Fabrikant about Stockwell Day

It was reported in the media that Day has decided to get second mortgage on his house in order to repay $60,000 out of $800,000 settlement of the defamation lawsuit.  I have read various comments and I have heard an interview with him.  All the media mainly concentrate on one thing: why did not he apologize earlier.  Nobody is asking real questions.  Here is what I would have asked him.

1 . I would have presented to him a little of arithmefics.  He is now about 50 years old, so he has
been working for at least 20 years by now, and at highly paid positions; his last salary was at
least $150,000.  Presume, that he certainly was capable to save at least $10,000 of his salary
every year, which would give by now at least $200,000 plus interest.  So, my first question to
him would be: why is he playing a comedy pretending to need second mortgage to get $60,000,
while he MUST have at least $200,000 in his bank account?

2. Day also mentioned that the lawyer he defamed was his personal friend.  Now, he has enough
education to know that the fact that a lawyer defends someone accused of criminal offence
certainly does not mean that the lawyer approves actions of his client.  Officially, a lawyer
represents his client and tells the court what his client instructs him to say.  So, even if a lawyer
may, in fact, share opinions of his client nobody can accuse him of this.  Day certainly knew
this simple thing, so why would he write a defamatory letter against his "friend"?  Here is my
explanation.  It happened several years ago, when Day had no idea that he would become a
party leader.  He worked as a Minister in provincial government.  He knew about existence of a
fund for indemnization of ministers for any wrongdoing, so he concocted with his friend a
smart scheme: he would write a defamatory letter, and his friend is going to sue him; he would
settle for a huge amount of money, and they would share the loot.  I would ask Day to comment
on this scenario.

3. Let us analyze the amount: $800,000 is a huge amount of money, taking into
consideration that the damages were estimated at $60,000, so it means that lawyers,
representing his friend, estimated their work worth $740,000.  Presume that a lawyer
demands $200 per hour of his work, which means that the lawyer claimed to have worked
3,700 hours on this lawsuit.  Elementary arithmetics shows that the lawyers must have spent
462 days, working 8-hours every day, which is about 2 years of regular work.  Now, how big
is the job in a lawsuit involving a 1-page letter?  Is not couple of hours of jurisprudence
research more than enough for this lawsuit?  So, my next question to Day would be: why did
he agree to such an outrageous amount as settlement; what evidence did he have that lawyers
of his friend indeed spent thousands of hours, and if they did, why was it really necessary?
Why did not he go to trial and let the judge fix the amount?

4. Several years ago, police in Montreal shot and killed a man (I forgot his name, but police
mistook him for somebody else).  The man had a wife and 3 small children.  Widow had sued
police, and Court of Appeal set the damage at $20,000. I do not think that widow had much
left after her lawyers deducted their pay.  Now, let us compare: a letter of defamation created
damages of $60,000 plus $740,000 in legal fees, while a murder of an innocent man created
damage of $20,000 in total.  Is not something severely wrong in this picture?

We have a crooked Leader of opposition sitting in Parliament with a criminal Prime Minister.
This hypocritical country has the government it deserves.

Fabrikant
---
Fabrikant about shooting in Santana school

My heart sinks each time I hear in the news this: yet another shooting, two are killed and 13 wounded, and yet again the yellow media pretends not to know why it happened.  I quote a typical passage from a newspaper:

"Santana High School did everything right: anonymous sign-in sheets for students to report
threats, SWAT training for the principal, program to help youngsters to get along, including
one called "Names can really hurt us".  A sheriff s deputy was assigned part-time to the school.
Seven full-time campus supervisors roamed the grounds.  Extra phones, radio and speakers were
installed to spread word of trouble quickly across the 1,900-student campus.  Somehow, it wasn't
enough."

Yellow media take people for stupid: we know from other reports that Andy Williams was bullied on a daily basis, was called "dork", "freak", "geek", "nerd", his shoes were taken off his feet, etc. There were 7 (seven!) supervisors "roaming the grounds", how on earth could they not notice a boy, without shoes?  What is the point to have those supervisors, if they do not see and do not stop bullying?  Santana school did nothing right: what is the point to SWAT train the principal, what is the point to install phones and radios?  All they had to do was to stop abuse of Andy Williams, and then they would not need anything else.

School officials claim that Andy never complained to them.  I do not buy this: he even told a number of people of his intentions to bring a gun and to shoot his abusers, clearly, he tried less radical means earlier; it is March now, and school abuse started in September.

Numerous talk shows have various professionals invited, and all of them are saying that the matter of school violence is too complicated, each case is different, there is no quick solution and other general and meaningless phrases.  We see on TV screens that police investigators "found no motives for shooting". We see a picture with big WHY written on the wall.  I can tell you why: IT IS THE ABUSE, STUPID!!!  Stop the abuse, and there will be no shootings anywhere.

I also read in newspapers that Andy Williams did his shooting to get his "15 minutes of fame". Nothing could be more stupid than this: he did not look very happy about all the publicity around him.  The yellow media wrote the same thing about me, that I shot 4 people "to attract attention" to my feud with the university officials.  Noone in his right mind would shoot anyone
just to attract attention.  Andy Williams is not insane, and neither was I. What he felt was extreme pain and utter desperation, I know, I was there.

There is though a big difference in our cases: I did not plan to kill anyone, and I was lucky that not a single innocent person was hurt in my case, but I think, I can explain why Andy Williams shot passersby, some of them he probably did not know.  In his head, they were as guilty as direct abusers, because they saw him being abused, and probably laughed at him instead of
telling his abusers to stop.  It is as simple as that everybody understands that no abuser can exist unless he sees an audience which explicitly or implicitly approves his actions, and Andy understood it as well.  So, if you see someone being abused, try to stop it or tell someone and demand it to stop, because when the abused person goes berserk, it is you who might get killed.

I think, I can also explain, why some of the children, involved in school shootings, killed one or both parents first. Parents are there to protect their children, and if they not only refuse to protect, but also humiliate their children and laugh at them, when their children tell them that someone is bullying them, this creates extreme hatred towards parents. In eyes of the children,
such parents are traitors, and traitors in every society are hated more than the enemy: they are usually hanged or shot, while the enemy is taken as a prisoner and kept alive. So, if this is the case, do not be surprised, when you hear that one or both parents were killed first.

