.  They have school director, then they have Head - Programs and Education, and then they have Deputy Warden - Programs, each paid 70-90 thousand dollars per year, and each has a secretary with at least $30,000 salary.  What all those Heads and Deputy Warden are doing the whole day is a mystery to me, and nobody would notice if you fire all three, thus saving at least $300,000 per year.  There are about 500 prisoners in Cowansville jail, and out of this number, you would not find more than 20 eligible for post-secondary education, so each would be entitled to $15,000 per year, which would more than cover all the educational expenses, plus jail could afford an incentive pay to prisoners, well above the $6 per day, and still, a lot of money will be left unspent.

This discouragement of higher education comes from the top Commissioner's Directive 722 states that all post-secondary education should be at the prisoner's expense.  I have made a complaint on this subject several years ago, arguing that supporting education would reduce criminality.  I lost it.  The complaint was then sent to Correctional Investigator, and this
crook did not want to investigate.  More than that: when a representative from Correctional Investigator's office comes to jail, he is ordered not to speak with me, though I am a prisoner, like everybody else, and it is his job to speak with me.

There exists a CEGEP in Cowansville jail, but there inmates can study only the so-called Humanities (Literature, Philosophy, etc.). Jailers claim that study of technical sciences might endanger jail security.  Well, I have a doctoral degree in Engineering, am I a threat to jail security? The real reason is the same: jailers are not against education as such, they are against education,
which could help inmates to get a good job, so that they would stop their criminal activity.

I have a doctoral degree, so one might think that jailers would be interested to use my knowledge for education of other prisoners, especially taking into consideration that they would pay me the same $6 per day.  They are not.  For many years, jailers were rejecting all my offers in this regard. Finally, in April of 2000, I was appointed not a teacher, but a teacher's HELPER.  First, for over a month, I was coming regularly to school, and the "teacher", whom I was supposed to help, was not
there, so each time I was going back to my cell.  My argument that I do not need their "teacher" in order to teach Mathematics was ignored.

After numerous protests of mine, on May 29, 2000, I was finally given 4 students.  Almost immediately, jailers have suspended two of them, so I was left with two students only.  Then a month later, one more student was suspended for some little thing, like being late one day. Jailers were doing their best not to let me teach. Numerous prisoners approached me asking to be in my class and complaining on the ignorance of their math teachers. They were all refused.  One of them gave me his written request and the response, written by Head of Programs Martel:

"Actually, there is no place available in Alpha-1 class where V. Fabrikant works as teacher's helper.  We put place first for regular student in charge of teacher in part for the reason that for all the students assigned with teacher helper during more than 6 months at half-time, only one made with success (60%) only one exam compared to the regular norms, which are 3 credits per month per student.  The results are not there."

And here is the truth: there are at least 3 tables empty in the classroom.  Who is the TEACHER, to whom I am the HELPER?  Guard Racine.  Is he a certified teacher?  No, he has no education (he told me he was a body-shop repairman, so all he knows is how to repair a car), but he is "teaching" French.  None of his students passed a single exam, majority of them come for couple of weeks and leave: they know a dumb teacher when they see one.  So much for the "regular" norm of 3 credits per month per student.

I asked Martel to show me any document stating this "regular" norm. He refused. I shall request this document according to the Access Information Act, and I shall post the result. One Mathematics course equal to 1 or 2 credits.  The whole Mathematics program from zero level to the top is 40 credits, so according to Martel, a student, who does not know how much is two plus two, should be able in less than 14 months finish all the Mathematics high school courses, including all the advanced courses.  Does this make any sense?

Now, why did Martel invent these "norms"?  To show that I was unsuccessful as teacher.  Well, let us do some arithmetics.  Due to my deteriorating health, I was teaching 4 times per week 3 hours per day.  In addition to this, many times, when I come to school, Racine is not there, and without him I can not teach.  On average, I was teaching about 40 hours per MONTH, so if one translates this into regular time, these 6 months were equivalent 6 regular weeks.

During these 6 months I had between one and two students (the second student was suspended for two months and after numerous requests of his was allowed back), both students are in their thirties, originally from some Caribbean island, and never had proper schooling, so they had to start their Mathematics from the very beginning (two plus two). One students has passed his exam from the first try.  His mark was 60%, which is exactly passing grade, and this looked to me suspicious, especially taking into consideration that I have checked his knowledge before exam, and I estimated it at 80%, so I asked to see his exam papers, and I was refused, I asked for a summary report, and did not get any.

The story with the second student was even funnier.  He failed, his grade was 54%.  Since I estimated him at about 70%, I asked to see his exam, and I was refused; I asked for a summary report, and got a really strange one: it was dated November 1, while the exam was on November 7, it was faxed from Archambault jail, no comments, no signature.  When I
asked Racine, how could someone in Archambault jail on November 1 know the result of an exam to be passed a week later, he told me to tear away the date.

Why would jailers give me an obviously fictitious report?  Of course, they knew that I would notice the discrepancy.  The reason is very simple: they just wanted to show me who is the boss: no matter, how good is my student, they can still fail him, and there is nothing I can do about it.  This was the message, and I got it.  They also hoped to provoke me into a violent
reaction.  These dumbheads do not understand, that I was provoked once at Concordia, and now I am immune to any provocation; they will never succeed, no matter, what they do.