There is in Canadian jurisprudence the defense of battered woman syndrome.  It originates from the case of a woman in Western Canada, who was severely abused by her husband for a long time.  One day, he threatened to kill her.  She took a rifle and shot him dead.  At the time of shooting, he was leaving the room, and had no weapon with him. She was acquitted on the basis of battered woman syndrome which states that a woman, subjected to a long and severe abuse, feels that she, in order to protect her life, has no alternative but to kill her abuser. I accept this, and even if it was not so, I mean, even if
this battered woman syndrome was a fantasy created by psychiatrists, a woman killing an abusive husband should be acquitted for a very simple reason: to send a message to all abusers - start behaving or risk of being killed.  I guarantee that this would be the best way to stop significant part of family violence.

The same should be applied to Andy Williams: if we accept the battered woman syndrome, why can not we accept a battered child syndrome?  If you want to stop shootings at schools, you should stop bullying, and the best way to do so, is to send a clear message to the bullies: stop bullying or risk of being killed.  I guarantee this would cool them off.  If Andy Williams had the money of O.J. Simpson, his lawyers most certainly would revoke the battered child syndrome defense, but since he does not, I am pretty sure his lawyers would not defend him at all.

I have seen on TV funeral of one of the children shot at Santana school, and one of his friends was reading from a prepared sheet of paper: "Somewhere, down the road, we shall have all the answers ...". Children do not speak like that; some grown-ups have prepared this speech for him, taking into consideration that the whole thing was to be bradcasted to the nation.  Hello, WAKE UP, we have all the answers, many years ago.

---
Fabrikant about stealing at Archambault jail

I have seen quite a number of jails by now, and everywhere jailers steal from prisoners, but at Archambault the stealing is in a class by itself.  I just mention some observations which would speak louder than thousand words.

Several days ago, while standing in the line to get my supper, I took two little containers of confiture, as it was written in the menu.  Inmate overseeing the food distribution, told me to take only one.  I asked him, how come, in the menu, it is written that everyone is entitled to two, and he explained to me that he got from the kitchen not enough to provide for everyone, so only one was available.  It is the first time in my life I see that what is written in the menu, is not provided.  The value of stolen confiture is minimal, but it tells you the story that nothing is too small for jailers to steal.

In the Change Room, I was told that jail provides 5 little pieces of soap (about 20 grams each) for an inmate per month. If you have ever been in a cheap motel, you might have seen tiny pieces of soap, which are given to customers to use once and to throw after that into garbage.  Well, this is exactly what is being offered here - 5 per month.  As comparison, with all the stealing at Cowansville jail, they give two regular pieces of soap, which is at least triple of what is given at Archambault.

All jails provide cleaning powder (Ajax or Comet) to clean toilets, not Archambault: they do not have money for that.  Clearly this is not the real reason.  The jail is half empty, while other jails are overcrowded, but is has more guards than maximum security Donnacona. Obviously, staff here is worried about their jobs, so they are working hard to make sure that
every inmate, who is being liberated from this jail, is angry enough to commit another crime and to come right back.  The best way to make a prisoner angry is to tamper with his food and his cell, and this is exactly what they are doing.  If you enter any cell, you notice that there are no hooks to hang coats, no rack to hang towel, no locker to put clothes in, etc.

These things are standard in any cell; they were available in maximum Donnacona and in medium Leclerc and Cowansville jail.  It is also obvious that all the hooks and lookers were here as well, since there are still holes in the walls where these were placed some time ago, but not now.  Jailers are doing this deliberately, to make sure that their clients are to stay in jail
for life.

In Cowansville, guards sitting in bubbles were usually reading some material (newspapers, books, etc.) instead of doing their job, which is: look around and look at the screens, projecting pictures from security cameras.  Here guards also do not do their job, but they have more entertainment: they can watch TV set.  Where else can you find a job, where you can watch TV all the shift long, and be paid for this an average of $50,000 per year?  In addition, from time to time, you can go on strike, shouting how much you overworked and underpaid. Nice, isn't it?

Now you understand, why jailers want me dead so badly.

---
Fabrikant about what really happened at Headingley jail

It is well known that during April 25-26, 1996, a riot took place at Headingley jail in Manitoba.  Media reported that inmates went on rampage, assaulted guards and other inmates, set fire to the building, entered the medical unit and got possession of narcotics there, tortured and mutilated many inmates from protective custody floor.

On May 7, 1996, Manitoba Minister of Justice R. Vodrey has commissioned retired judge E.N. Hughes from Victoria B.C. to investigate the circumstances surrounding this riot. He made his report public on November 29, 1996.  It is the same Hughes, who took over the Police Commission Inquiry in RCMP brutality in Vancouver and successfully buried it. Instead of using his power and ordering Chretien to appear and testify, he sent him an invitation, which Chretien, of course, declined. Now you know who he is. If you have a scandal at hand, and you want to bury it, call Hughes. This is how he got his title of Queen's Counsel.

I got his report, according to Access to Information Act, and I give below my review of what is in his report, and most important, what is NOT in the report.  I got interested in his report for one reason: I have been in Jail for over 8 years and have seen quite a number of riots, and each time it was obvious that it were jailers, not inmates, who ordered, orchestrated and organized these riots. Whenever guards have problems with management, their weapon is usually a riot.  For example, they demand increase of their salary, say, 2 millions, and management refuses, then they create a riot, which would cost 10 million to repair, so next time management would think twice before refusing 2 million; and management would never tell the public the truth about riots, because it would make them look bad in the first place.

So, what do we have in the report?  In the Introduction, Hughes writes

"Many of the Correctional officers on duty the night of the riot were traumatized, almost
beyond belief.  Some of them sincerely believed they would not escape alive. Given the
viciousness of the assaults, first on staff and then on inmates, it is miraculous that there was
no loss of life."

I read report very attentively several times, and I found not a single name of a guard, who would be seriously harmed.  There is mentioning of guard Deobold, who was "badly beaten", but when I wrote to Hughes, asking him whether he saw any independent medical evidence that Deobold was indeed badly beaten, he simulated bad memory.  As far as inmates are concerned, there is no doubt that those in protective custody were tortured and mutilated, indeed, beyond belief.

You may ask, why should public care about those in protective Custody, majority of them are rapists, pedophiles, informants. This is so, but one of them could be Guy Paul Morin, innocent man convicted of most heinous crime. But even if all of them were guilty as charged, in a society, which calls itself civilized, protective custody should mean exactly that: protective.  Torture and mutilation of one human being by another should not be allowed under any circumstances in a government run facility.

Hughes describes the work environment in Headingley Jail as "the staff was a dysfunctional conglomerate torn apart by strife, hatred, bitterness and nastiness".  Why was it so?  Significant part of guards were hired many years ago, mainly for their size, had no education, got accustomed to treat inmates "as dirt".  In 1991, Ministry started introducing the case management approach in corrections, which meant that guards were no longer turnkeys, they had to talk to inmates to find out what were their problems, etc.  The Ministry went even further: guards were required to take their meals in the same cafeteria, as inmates.  People, who were hired for their size, got scared: they knew, how to beat up people, but did not know how to be social workers.  They had a very nice job, where they needed just to show up, and then get their fat paycheck.  Had they been fired, they had no marketable skills, so they felt like fighting for their survival.

Of course, their fears were unfounded, nobody was fired, but some did not get the promotions, and the reason was - they did not get this "case management" thing.  In addition, a new warden was appointed in 1992, one Krocker, who had little experience in jail management. Here is what Hughes writes about Krocker (page 27):

"Krocker had success on the business side of the Headingley operation. He tackled issues that
had been left without attention. Abuses had occurred in overtime and sick leave. He applied his
talents in bringing those issues under control. Placing inventory control on food was a very
positive step, given the losses that had occurred over the recent past."

Hughes uses language, which a person, not familiar with Jail, would not understand, and he does it deliberately, so I shall translate it for you.  Translation: guards used to be paid overtime, without working a minute extra.  This is how it is done here.  A guard comes and works 16 hour instead of 8, he gets paid 8 hours overtime, though during a week he did not work more than normal 35 hours.  Abuse of sick leave: I worked at school with guard Racine and it was at least 4-5 times every month, that he called in sick.  No proof of being sick required, and he is paid in full. Translation of Hughes' expression losses of food: Jailers steal prisoners' food, and they steal big! Krocker curtailed all three. I can tell you for sure: if the warden of this jail curtails overtime, sick leaves and stealing of food, there will be a riot in Cowansville of the same size, as in Headingley
Jail.

Here is how Hughes describes the reason, why previous warden left Headingley Jail (page 42):

He was burnt out. ... he was basically faced with a militant staff ... there was a lot of
harassment... And he just had enough.

Translation: prison guards are criminals, worse than ordinary criminals, because they are on the wrong side of prison bars.  "Militant staff" means that the former warden might have had all sorts of troubles, of which slashing of his tires would be the least important.  I have noticed that they sincerely believe that getting overtime, without working a minute more than norm, calling in sick whenever they please and stealing food is like their birth-right.

Hughes devotes separate chapter to proliferation of drugs in Headingley Jail.  Gang members forced other inmates to demand from their family members to bring drugs during jail visits.  He tells about numerous severe beatings of inmates who refused to deliver drugs.  He also tells about extortion telephone calls to the family members threatening beatings if they do not bring drugs to jail.  What Hughes does not say, is how on earth the gang members would know the telephone numbers of the family members.  There is no doubt that this information came from the guards, there is no other source in jail: guards at the Visit Department have access to the most intimate information about inmate's families. These beatings were very easy to stop: instead of contact visits introduce no-contact visits through a glass wall. The fact that this was not done is indirect evidence that guards were involved in this drug trafficking and certainly shared the profits.

It is well known that visitors very often bring drugs with them, but I did not observe in any of Quebec jails the kind of extortion which seem to flourish in Manitoba.  Usually, the visitors give drugs to an inmate, and he can sell it to whoever he wants, but some "muscular" guy might demand that he gets from him "permission" to sell, which means that he should give certain
percentage of the sale to the "muscular" guy.

And now about the night of riot.  There is plenty of evidence, which Hughes involuntary provides for an observant reader.  We read on page 45

"Program personnel who worked with Headingley staff members felt that the matter reached
crisis proportions.  They said that within a two or three-day period in April, several employees
stated, in confidence, that they had reached the point where they were going to take some very
drastic steps to deal with matters themselves."

Pay attention, they did not say that the inmates were about to explode, EMPLOYEES were to take drastic steps.  Translation: they will organize a riot, and they did.

On pages 32-33 we read the testimony of an unnamed nurse:

"The morning just before the riot, the 25th, a.m. there, I was the first one in for the 7:30 shift,
and I came down with a pile of stuff in my arms, keys, and I noticed an inmate down the end
of the hall talking through to the psych area, yelling at the psych patients through the door,
and I said to him, I said, "What are you doing up here by yourself, like where did you come
from?" He said, "I came from the basement, I'm one of the predators, I came to see you, I
want some Epsom salts". I said, "Well, who are you?" He says, "I'm [inmate gives his name]."
He was one of the individuals out of the Block 1 area that started the riot.  So he had come up
from the basement on his own, no one knew he was there, came to see me, and was quite
willing to hold my coffee and my stuff, so I could open up and let him in."

The nurse presented this testimony as evidence of lack of security in jail, but let us analyze it a little bit deeper. Something does not fit here. A nurse arrives to open up medical unit. She sees an inmate, who presents himself as a maximum security guy, there is no guard around, and she OPENS UP MEDICAL UNIT and LETS HIM IN!!!!  She is alone with a maximum security inmate!  No nurse would do that, and if she really did it (which is a grave breach of security), I can explain it very simply.  Guards were planning a riot that night.  Inmates are ready to go along, but they want payment in advance, and payment is usually in drugs.  A lot of drugs are stored in Medical Unit, and they need keys in advance.  This is why the inmate was waiting for the nurse: she was to give him all the keys, while nobody was there yet, and that he could check that the keys do work.  She probably also explained to him where exactly the drugs were located.

A good question here is: why would the nurses cooperate in creation of a riot?  Hughes blurts it out
in a different context (page 117):

"The venom pouring out of the majority of staff members working there (medical unit), mostly
professional nurses, during discussions with me, left me with the impression that, in addition
to the general attitude permeating the whole jail, some further agenda was at work, which I
was unable to identify."

I do not believe that he was really "unable to identify", but one thing is clear: the nurses were as angry, as guards, and this is why they joined forces. But the drugs from medical unit would become accessible after the riot started.  Inmates wanted also drugs before they start the riot, and they got it.  We read on page 50:

On the night of riot, a large quantity of pills had come into Block 1,
but the dog could not detect this drug in that particular form.

Hughes takes his readers for dumbheads. Dog can detect narcotics in any form. Would you believe in such a coincidence that numerous visitors on the day of riot all colluded to bring drugs in one special form, not detectable by a dog?  If such a form existed, who would need the dogs?  The truth is: guards deliberately allowed huge quantity of drugs as an advance payment for the riot.

Next, Hughes describes an incident at the canteen at 7 p.m. Inmates from Block 1 were in line, each holding $5 token, each asking the same thing: a bag of peanuts and a drink, which total $0.90, and each wanted their change - four one-dollar tokens and a dime. Canteen officer felt that something was going on and that soon she will be out of one-dollar tokens. She called her
superior Haasbek and asked her what to do. Haasbek decided that inmates were collecting one-dollar tokens to pay to get someone assaulted, and she ordered to serve only those, who had exact change, which made inmates very angry.