I did not get mad, I got even: I have made a formal request, according to the Access to Information Act, for the exam papers and exam rules.  Immediately after that, my second student passed his exam successfully with 68% mark, and soon after that Martel told me that I was fired, because I was not sufficiently successful with my students.  Why to fire me now, when both of my students have passed their exams successfully?  Because jailers understood, that my students got the "taste" of mathematics, and the temp of their studies accelerated: within one month, both would be ready to pass yet another exam, and due to my Access to Information requests, it would be difficult to deliberately fail them.  So, jailers understood that I would prove a great success, by any standard, and they can not possibly allow this: the whole thing was designed to prove me a failure. Besides, comparison of my results with other school teachers would be quite devastating, so they need to fire me as soon as possible.
Brew in jail

It is well known that prisoners in jail make brew.  Some use bottles, some use garbage bags. Now jailers have declared a war on brew, and you would never imagine, what measure they took.  They hired an inmate, whose job is to puncture all garbage bags in many places, before they are given to prisoners.  I have never seen such a stupidity, even in maximum security jail Donnacona they did not do it.  What are the results of this stupidity?  The garbage bags are leaking, creating antisanitary conditions.  The brew is available, as ever, it might though got more expensive, because (I guess) in order to get non-punctured bag, brew-makers have to pay a guard.  Higher brew prices can make it worth for a Jailers to bring some alcohol from the outside and to sell to prisoners.  So, what looks like a stupidity, is in fact a clever move of jailers to fight the competition from home-made brew.

How jailers steal from prisoners - new update

This is what I posted back in August of 2000:

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.


And now I have finally got the 1992-1997 contract between Cowansville jail and Bell Canada, which proves my suspicions: jail gets OFFICIALLY kick-backs (they are called commission) of 11% of total revenue. My estimation: jail gets about $30,000 of "commissions" per year, and it is prisoners families, who did not commit any crime, and who are being robbed blind.

There exists Correctional Investigator, who is supposed to be a watchdog of Correctional Service. Does he know about all this? You bet! Here is a quote from page 6 of the Correctional Investigator's 1998-1999 annual report:

With respect to our recommendation that the inmate population be provided with a refund
consistent with the commission received by the Service from the telephone companies, we were
advised that the Service would review the options available.

Well, Correctional Service reviewed the options available and responded to the Correctional Investigator as follows:

The Correctional Investigator has been advised that CSC does not receive any revenue from
inmate calls, and that the Service is not in a position and has never agreed to provide refunds.

Now, what did Correctional Investigator do in the face of this outright lie?  Nothing.  More than that: when I complained to the Correctional Investigator on this subject, I was told that I was wrong, and that CSC was right. This is the main problem with all the so-called watchdogs in Canada: it is a big hypocritical spectacle made for public consumption. All the annual reports of
these watchdogs are very critical of those they watch, but in reality all of them are "in bed" with those they watch. Here is some statistics from Correctional Investigator's report: they received 4529 complaints during 1998-1999 year; out of this number they resolved 362! This says it all.


I have made the following request to Correctional Investigator on December 29, 2000:

According to the Access to Information Act, I hereby request access to all documents in your possession related to overcharging of inmates and their families by CSC for the telephone calls, as indicated on page 6 of your 1998-1999 Annual Report. This includes, but is not limited to, all the documents proving commission received by CSC from telephone companies,
the letter exchange between your Office and CSC on this subject, contracts between various jails and telephone companies, etc.

One may expect that an honest Correctional Investigator would be happy to share with inmates the information his office has collected in order to help them get justice done (remember, in his own opinion, prisoners should be reimbursed the illegally paid "commissions"). Well, crooked Correctional Investigator has denied my request for access to information, citing Sec. 16(1)c of the Act, and claiming that such release would be "injurious" to his investigations. I have read Sec. 16(1)c of the Act: it allows to refuse access to investigations, related to the LAW ENFORCEMENT (which is clearly not the case here) or information which would be injurious to Jail security (which is not the case either).

As I said before, there is a big difference between what Correctional Investigator says and what he does. Of course, I have filed a complaint with the Information Commissioner Reid, who is as dishonest, as Correctional Investigator Stewart. The latest demonstration of Reid's dishonesty: he barred me from calling his office, as soon as I started asking embarrassing questions, like why did it take a whole year to give me the telephone contracts, and how much time did his investigator Morris actually spent on the case.  I can very well predict what will happen.

First, Reid will waste several months just to register my complaint, then he will waste another year for "investigation", and then he will deny me access (or give access to some documents which I already have).

I shall keep you informed, if I am still alive.  By the way, several inmates warned me that jailers might try to hire an inmate to kill me - the telephone fraud involves a lot of money (millions of dollars).  So, if you hear, that I have been killed, because I did not give a cigarette to another inmate, do not believe it: inmates of my stature do not get killed in jail for that.  Besides, I do not

Lawyers specializing in class action lawsuits - who wants to be a millionaire?

If you are a lawyer specializing in class action lawsuits and want lots of money, here is how. I suggest you to undertake a class action lawsuit which is worth several million dollars.  You will be acting on behalf of families of inmates detained in federal institutions.  The Defendant will be Correctional Service Canada.  We have obtained the contracts between several federal institutions and Bell Canada, according to which each institution had received 11% of gross income obtained by Bell from the pay telephones installed at each institution. This is illegal, according to the opinion of Correctional Investigator, expressed
on page 6 of his 1998-99 Annual Report.

Here is a very conservative estimation of the amount of money involved.  Presuming that each prisoner's family spend $50 on collect long-distance calls per month, multiplied by 500 inmates per institution and by 12 months, we arrive at $300,000 of gross income per year per institution, of which 11% is $33,000.  Extrapolating this to 14,000 inmates presently in federal institutions, the gross income becomes $8,400,000 per year, of which 11% comes to $924,000 per year.  This amount should be multiplied by the number of years back we can sue.

In addition, you can request punitive damages for deliberately keeping telephone rates much higher than presently available ($1.5 to $3.00 per call for operator's services plus, for example, $0.38 per minute for a call between Cowansville and Montreal, while one can get a similar connection at the rate of $0.04 per minute).  You can also demand punitive
damages for the fraudulent programming of telephones: the conversation is disconnected after 20 minutes and 25 seconds, so that telephone company can charge the family for 21 minutes, and have in mind that these families are generally very poor, and can least afford these exorbitant charges.

I am pretty sure that a similar situation exists in provincial institutions, so you can increase the number of plaintiffs, and the amount of money claimed.

If you are not interested in the case, please, forward this message to another lawyer, who you feel might be interested.

Thank you.
Where is Fabrikant when you need him?

Segal <[email protected]> has forwarded to me the message with subject "incompetent" whose author was complaining on incompetence of RCMP, whose officers made technical mistakes, which allowed some accused drug dealers walk away.  After that, he writes:

> Oh, where is Fabrikant when you need him?
> A sick joke, I know, sorry.

The author makes two mistakes. First, he naively attributes RCMP "mistakes" to incompetence. Wake up!  RCMP, as any police in one of the best organized crimes there is, acting together organized crimes of judges, prosecutors and politicians.  All the bikers taken together, are nothing, but petty criminals, compared to the above. This is how they operate.  When an accused is rich, they make "mistakes",  then come to court and admit that they made "mistakes". When an accused
is poor, and police really made mistakes, they come to court and lie that no mistakes were made, and a corrupt Canadian judge pretends believing the police. Canadians are so naive to think that corrupt police is far away, in Mexico.

His second mistake: saying that his exclamation is a sick joke. It is neither sick, nor a joke.  I was fighting crooks all my life: Communists while in the USSR, false scientists, corrupt judges and politicians, crooked lawyers and yellow press in Canada. This is why the authorities hate me so much, this is why everything is being done to speed up my death by denial of medical treatment, readily available in Canada.

Here is the latest development.  On January 30, 2001, warden Dube has placed me in detention.  It is a jail inside a jail: solitary confinement for 23 hours per day. The official reason: since I am saying that jailers are murdering me, I am a danger to jail security. I was saying that for over two years by now, I never threatened anyone, never raised my voice at anyone, no weapon or anything resembling weapon was ever found in my cell, no disciplinary reports claiming aggressive
behavior. In addition, I am so ill, that any woman or child can beat me up, so there is no way I can attack anyone.

So, what is the real reason and why now?  If you read my postings about Jailers bringing drugs to jail and stealing from prisoners; telephone scam, etc., - this is the real reason.  Jailers want to speed up my death.  They know that solitary confinement is detrimental to health of regular individuals; surely, it will be more detrimental to a gravely ill prisoner.

According to the law, jailers can not place a prisoner in detention if a jail nurse or jail doctor say that prisoner's health will suffer due to such placement.  This is what happened in my case. According to this law, jailers brought me to jail Infirmary to get nurse's permission. Nurse Ouellette has taken my blood pressure and pulse. My blood pressure jumped to 170/110 (Ouellette said 170/100, but I saw the reading myself). My pulse was 120. Never in my life I had such high blood pressure, even when I had a heart attack in 1998, my blood pressure was 160/100.  By the book, jailers asked Ouellette if it was OK to place me in detention, and he said, without blinking of an eye, that it was OK.  I was also complaining on chest pain, Ouellette did not give a damn. He also said that in couple of hours he would come to check my state, he never did.

Yet another "surprise" was waiting for me on arrival to detention: prisoners there were shouting insults AT ME!  I heard the words "complaints", "complainer", together with all the F-words imaginable. Now, would you believe that inmates would be sincerely upset with my complaints against jailers?! When media played their propaganda about me giving headaches to jailers,
everybody in population was congratulating me. Now they were banging the doors and shouting insults at me. Clearly, jailers wanted to show me, how they can manipulate inmates. This is not surprising: significant number of people in detention belong to so-called protective custody: if they are released in general population they would be killed, so these people would do whatever jailers tell them. I never had any doubt that by "carrot and stick" jailers can do anything they please, even
with inmates from general population: all the riots in jails are done at the orders of jailers. Jailers would have no problem to find someone to kill me. The fact that they did not do it yet, means only one thing: they did not want to.