Let us analyze this incident. Would you believe that "predators" from Block one would pay anyone to get someone assaulted?  They can beat up anyone themselves, and also collect money for the beating.  Another thing: how much would it cost to have someone assaulted?  I do not believe anyone would do it for one buck. The whole story of Haasbek does not make sense. So,
what was the purpose of this spectacle?  Inmates needed to create a situation where they would be abused, denied the right to make a legitimate purchase, so that a riot after that would look more natural. Canteen officer mentioned that majority of these people had no money on their accounts, but all had $5 tokens.  If you ask, who gave them those tokens, the answer is clear: the guards, who organized the riot.

At about 9 p.m., Hunt decided to do search of Block 1, because he saw them intoxicated.  There is no description of how the riot started.  There is a detailed description of guard Bartley being late for search, because of coffee break, and when he arrived, the riot was already on.  Then we see detailed description of why guard Hillstrom was late, that she had to use a bathroom, and when she arrived, the riot was on. I wrote a letter to Hughes, asking him, how the riot started exactly, and he again simulated amnesia.

One thing is clear: they tried to do search in a manner, no guard ever does. Usual search is done this way: between 2 and 4 guards are searching one inmate. Head of the search team Hunt decided to get all 17 inmates together, and 8 guards would search them. Does this make sense, especially when guards noticed that inmates were intoxicated?

Obviously, this was a spectacle, they pretended to have fight with inmates, during which inmates got the keys from every floor, after which guards retreated, and Hughes calls them heroes. Obviously, guards did not have the keys from the medical unit, and this is why the "predator" in the morning went to get his set of keys. When Hunt was asked, why did he do the search in such a reckless manner, he responded that he was under pressure from his superiors, who accused him of not doing his job and having too many sick leaves.  Even Hughes does not buy this explanation.

Hughes does as much white-washing, as one could imagine.  Here are some quotations.  On page 63:

"On this occasion (riot), the divisions and the bitterness that divided so many at the jail were
put aside and, for the next 24 hours, teamwork took over."

Excuse me, what "teamwork" is he talking about?  For the next 24 hours, nobody did anything to save tortured and mutilated people, they just stood around waiting for rioters to surrender.  What kind of teamwork is needed for that?

Here are some quotations from pages 64-65:
In my view, the R.C.M.P. acted expeditiously and professionally ...

I am sure that I speak for many in expressing appreciation of the R.C.M.P., and I include their proficient Emergency Response Team and Tactical Operations Team.  Likewise, I commend the efficiency and contribution of the Emergency Response Team of the Corrections Division of Manitoba Justice and also all those Headingley employees who responded willingly and quickly.

I am sure, he speaks for many guards, I doubt that tortured and mutilated prisoners would share his opinion. We have two Emergency Response Teams, which were waiting for 21 hours before doing anything, and such a behavior is called efficient, proficient and expeditious!  I wonder, how long would it take for a Slow Response Team to start acting. Indeed, the level of Canadian hypocrisy is unsurpassed in the whole world.

There is one more detail, which is not in Hughes report.  I read about it in one nurse's notes, which were published in corrections journal.  She writes there about selfless and dedicated work of nurses who, according to her, provided medical help to the tortured and mutilated prisoners.  She mentions there, that the liberated prisoners were obliged to get out of jail and approach the medical team on their own, nurses were not allowed, "for security reasons", to help them.  Quite a number of these prisoners had their legs broken.  Now, imagine the picture: a prisoner with broken legs is trying to get to the medical team, and nobody is allowed to help him.  Nazis would turn in their graves with envy.
 
---
Chretien - criminal

Recently, Chretien has made public the hand-written document of sale of his shares in a golf course.  The opposition, as usual, does not ask proper questions.  They want to show that Chretien was still in possession of the shares in 1996.  Well, it is easy to establish who was the owner.  Here is how: every year the company mails out dividends to the shareowners.  It is known, that in the company books Chretien was still listed as owner, this means that the company issued every year cheques in the name of Chretien and mailed them to him.  All what is needed to establish is what did Chretien do with these cheques: did he cash them or returned back.  So, all what is needed to clarify now - who received the dividends all these years.

There is another moment, which nobody seems to pay attention: the document of sale - it is handwritten.  Why?  No witnesses signed it no notary participated; not even secretary saw it.  Is not it clear, that the document was hand-written for one reason: the sale was fictitious, and both participants did not want anyone to know the details. One important detail: there is no date for
payment, it is written "on demand". If you were selling your property, would not you want the initial payment immediately? Now, a CBC reporter said, and I quote: "By 1996, Prime Minister realized that he was not being paid". Excuse me, is he a complete idiot? Does one need 3 years to pass to realize that he is not being paid?

I was amused to see, how CBC is going out of its ways to protect crooked Prime Minister. They invite various guests for interview, which boils down to "we demand too much of our politicians", "the matter is too small to discuss it so long", etc.  Let us compare.  I remember a big hoopla about one woman, who "defrauded" welfare of $9,000 for 10 years, which
comes to $90,000.  She was shamed and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Now, Prime Minister has stolen from taxpayers 7 times this amount, and we hear that the amount is too small.  Am I missing something?  This is why government in USA is not allowed to have radio or TV station - governmental propaganda should not be allowed.

So, what really happened?  Chretien did not want to sell his shares, but he could not keep them as well. So, he made a gentlemen-like agreement with one Prince, they wrote a document, which nobody saw; on the paper, he sold his shares, in reality, he still had them, and this is why he did not demand any payment.

Another good question: is the opposition really that stupid and does not understand which question to ask?

---
Jailers use CBC for propaganda

On April 4, 2001, CBC had a 3 hour broadcast entitled "Inside Canadian prisons".  I watched it all.  It was a blatant piece of the Soviet-style propaganda, which may be summarized as follows: Correctional Service Canada (CSC) is the best in the world; other countries are coming to learn from CSC, prison guards are honest, intelligent and dedicated people, working hard in extremely dangerous conditions, overworked, underpaid and under-appreciated.  I comment below on some episodes shown to the public, as to what the reality is.