All this hoopla with inmates did not impress me much: I was born in a Communist country, these kind of spectacles are not new to me. I know propaganda when I see it, and Canada is no different: more hypocritical, but mainly the same thing.

At about 5 p.m., my cheat pain increased, and I pressed the emergency button. After a while, a guard appeared. I told him to call a nurse. The nurse appeared about 45 minutes later.  Had it been a more serious emergency, I would be dead by then. I demanded to be brought to the hospital. Nurse left. After a while, guards appeared and told me that I was to go to the hospital.  They threw me my coat, so dirty, as if they wiped their feet (and probably they did) of it. These pigs were trying to provoke me, they would love to beat me to death, had I made a small wrong move, which, of course, I did not.

I knew, that it was dangerous for me to walk with chest pain, so I asked the guards to get me a wheel-chair. They refused and told me that if I do not go on my own, they would not bring me to the hospital. So, I started walking, again with the same chorus of insults from the inmates. Jailers thought that this would add psychological pressure on me. Here they were wrong: I did not give a damn about this propaganda spectacle.

I guess, my state was so bad, that nurse appeared half-way to Infirmary and brought a wheel-chair. Ambulance finally appeared, and ambulance technician said it clearly that they should not have made me walk, when I am having chest pain. We arrived at the Cowansville BMP hospital at about 7 p.m. As I expected, reception was quite hostile. The humpback doctor Camirand wanted to take blood test right away, which I refused. I understood his tactics very clearly: if I had a heart attack, the blood test would not show it until 8 hours later. He wanted the blood test right away, it would show nothing, and he would send me back to jail.

I have also asked Camirand for a Holter test, since I felt also irregular heartbeat, and this test would show in detail how my heart worked for a prolonged period.  First, Camirand said that I did not need Holter test, then it has become clear even to him that his refusal looked ridiculous, so he started lying to me that no Holter apparatus was available. He underestimated me: on January 25, there was a hearing of my complaint against Head Nurse Boissoneault, and there the hospital employee Paradis testified that hospital had 4 units for Holter test, and they never used more than 2, leaving 2 for emergencies. So, I asked Camirand for the name of a person, who told him that no Holter apparatus was available. He refused.

Camirand gave me an ultimatum: either I give the blood test right away, or he would send me back to jail, as if I refused treatment.  To me it was clear, whether I do give blood or not, he would send me back anyway, the difference would be just couple of hours, so I refused, and I asked to give me the refusal of treatment form, where I wanted to write, what really happened.  At first, Camirand said, he would give me the form, then he realized, why I was asking for the form, so he did, not
give me any form. Instead, he prepared some papers, which he refused to show to me, and he asked guard Gagnon to sign it, which, of course, Gagnon did. If I stay alive for long enough, I shall request, according to Access to Information Act all the documents in my file, and I shall post the findings.

The ride back to jail was predictable: no wheel-chair, Gagnon forced me again to walk, and again the spectacle of inmates shouting insults, banging the doors, etc. In addition, Gagnon has thrown my coat on the floor. Naive and stupid: I did not give a damn about all this spectacle.

So far, jailers' hope to have me dead did not materialize. A nurse comes every day, and usually lies about my blood pressure. I have my own apparatus, so I measure each time myself. For example, today it was 160/100, the nurse said 150/88 - quite a difference.  Well, this is Canada.

Fabrikant about yellow press

I repeat below completely the message sent to my family by Kristian Gravenor on January 12, at 5.57 A.M.!!!

"Hi. My name is Kristian. I am a newspaper writer for the Montreal Mirror and have been interested in the posts written under the name Fabrikant. Some of them are interesting and might warrant some media attention.
Could you phone me to talk? I'm at 514-487-0101. That's my home number.
Please call. Thanks. kg."

When I have read this message, I decided to give him a chance, but before I wanted to test whether he had what it takes to be a reporter. So I called him and I told him that if he wants an interview with me, he has to show me first what he can do.  I asked him whether he read my posting about Tina Diaz, he said yes, so I asked him to investigate it.  That was the end of conversation.  He sounded ecstatic, he was mumbling: "Are you really the famous Valery Fabrikant, Professor at
Concordia?" Have in mind, he did not call me then neither mass-murderer, nor infamous.  I was FAMOUS and he wanted an interview with me badly.

A week later, I called him again to check, and it was clear to me that he is yet another sleazy reporter, so I hanged up on him.  That is the end of the story.  Now, he understood, that he would never get any interview with me, but he decided to publish something anyway, and he did.  Just look at the first sentence:

> The phone rang in my quiet Saturday morning living room. "This is
> Fabrikant," said the voice.  "Look in the case of Tina Ruiz".

Several lies right away: first, the reader gets impression of an unsolicited call from me, second, he deliberately omitted half of what I told him (see above), third: he falsified the girl's name.  Why? Because he does not want public to know the real name (I understand that her parents - very simple people - still do not know the truth).

Then we read below:

> ... Fabrikant has recently championed the cause of fellow inmate who he
> argues was unjustly convicted of killing Tina Ruiz.  Fabrikant claims
> that staff from local emergency room conspired to allow her to die of
> stab wounds in August.

Half truth is worse than lie.  First, I do not champion the case of fellow inmate, I have little respect for people, who abuse women. According to law, whether Tina Diaz died because of medical neglect or not, the guy, who stabbed her is considered a murderer, so even if the doctor in question would be convicted, it changes nothing for "fellow inmate".  Second, he
again falsifies her name, and does not name the hospital, where it happened (St-Mary's), and does not give the year either. The reader might think it happened last August.

I am not going to spend my time examining the nonsense written, but in the last sentence of the article, Gravenor quotes me as saying that I would not talk to him, and he says: "Hopefully, that's a promise", which creates impression that it was I who wanted to talk to him in the first place.  Yellow liar, yellow liar, yellow pants on yellow fire...

Two shootings in the USA

This is what media reported on February 5, 2001:

One William Baker, 66, entered Novistar engine plant in Melrose Park, Illinois, shot 8 people (4 dead), and then he shot himself.  He worked at the plant for 40 years, was fired in 1994 for stealing engine parts.  He was supposed to serve 6 months jail term starting next day.  Media called him several times convicted felon.  This is all we know.  Does it make sense?  Suppose you were caught stealing, managed to fight the charges for 6 years, finally got 6 months to serve, which is almost nothing, would you go shooting a lot of people and yourself?  Of course not.  As usual, the media is telling us half-truth, which is worse than a lie.

Though he pleaded guilty, I do not believe he really stole something from the plant.  Had he been a thief, his sentence was very small, there was really no point to kill other people and himself.  The whole thing makes sense, if he was framed, fired, then coerced into pleading guilty to something he did not do.  Imagine a man who lived all his life honestly, worked at one place for 40 years, and right before retiring and collecting pension, he was framed, accused of stealing, and denied the pension he was working for all his life.  In addition, his blood-sucking lawyer has robbed him of all his life savings, and after the money were gone, so was his lawyer.  He waited 6 years, hoping that justice would prevail. It did not.  Tomorrow he is to go to jail, penniless, for something he did not do.  WHAT WOULD YOU DO IN HIS PLACE?

The second shooting took place several days later.  One Pickett, 38-years old, took a revolver, came to the White House and started shooting in the air.  Clearly, he did not want to harm anyone, he wanted to be killed.  He wrote to Bush that he worked for the government, was unjustly fired, and all his attempts to get justice served were in vain.  He wrote to Bush that his death will be on Bush's hands.  The cop, who wounded him in the knee, did not want to spare his life, he just did not see the rest of Pickett.

If these two shootings do not make you think hard, I predict many more shootings like these.

Fabrikant about Canadian system of justice (injustice)

There are two articles in The Gazette of February 23, 2001: one on the first page (with continuation on page 7), and another one on page 6. They are written by different reporters and do not mean to be related, but it is impossible not to relate them.

The first one describes Michel Dumont, ordinary poor guy, who was wrongfully convicted of rape, spent almost three years in jail, and was finally acquitted.  He was convicted “beyond reasonable doubt”, though the victim has made a special statement to the police that she was not sure of his identification.  For every normal person such an admission would mean that  “reasonable doubt” existed even before any trial. Not so for Canadian system of justice.

So, what happened with the victim's admission?  Police has forwarded it to the Crown prosecutor, who dutifully forwarded it to Dumont's lawyer (the article does not name the lawyer to protect him), and this lawyer did what all lawyers do with clients, who can not pay them hundred of thousand dollars - he deliberately betrayed him.  I quote from the article: “Although her (victim's) statement was forwarded to Dumont's lawyer (no name!), it was never addressed when Dumont's appeal was heard in 1994.  Why and how Lechasseur's (victim) statement of self doubt went astray remains unclear”.  This is what yellow reporters do: protect crooked lawyers.  Look at the words which reporter Jane Davenport is using: crucial document “went astray” as if it was something which could move on its own and go “astray”!  Well, documents do not go astray on their own, it was his lawyer, who deliberately and maliciously betrayed him.

When you see on TV lawyers who risk their careers, and sometimes their lives, just to protect their clients, - this is nothing but a tale: the lawyers are in their business not to protect clients, but to make money, and here is how they are doing it.  Crown has to make certain percentage of convictions, so there is an unholy alliance of lawyers, prosecutors and judges.  Lawyers and
prosecutors meet at lunch and decide which client’s lawyers are going to “deliver” for conviction, and prosecutors, in exchange, would make a sweet deal for the others.  It is not difficult to guess, that those slated for conviction are poor, and those to get a sweet deal are rich.  One of such rich accused even bragged to me that he gave his lawyer $100,000 to be split between lawyer, judge and prosecutor, and he got more than a sweet deal : Crown “forgot” to share important informafion, and
the case was dismissed due to “constitutional violation”.  And this brings us to the second article.

It says that the Supreme Court has upheld acquittal of lawyer A. Guttinan of a charge of conspiracy to import cocaine from Peru.  Why was he acquitted in the first instance? Judge of Quebec Court Boisvert ruled that “Guttman's constitutional rights were violated because a Surete de Quebec officer didn't follow procedure in getting clearance for a wiretap and tape recorder that were used to record conversations with the lawyer in the spring of 1995”.