Public saw at least 10 times guards walking from one cell door to another, creating impression that guards are extremely busy.  Walking from door to door takes about 5 minutes of time.  Even presuming that guards make their rounds every two hours (as they are supposed to), they work 20 minutes during their 8-hour shift, the most of their time they watch TV, read newspapers, chat between themselves - they have really nothing to do. Public also saw, how guards work hard while searching prisoners' cells.  I observed in the maximum security Donnacona jail a search of a cell across the corridor.  Two guards entered the cell, found several Playboy magazines and were looking through the pages for about 3 minutes, after which they exited the cell the search was finished. I have reported these guards to the warden nothing happened to them, my complaint was rejected.  Presume that the guards are indeed concerned with prisoner hiding knives - would they "search" any cell the way I described it?

The truth is that the guards are not concerned at all about their safety.  Every prisoner knows that if he attacks a guard, five of them would come later to his cell and beat him into pulp, so no one in his right mind would do it.  At present, there are only two kinds of attack on guards: one, a spectacle: guard wants 6 months fully paid vacation and he knows of an
inmate deep in debt, who would be killed, if he does not get out.  He makes an arrangement with this inmate to pretend that the inmate attacked him.  Bingo: guard gets his 6 months vacation, inmate gets his transfer to Special Handling Unit (SHU), where he would arrive as a hero - he attacked a guard!  Second kind of attack is another kind of a spectacle: there is a
guard, who is more honest than the rest - he is not tolerated.  Again, guards make a deal with a "needy" prisoner to attack a specific guard.  This time, they have to pay in drugs.  The difference here is that the attacked guard is really hurt.  There is a simple indicator whether the attack was arranged by guards: if the prisoner was not beaten into pulp, this is an attack of the first or the second kind.  Guards receive $1600 per year bonus for danger.  If there are no attacks on guards, their bonus might disappear.

The public watched one guard telling about his ordeal: he pricked himself with a prisoner's needle, and then was in agony for a whole year testing for AIDS.  The story makes little sense: why not to test the needle, and everything will be clear, whether it was contaminated or not.  Something in this episode does not add up.

Yet another spectacle played for public consumption: we see a prisoner trying to attack guards, and we can appreciate, how professionally guards are trying to control him.  This is not what happens in real life.  I saw with my own eyes a guard smashing prisoner's head against a sharp edge of an iron bar.  The prisoner at that time was already handcuffed and shackled, he could not resist, so the beating was for the sole purpose of beating.  I guess, it gave guards some pleasure.  You would never see any reporter showing this kind of story or asking guards about this kind of events.  Here is some statistics from the 1998-1999 annual report of Correctional Investigator: during the year there were 900 incidents of use of force by guards against prisoners, and this is the number reported by CSC; can you imagine, how many went unreported?

Yet another statistics from the 1998-1999 annual report of Correctional Investigator: during the year there were 16 suicides "placing the inmate suicide rate of our federal penitentiaries at or near the top of the international list for developed countries".  So, here is what CSC seems to be doing best in the world: driving prisoners to suicide.  If you think that Correctional Investigator is doing something about all this, think again: they do not give a damn.  Have no doubt, that every prisoner, prior to committing suicide, called Correctional Investigator, asked for help and did not get any.

Yet another quote from the same report:

A decade ago, 25 to 30 inmates died annually in federal penitentiaries.  Currently, over 50
inmates a year are dying in our federal institutions.  These numbers should create concern and
an international comparison of these numbers raises even further concern.

Correctional Investigator is talking here about inmates being killed by other inmates.  Pay attention, how diplomatic is the language: "an international comparison of these numbers raises even further concern".  He does not say where exactly is CSC as compared to other developed countries.  At the same time, he quotes CSC saying: "CSC's statistics indicate that over past 3 years, the number of violent incidents has decreased".  CSC is a bunch of liars too.

Here is yet another quote from the Correctional Investigator's report:

- the Service's statistics, in terms of what they are monitoring, is inadequate;

- first, they are identifying the instances of inmate assaults, which have resulted in broken
bones, multiple stab wounds and corrective surgery as minor assaults.  Minor assaults are not
counted as incidents of institutional violence.

No comments necessary.  I can explain though why more inmates are being killed and wounded. You saw in "60 Minutes" a show about California guards, who used prisoners as gladiators to fight to death.  The same is happening here.  Remember the episode of SHU, where the reporter said that an inmate was stabbed 9 times by another inmate in the yard.  Another inmate was saying that the stabbed guy was a rapist, and therefore his stabbing was quite predictable.  What he is not saying
(or, may be, reporters cut this part off), that the guards did it deliberately.  In the SHU setting, every prisoner, going to the yard, is being searched.  The fact, that an inmate managed to get out in the yard with a knife, is the proof that not only he was not searched, but that the guards gave him the knife.

Have in mind also, that prisoners are not supposed to know, why is their neighbor in jail, and I assure you that no rapist would brag about his charges.  This means that it was a guard, who told inmates that their neighbor was a rapist - and this is a gravest breach of privacy.  Public also saw yet another episode, where two inmates were heard quarrelling, and the reporter was saying that one of the inmates was upset that a new neighbor was placed in an adjacent cell.  What the reporter did not tell you, that the jailers were setting a scene for yet another bloodshed.  According to the rules, jailers are not supposed to place two antagonists in the same jail, let alone in two adjacent cells. This was a gravest breach of the rules.  I can tell you what would happen next.  These two will be placed in the yard, and they will fight each other like gladiators, and jailers would place bets, who would win.  Of course, if they want, they can shoot one or both dead - nobody would be even reprimanded.

Prison guards are among the dumbest people I have ever met.  They do know how to steal and how to beat up people, but that is it.  Majority of them do not understand a word of English, and they speak such a terrible jargon of Quebecois, that a person, who studied French International can not understand a word they are saying.  Now, how dumb a person should be, if he was born here, is surrounded all his life by English from all sides, studied it at school and still can not understand a single word?  As comparison, majority of inmates are perfectly bilingual.

Though the guards are intellectually challenged in all jails, the guards in Archambault are the champions.  Here is what one of them did recently.  I am usually using used envelopes to send some documents inside jail.  It worked fine so far, until I took an envelope, received from the Supreme Court, crossed out their address, wrote the word "FROM:" in front of my address and wrote below it "TO: FINANCE DEPT.", hoping naively that it would be forwarded to the Finance Dept.  You can never imagine, what one of the guards did.  He sent it to the Supreme Court of Canada!  I learned about it several weeks later, when I received a large envelope from the Supreme Court with my letter inside.

In the US, government is forbidden to have a TV or a radio station.  In Canada, for some reason, the government has both, it is called CBC, and it is widely used for governmental propaganda.  The usual justification for CBC existence is preservation of Canadian culture.  Well, use the Public Broadcasting System for that.  The 1.5 BILLION dollars of taxpayers money could be put for much better use.  It is a shame that CBC was used for such a blatant propaganda as the show about Canadian prisons was.