This is a classical procedure which crooks from police, prosecution and judges do to get a rich criminal acquitted : they “breach” constitutional rights.  Now, one thing is clear: there existed conversations between Guttman and his co-accused Patek to import cocaine, so it is clear, that Guttman is guilty as sin, but he was found not guilty by the highest court in the country, while a totally innocent man Dumont was found guilty and spend almost 3 years in jail as a rapist, and I can tell you that I would rather spend 25 years in jail as myself than 3 years as a rapist - these people go through hell.

Well, this is how the system of jusfice (injustice) works in this country.

Re: Where is Fabrikant when you need him?

I have received a response from [email protected], who instead of his name gave “Opinion”.  This looked suspicious to me, so I decided to check his E-mail address, and of course, it was a fake as well.  Now, why would one hide his identity, if he is expressing an honest opinion? Because his opinion is not honest.  This is example of his writing:

> Man, you're in JAIL.  That means that you've done something “wrong” ... you’ ve
> tried to hurt someone in a way or another.

The guy pretends to be stupid.  Would you believe that he really does not know, what I have done? And how about the general notion: you are in jail, this means that you have done something wrong. What about wrongfully convicted?  God knows, how many are those in Canadian jails, but I am sure, the cases we know about is just a tip of an iceberg.

> I don't know about your trial - but you had one.

Yes, I had a trial, and at this trial dishonest judge Martin did not allow me to testify and stopped my address to the jury in the middle, so jury never heard my side of the story.  If there is a breach of constitutional rights - here is the worst case, and nevertheless, Court of Appeal decided that everything was OK.  When do we learn that having a trial is not enough, one has to have a FAIR trial?

>Your point is that anyone has the right to a good treatment?  So tell us why are you in
> detenfion?  Because you did not recognize this right to someone.

The question here is, who was first not to recognize the right to “good treatment”.  I killed four people, who were part of a gang of crooks, who did not recognize my right to be alive.  They made me a heart attack in 1991, of which I almost died.  If my right to be alive is denied to me, and I see no legal way to protect myself I have the right to defend myself with deadly force, if necesary.  I repeat, I did not plan to kill anyone, but I was deliberately provoked.  Now, I challenge this
anonymous captainmorgan and anybody else: tell me what would you have done in my case different from what I have done, and I would admit that I am a lousy murderer, but unless and until someone responds to this challenge (and so far, nobody did) do not call me a criminal.


Letter to H. Gray and A. Scott about jail riots


                                                October 2, 1995

Hon. H. Gray
Solicitor General of Canada


I feel that it is important to bring to your attention my observations on how jailors create riots in prisons, deliberately and maliciously, with the sole purpose of being able to claim that they work in dangerous environment, that they are understaffed, that they deserve more money, etc.   Here are the facts: about two months ago, there was a big riot in Leclerc jail, with significant destruction of property.   Shortly afterwards, I learned, that prisoners from Leclerc, who did all destruction, are to be brought to Donnacona, to be placed in a REGULAR wing in segregation regime (wing M1). All regular prisoners from wing M1 were transferred to other wings.   One does not have to have much brain to understand, that if prisoners destroyed property in one jail, they would definitely do the same thing in another jail, especially if they are placed in the regime of segregation.   This is why the cells in Detention wings are equipped with unbreakable utilities.

Before long, the wing was ransacked and flooded.  Interestingly enough, jailors allowed the water to stay for several days, in order to MAXIMIZE the damage.  You figure out, why it was in jailors' interest to do so.  I have no doubt, that these inmates were brought to Donnacona for the sole purpose to destroy the wing, because shortly after their work of destruction was done, they were transferred back to Leclerc jail.

Second fact.  On Monday, August 28, 1995, our cells were not open until about 10 a.m., though our breakfast was supposed to be at 7.30 a.m.  We were given breakfast, one by one, and placed in 24-hour lock-up, interrupted only by
belated meals.  Only couple of days later we were told that all prisoners were on strike.  I can assure you, that in the evening of August 27, 1995, I have heard absolutely no word, that any strike actions were planned.  I am asking you, how on earth, how could jailors possibly know about strike, if they never opened the doors in the morning of August 28, 1995, and never even asked anyone to go to work ?

After everybody was told about the general strike, of course, nobody would want to be a strike-breaker, so nobody would go to work, but I have no doubt, that the strike was initiated by the jailors, not by prisoners.   The strike lasts for over a month by now, and jailors really did not make much efforts to settle it.  The funny thing is that  the specific document with prisoners
demands appeared only recently, which is an indirect proof, that the strike was initiated by jailors.

Everybody is now in  23-hour lock-up, and this creates  an immense opportunity to provoke riots.   This is how it has been done on September 1, 1995, for example.   The first four days of strike we continued receiving two hot meals per day.  Then, all of a sudden, on September 1, we were given for dinner cold sandwiches, and no coffee.  There was no justification for this, especially for absence of coffee: we have a coffee-maker in the wing.   This was a clear provocation to riot, and a riot followed: floor was littered, burning paper thrown in the corridor, several windows broken.  Riot is a long process.  It starts with shouting and banging on the doors.   It is usually not more than three prisoners, who initiate the whole thing.  At that stage of banging, it is easy to stop riot: someone has to come to the wing and to correct the injustice.   If left unattended, it will escalate and end up in property destruction. On September 1, 1995, there was no reaction from jailors until several hours  AFTER the last window got broken.   Then guards came to the wing, swept broken glass, had the windows repaired, and coffee appeared. The message was clear: you want coffee - break the windows.   And the message was understood perfectly:  if on September 1, 1995, only, say, 5 windows were broken, then on the next day about 15 were broken, including those just
installed on September 1, 1995.  There has been numerous riots in the wing during past month, all artificially provoked.