---
Romanow and the health care

It has become a pattern in the behavior of all governments in Canada: when they do not want to act on some important issues, they arrange for a commission to study the subject.  Commission usually takes years, and in the meantime the government does not have to do anything.  This is exactly what is happening with health care.  Chretien gave a commission to his friend Romanow to study it.  Who is Romanow?  Is he a medical doctor specializing in public health?  No, he is the former provincial Premier, who became infamous for laying off numerous nurses and thus sabotaging the provincial health care.  Should he be given the job (of course, presuming that the commission was necessary)?  Of course not.  Why was he given the job?  As I said, he is Chretien's friend.

The taxpayer will have to foot the bill for $15 million.  As a comparison, all the potato farmers in the province of Prince Edward Island got annual compensation of $12 million; an agreement to preserve the habitat of the white bear in British Columbia involved compensation to the logging industry of $10 million.  Would Romanow's advice be worth $15 million?  Of course, not.

Let us do a little arithmetics.  The amount of $15 million divided by the number of working days in 18 months gives Romanow about $40,000 to spend each and every day.  Presume that he would pay himself a $1000 per day, which boils down to a cool quarter million per year and which is greater than his Premier salary.  He might need on average another thousand or two to pay his secretary, hotel, travel, etc.  What is he going to do with the remaining, say, $37,000 each and every day?  He is going to give it to his parasitic friends - lawyers, and I have no doubt, that several million dollars will be pumped back to Chretien via some of the closest friends.  After all, should not Romanow thank his friend Chretien for $15 million?

What astonishes me: are Canadians really that dumb to allow their money to be wasted that way?
---


Fighting organized crime

Government has made public several amendments to Criminal Code, which as they claim will help fight organized crime.  Police applaud the action, mainly the additional $200 million.  They proudly declared that due to their work, they confiscated $13 million worth of proceeds of crime. Nobody asks them a simple question: does it make much sense to spend $200 million to recover 13?  May be, it is cheaper to let organized crime to launder their money?  Am I missing something?

The police also applaud the new permission to commit crime, while investigating organized crime, as if they did not do it before.  There is a scandal brewing in Los Angeles, where local police was shooting unarmed people, fabricating evidence and giving false testimony in court, stealing money from people they arrested, selling confiscated drugs, etc.  You name it, they did it.  Now, if you think that Canadian police is any different, think again.  The only difference, that in LA someone started talking, while here nobody is talking yet.

Here is just one example.  On June 1, 1995, Martin Suaza, 23, was shot by a policeman during arrest, while he was lying on the ground, face down.  First, police lied that he was shot during fight, then it was discovered that he was shot while lying down, handcuffed and shackled, so now they claim that it was an accident.

For five years nothing has been done.  Now the policeman, who executed Suaza, was allowed to plead negligent handling of firearm, and got suspended for 60 days.  Why did it take Police Commission 5 years to react?  Why was not this guy charged with a premeditated murder? Because police in Canada, as prison guards, has a license to kill and always gets away with
murder.

Several inmates told me that police officers gave them drugs to sell.  Where did police get these drugs?  Confiscated from other drug dealers.  One inmate, who was caught bringing several tons of drugs, told me that the confiscation report listed the weight of drugs 150 kg. less than he knew he had, which means that 150 kg. of drugs were stolen just in the process of confiscation. Canadian police is a well organized crime.  Do you want them to fight another organized crime?

If you are an ordinary Canadian, ask yourself a simple question: does organized crime bother you personally in any shape or form?  The only organized crime which does bother ordinary Canadians is the Canadian Government, which robs them blind.  Just look at the $15 million thrown recently to Romanow.

As far as the biker gangs is concerned, there is a much cheaper way to fight them: their main profits come from drugs and prostitution, so legalize both, and that would be the end.  As long as crime pays, and pays very well, it will exist, and no draconian measures will eliminate it.


---
Police informants among protesters at the Summit

Ask yourself a simple question: does police have informants among protesters in any demonstration?  The answer is a resounding yes.  The next question to ask is: are these informants behaving peacefully or not?  I can assure you that they are the ones, who attack the police.  Why? First, police wants to discredit the protesters, and what is better way to discredit a political protest than to present protesters as disorderly hooligans?  Second, majority of humans are naive: they think that a person, who attacks police, can be trusted, and this is what any informant needs most. Third, government wants to beat up the protesters in order to discourage future protest, but in order to do so, police needs an excuse to attack the crowd.  Informants give them such an excuse by attacking police first.

How did I come to understanding all this?  In jail, there is an excellent way to find out informants. If you see an inmate telling everyone, how he hates guards and how he wants to kill them all, I can assure you 99% that he is an informant.  If you hear during a peaceful protest an inmate shouting and urging everyone to break everything in his cell - he is an informant.  I saw one such guy during a riot in Donnacona.  When the riot was finished, he went into protection, which is the best proof of being an informant.

So, here is my suggestion to the protesters at the coming Summit of the Americas.  Watch closely everyone, who agitates to attack the police, who starts breaking windows, etc.  This is the police informant.  Remember his face.


---
Fabrikant about Stockwell Day

This is what I posted about a month ago:

It was reported in the media that Day has decided to get second mortgage on his house in
order to repay $60,000 out of $800,000 settlement of the defamation lawsuit.  I have read
various comments and I have heard an interview with him.  All the media mainly concentrate
on one thing: why did not he apologize earlier.  Nobody is asking real questions.  Here is what
I would have asked him.

1 . I would have presented to him a little of arithmefics.  He is now about 50 years old, so he
has been working for at least 20 years by now, and at highly paid positions; his last
salary was at least $150,000.  Presume, that he certainly was capable to save at least
$10,000 of his salary every year, which would give by now at least $200,000 plus
interest.  So, my first question to him would be: why is he playing a comedy pretending
to need second mortgage to get $60,000, while he MUST have at least $200,000 in his
bank account?

2. Day also mentioned that the lawyer he defamed was his personal friend.  Now, he has
enough education to know that the fact that a lawyer defends someone accused of
criminal offence certainly does not mean that the lawyer approves actions of his client.
Officially, a lawyer represents his client and tells the court what his client instructs him
to say.  So, even if a lawyer may, in fact, share opinions of his client nobody can accuse
him of this.  Day certainly knew this simple thing, so why would he write a defamatory
letter against his "friend"?  Here is my explanation.  It happened several years ago, when
Day had no idea that he would become a party leader.  He worked as a Minister in
provincial government.  He knew about existence of a fund for indemnization of
ministers for any wrongdoing, so he concocted with his friend a smart scheme: he would
write a defamatory letter, and his friend is going to sue him; he would settle for a huge
amount of money, and they would share the loot.  I would ask Day to comment on this
scenario.