I did not participate in any riot, there is not even a scratch in my cell. On the contrary, I am constantly explaining to other prisoners, that they are, in fact, helping jailors by rioting.   As a result, I am being abused by jailors on a daily basis.   Here is a short description of what has been done to me so far.   On September 8, 1995, I was placed in Segregation, under the pretext, that I was identified as an instigator of delay of general entry.   I was never brought before disciplinary court, because jailors knew, this was false.

On September 18, 1995, I was released from Segregation, and despite my numerous reminders, still no court hearing.

On September 25, 1995, I was illegally transferred to the ransacked wing M1. I was placed in a filthy cell, with clogged toilet.   I was not allowed to carry bags with my personal effects.   Guards did the following trick.   They placed bags with my personal effects near the bags with leaking garbage and broken glass from previous riot.   Then, "by mistake", they took five bags with leaking garbage and placed them on top of other bags with my personal effects, while, "again, by mistake", leaving several bags with my personal effects at the garbage site. Numerous personal effects are still missing. Leaking garbage damaged the remaining personal effects.

On September 26, 1995, guards made search of my cell and illegally confiscated four lighters, which were in my possession for over a year and passed all previous searches.   No explanation of the reasons of confiscation, no adjudication of its legality.

On September 27, 1995, guards entered my cell, spilled a pack of milk (which they brought with themselves) on my desk, and also they left a death threat (a hanging effigy).   This effigy was taken away from me, under threat of using force, by guard Aubin on September 28, 1995.   I requested that police be called.  This request was ignored by jailors.

And harassment continues on a daily basis:  I am prevented to phone my family on several occasions, (I sent supporting documents in a separate letter), my food is being tampered with, etc.   The message is loud and clear: since I refused to riot, I should be punished.

I ask you to investigate my allegations.   I ask you also to intervene and to stop abuse.

                        Thank you,

                        Dr. V.I. Fabrikant
                        prisoner # 167932 D
                        Donnacona jail
                        Donnacona, Quebec, G0A 1T0


                                                Donnacona, October 22, 1997

 Mr. A. Scott
 Solicitor General
of Canada
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario  K1A 0A6


I have informed your predecessor about jail staff creating riots in jail as means of pressure whenever some conflict occurs in their labour relationships. It was two years ago, and no attention was paid to my information.

It looks like they have now problems, and they use prisoners to resolve them by creating riots.  This is just one episode, which took place recently. On August 13, 1997, at about 6.30 p.m. there was a fight in the jail yard. At that time the door between the gym and the yard was closed, under pretence that guys inside wanted to get out and kill the black guys.  There is no
truth to it:  the belligerents were all outside; there were about 50 inmates outside, and nobody had expressed any desire to go anywhere and to harm anyone.

At 7 p.m., there was announcement of general entry, but the door was not open, so that nobody could enter.   It was cold and raining outside, but people were patiently waiting.   At 8 p.m. the same announcement, and again the door was still closed.   Guards wanted to create a riot.   Inmates started to break the door.   For the next hour and a half, no guard had appeared, no word was said over the loudspeakers to stop the breaking of the door.

The guards appeared at 9.20 p.m., 1 hour and 20 minutes after breaking of the door started, and again, they did not utter a word about breaking of the door. I asked them repeatedly to let me enter the jail.   I was ignored.  They did not want neither me, nor anybody else to enter the jail.   At about 10 p.m. they appeared again, and this time they took in black inmates.   Again, I asked to enter the jail and was refused.

After the black inmates entered jail, there was no longer any reason to keep the gym door locked, still it was never unlocked, so inmates had no choice but to break the door, and this was finally achieved at 10.25 p.m.   When I finally entered gym, I saw Giguere and Brisson through the bars and I asked again to enter the jail.   Giguere responded: "In a few minutes".   These
"few" minutes lasted another 35 minutes, before an enter announcement was finally made.

Here is the proof that guards wanted to create riot and partially succeeded.

1. Their claim that there was need to lock the door of the gym, because otherwise    the black inmates in the yard would be in danger, was false:  all the belligerents were already outside, there were at least 50 white inmates in    the yard, nobody expressed any hostility, nobody even tried to approach them.  Should they really wanted to harm black inmates, they had more than enough manpower in the yard.

2. Assuming that guards were concerned with the safety of black inmates in the    yard, they should try to let as many white inmates as possible from the yard  inside the jail, and this could be done through the back door.   Not only    they did not offer anyone to enter jail, I was yelling at them to let me inside, and they pretended not to hear me.

3. Black inmates entered jail at about 10 p.m., immediate unlocking of the    door would have saved it from being broken, it was never unlocked, which means that guards wanted it broken.

4. Even after the door was broken and everyone could enter the gym, guards    still took another 35 minutes before allowing anyone to enter jail, which means that they still hoped that some additional rioting would take place. When they finally realized that no more rioting will take place, they started entry.

Please, take appropriate measures that prisoners would no longer be used for these dishonest and dishonorable purposes.

        Thank you in advance.
                                     Yours Sincerely,
                                                     Dr. V.I. Fabrikant
                                                     prisoner #167932 D

What a Man!

Couple of years ago, I have posted on Internet a portrait of one provocateur – "fabrikantologist" – Avram Poemario Segal.  During the past 7 years he spends so much time on me, that someone obviously pays him handsomely, otherwise he would not do it.  While in Donnacona jail, I spoke with him "collect" for hours at the most expensive time - weekdays during the day time - and long-distance charges were never a problem for Segal.  Now, a little update on his portrait.

Since I caught him several times on hostile actions, he started inventing stories of suffering at the hands of authorities because of his devotion to me. First he told me, someone had rear-ended his wife's car, trying to kill her, she is in the hospital.  When I asked him in which hospital she was, he could not remember neither the name, nor the telephone number of the hospital.

Next, someone kidnaps his daughter from school and keeps her somewhere for 3 hours.  Again, I can not get from him any details.  But what takes the cake, it is his story about Montreal police breaking in his house without warrant, pointing a gun at him and demanding to show where his gun was.  Then they ransacked his house searching for Segal's book about me.  They did not find the book (when he met me, he explained his interest in me that he was writing a book about me).  Again, I am asking him for the name of policemen, why did not he complain or sue them, no reasonable answer.

Early in the year 1998, Segal told me another incredible story.  Someone brainwashed his daughter into going to police and file a complaint that her father (Segal) has threatened to kill her.  Youth protection officers took his daughter into custody.  According to Segal, there was a trial in the youth Court, and it was decided that his daughter would return home, while Segal
would leave his house and stay elsewhere until his daughter is 18.  He presented all this as police conspiracy to punish him for his support of me. I did not buy his story for one simple reason: he did nothing in my support.

After that, whenever I called his house, I was told that he was living elsewhere, but they refused to tell me his phone number.  Once I asked his daughter: "Is it true that your father threatened to kill you?"  She responded: "I am not sure." (!!!)

Now his daughter is 18, Segal is home, so I asked him to give me his Youth Court file number.  He refused.  In order to check him, I asked the guard to dial Youth Court (514)-495-5806.  I asked the court clerk to check whether there was a file on Segal and his daughter.  I gave the clerk my name and the jail telephone number.  Some time later, she called back, and I spoke with her in the presence of the jail guard.  She told me that the file was confidential.  I explained to her that my curiosity was due to the information that in this file the father (Segal) has allegedly threatened to kill his daughter, and I asked her whether this was true.  She repeated that the file was confidential, and that was the end of conversation, but not the end of the
story.  Ten days later, jailors told me that they have a police report stating that I have uttered death threats to Segal's daughter.  Even the guard, who was present during conversation, did not have the audacity to say that he had heard me uttering death threats.  Jailors know this is a lie, nevertheless, they made a record in my jail file that I called the Youth Center (not the youth Court) and threatened the life of Segal's daughter.  What kind of country do we live in!

I hope, this little story will convince anyone, that no matter what I would have done back in 1992, these crooks would have put me in jail, one way or the other.  If anyone wants to check the facts, you may call Segal yourself: (514)-694-6539.


I reproduce below an example of how Segal tried to dupe me back in 1993.  He gave me a copy of his E-mail to a group of friends of Fabrikant (fabpals), as he told me, established by him.  Only later I realized that such a group never existed.  Later I also caught him on posting one of the documents, describing what really happened at Concordia, in the group alt.kooks in order to emphasize that I am insane.

To: [email protected]
Subject: The trial of Dr. Valery Fabrikant
From: [email protected]
Date Tue, 10 Aug 93 14:00:06 EDT
Organization: Telegraph Road BBS

    The trial of Dr. Valery Fabrikant, the university professor accused of
killing four people at Concordia University, in Montreal, in August of 1992,
entered its 12-th month.  During all this time, he represented himself, and,
as it looks now, it is far from being over.

The following text file is the original message Dr. Fabrikant addressed
colleagues early in 1992.  All its contents, including the annexes, are now
public documents, already presented in court these days.

Not too many people had a chance to assist at this trial, virtually without
precedent (in many aspects).  It is for this reason that this file is being
sent to people working in academic field.

In the very next future, an exclusive serial interview with Dr. Valery
Fabrikant will be uploaded on the electronic media.

Although everything following is now public record, any person who, for any
reason, doesn't wish to receive this or any other E-mail related to the
subject, is politely and respectfully invited to send a reply stating that.
His(her) desire will be fully respected.  Same for regulatory bodies.
In the meantime, if any person from the academic field (and not only) is
interested to add his(her) e-mail address on the mailing list, is invited to
do so, sending a request with the e-mail address.

In the spirit of academic freedom (and not only!), the repeated requests of
Dr. Fabrikant for "the whole truth to come out" must be met.