3. Let us analyze the amount: $800,000 is a huge amount of money, taking into
consideration that the damages were estimated at $60,000, so it means that lawyers,
representing his friend, estimated their work worth $740,000.  Presume that a lawyer
demands $200 per hour of his work, which means that the lawyer claimed to have
worked 3,700 hours on this lawsuit.  Elementary arithmetics shows that the lawyers
must have spent 462 days, working 8-hours every day, which is about 2 years of
regular work.  Now, how big is the job in a lawsuit involving a 1-page letter?  Is not
couple of hours of jurisprudence research more than enough for this lawsuit?  So, my
next question to Day would be: why did he agree to such an outrageous amount as
settlement; what evidence did he have that lawyers of his friend indeed spent thousands
of hours, and if they did, why was it really necessary?  Why did not he go to trial and
let the judge fix the amount?

4. Several years ago, police in Montreal shot and killed a man (I forgot his name, but
police mistook him for somebody else).  The man had a wife and 3 small children.
Widow had sued police, and Court of Appeal set the damage at $20,000. I do not think
that widow had much left after her lawyers deducted their pay.  Now, let us compare: a
letter of defamation created damages of $60,000 plus $740,000 in legal fees, while a
murder of an innocent man created damage of $20,000 in total.  Is not something
severely wrong in this picture?

We have a crooked Leader of opposition sitting in Parliament with a criminal Prime Minister.
This hypocritical country has the government it deserves

End of quote. Lately, it was reported in the media, that the lawyers of his "friend" have contributed to the Alliance party $70,000 - was I right or was I right, when I was writing about sharing the loot?

---
Fabrikant about police

This is what I posted several weeks ago:

Government has made public several amendments to Criminal Code, which as they claim
will help fight organized crime.  Police applaud the action, mainly the additional $200
million.  They proudly declared that due to their work, they confiscated $13 million worth of
proceeds of crime.  Nobody asks them a simple question: does it make much sense to spend
$200 million to recover 13?  May be, it is cheaper to let organized crime to launder their
money?  Am I missing something?

The police also applaud the new permission to commit crime, while investigating organized
crime, as if they did not do it before.  There is a scandal brewing in Los Angeles, where
local police was shooting unarmed people, fabricating evidence and giving false testimony in
court, stealing money from people they arrested, selling confiscated drugs, etc.  You name it,
they did it.  Now, if you think that Canadian police is any different, think again.  The only
difference, that in LA someone started talking, while here nobody is talking yet.

End of quote.  Now, I hear that a policeman with 23 years of service was convicted of corruption: he was selling confidential police information to organized crime.  Well, was I right or was I right?  This one got caught.  Can you imagine, how many did not get caught and probably never will be?


---
Summit of the Americas

I present below some thoughts about the event, which do not seem to attract much attention.

1. Police had arrested several individuals, after finding in their car military equipment, baseball
bats, etc.  Police announced that these individuals planned to explode grenades in the crowd of
protesters as a diversion, which would allow them to penetrate the security perimeter and go
to the Center where heads of states were.  Can one imagine something more stupid than that?
Why making explosions in a crowd of protesters would allow them to penetrate perimeter?
Why would one group of protesters plan to hurt another group of protesters?  And the main
question, which nobody asked: how on earth did police know, which vehicle to search?

The answer is obvious: police used the Nazi tactics from 1933, when they simulated fire in
the Reichstag.  Nazis declared that there was an attempt to overthrow government, Germany
was in danger.  This was a good pretext for a crack-down on Communists, Jews, etc.
Authorities spent $38 MILLION on the security; they desperately needed dangerous
conspirators, so they created them.  There is no doubt that at least one of them was agent
provocateur (may be, more than one), the others were stupid enough to get entrapped.

2. It was reported that Ottawa will reimburse 33 out of $38 MILLION spent on
security.  I remind once again: all the farmers of Prince Edward Island received last year
$12 M compensation; all lumber industry of British Columbia received 10M compensation
in the preservation deal of the white bear habitat.  Right now, many schools in Ontario are
closed, because they do not have enough money to satisfy demands of their workers, and
Ottawa has no money for education, but they somehow have $15 MILLION to give
Romanow, $33 MILLION to throw on security, etc.  This is called democracy.  What is
then organized crime?

3. A lawyer went to court demanding an injunction ordering a demolition of the wall in Quebec
City.  Corrupt judge admitted that the wall effectively infringed the rights guaranteed by
Charter, but decided that it was a "reasonable" restriction. Remember Reagan shouting in
Berlin: "Mr. Gorbachov!  Tear down that wall!" How on earth any normal person might
decide that the wall was a "reasonable" restriction?  Are we in the time of war?  No. Is the
country in danger?  No.

Several governments want to get together, and they do not feel that they would be safe
enough without a wall separating them from the people, which they "democratically" elected.
Is not some irony there?  If you plan to do something, and you need a wall to protect you,
then stop, and do not do it - this is what a non-corrupt judge would have said.  A non-
corrupt judge could have said to the governments: you can not in the time of peace restrain
free movement of people; if you need a wall to protect you, have your meeting inside a
military base or inside a maximum security jail, you will have enough walls to protect you.
There is yet another option: use a video-conference - you do not need to go anywhere, and it
would cost close to nothing.

4. I have already expressed the opinion that the individuals, who attack police first, are police
informants.  I was proven correct in the first breach of the fence.  Media reported that
members of anarchist Black Block did it.  Nobody heard about this group before.  Now, why
do I think that several (if not all) members of this group are informants?  Ask yourself a very
simple question: who needed the confrontation?  Police and media, so it is naturally to assume
that they will do whatever it takes to create the confrontation.  Imagine the situation: nobody
even approaches the fence, there is no confrontation of any kind during all Summit - how then
would authorities justify $38 MILLIONS? This is a huge amount! They need confrontation,
and they prepared informants to initiate it. Ask yourself, how did CBC know where to place a
camera with a panoramic view of the scene? Did they place panoramic cameras all over the 4
km perimeter?

As soon as the fence was breached, police had an excuse to go out of the perimeter, shoot at
people, make them angry, so later on, when police retreated, they were back, venting their
anger - the job of provocateurs was done.  It is as simple as that.  The media also did its best
to encourage the confrontation: every vane person, who wanted to be on TV, knew that he
had to go to the fence, and many did.  In addition, CBC reporter repeated on several
occasions, that government officials are "very nervous" about possible confrontation.  I do
not believe for a second, that they are really "nervous": they have nothing to fear, but stupid
listeners might have taken this for truth, and if the confrontation makes government
"nervous", then confrontation they will do.

Look at the pictures of the first breaking of the fence: police did absolutely nothing to stop
the crowd, they WANTED the fence to fall - this would give them an excuse to get out and
to assault people, to insure future assaults, but pay attention, after the first breaking of the
fence, they did not allow any more to have it broken, which proves that they could defend the
fence, if they wanted to.

There is another proof that the so called Black Block consisted of informants: they vandalized
media vans, claiming that media is corrupt. Again, ask yourself, who is interested in this?
Police.  Media is corrupt, but police still want to intimidate media and make them angry at
demonstrators - everything falls in its place.  Corruption of media is evident from the way they
reported events.  They showed many times police carefully carrying arrested individuals, there
was mentioning of several arrested, who "bled profusely", but we never saw, how did it
happened that they started bleeding.  The choice of words reporters use is also quite revealing:
reporter was telling that police "cleaned up" the area from the protesters, as if the area was
"dirty" when protesters were there.

5. Soviet propaganda often showed on TV police in capitalist countries beating citizens with
clubs, and the reporter proudly reminded Soviet citizens, that Soviet militia had no weapons
of any kind, it was considered totally unacceptable for members of militia to beat up Soviet
citizens - they were "people's militia".  They were forbidden to use tear gas or plastic bullets
on people.  Here, when someone is arrested, he is put in handcuffs.  Soviet militia never used
any handcuffs or shackles.  Pay attention, when you see the Chinese: they also have no arms
on them, no clubs, and when their criminals are shown - you will see no handcuffs, no
shackles. Is not it ironic, that one of the most repressive regimes has its police totally
unarmed?  Ask yourself, if Chinese police can do its crime fighting unarmed, why capitalist
police can not do the same?  The answer is very simple: police wants its job to be absolutely
safe.  Is not it time to tell them: if you want a safe job, get out of policing, find another job!

---
Police informants at the Summit

In my previous posting I predicted that police informants will be the first to attack police. Some people asked, what proof do I have.  Well, use common sense.  Ask yourself a question: what would be the most devastating course of events for the authorities?  Imagine that the fence stayed intact, no confrontation with police.  How would they be able to justify $38
MILLION spent?  This is why it was imperative for them that the fence be broken.  This would give them an excuse to get out and attack the protesters, and this is what they arranged through their informants and undercover agents.

Read the testimony of people who were there.  They noticed two things: one, police did not move a finger, while their informants were breaking the fence; two, after the fence was broken, a group of people made a human fence preventing the crowd to go through - these were undercover policemen.  Everything was pre-arranged and worked out like charm - this
is what Menard meant when he praised the police.  Do a little arithmetics: there were 6 thousand policemen mobilized, you did not see even one thousand in uniform; so, where were the remaining 5 thousand? In the crowd.  I just wonder, how stupid the population is, if they play the game police pulling them into.

I have heard on TV that some guys have stolen police documents related to Summit security and posted on the Web site based in Seattle.  Anyone knows the name of the site?  Please, post it if you do.  These documents allegedly prove that the group of anarchists was indeed infiltrated by police informants.
 
---
Stockwell Day and the media

It was reported that Day has filed a complaint against Quebec judge, who authorized seizure of documents related to Grand Mere hotel loan (Shawinigate).  Immediately the Bar of Quebec raised to defend the judge, and so did the media.  They went even much further: they claim that Day's troubles with his party is somehow related to his questioning of judge's integrity.  Let us see where the truth is.

The truth is that the judge was 100% in conflict of interest: when he was a lawyer, his firm was representing the hotel.  This is a classical example, and the judge was obligated to recuse himself from adjudication of the matter.  He did not, so he is 100% guilty.  In the case of a judge, the mere appearance of impropriety is an impropriety, it is as simple as that. Now, do the lawyers at Quebec Bar know this?  Of course, they do.  Why do they defend the judge?  Because they know that they will get favors from this judge, and any other judge. In addition, they know that majority of population do not know the rules, so they can get away with distorting the truth (it is not a coincidence that in English the word "lawyer" sounds pretty close to the word "liar").

Do the reporters know the above?  Of course, they do.  So, why the reporters, who proudly claim to be free and independent, lie to the public?  Because they are neither free, nor independent.  They are at the mercy of the rich owners of the media, and the reporters are free and independent in all issues, which do not touch interests of their owners.  Every media mogul knows that one day he might have to stay before a judge, and he wants this judge to be good to him, it is as simple as that.  In addition, those in power are very concerned that one day the population would understand that the whole judicial system is corrupt, so they resist vigorously any attempt to discredit any judge.

The fact, that the judgment in question was indeed wrong, is proven by recent report that it was quashed by another judge, but of course, not for the reason that the first judge was in conflict of interest, but under pretext that the original request was too imprecise.  The reporter does not mention the first judge, instead he claims that the seizure authorization was issued by the court clerk.  Right!

So, what are the real reasons of rebellion against Day in his own party?  The explanation is very simple: the party lost 50% of electorate, and this is the only thing which counts.  The real reason Day lost popular support was his crooked deal in the defamation lawsuit.  I have made a posting on this subject, where I proved that he obviously shared the loot of $800,000
taxpayer money.  It is not a coincidence that the lawyer for the plaintiff has contributed $70,000 to the Alliance party as a "thank you" for the huge settlement.

Yet another thing which media nailed on Day, was his alleged payment to a private investigator to dig facts on Chretien.  Day initially denied even meeting the man, then he admitted meeting him, but denied hiring him.  This is what an honest person should have said: "Yes, I hired him, because we have a corrupt police, which would never press charges against
sitting Prime Minister, so I had no choice but to hire a private investigator; I am a Canadian citizen, and if I believe that a crime has been committed, it is my obligation to do my best to stop the criminal." Had he said this, it would have been a breath of fresh air, but he was neither smart nor courageous enough to do it.  So, Day has to go.


---

On  "democratically elected" government

We heard on numerous occasions during the Summit that it was a meeting of "democratically elected" governments, so they should be trusted to negotiate on behalf of their respective people.  Let us take a close look at one of the most "democratic" (at least, this is what it claims to be) governments - Canadian.

The word "democracy" literally means "power of the people".  It is well known, that present Canadian government was brought to power by less than half of those participated in voting, and MUCH less than half of those eligible to vote, so more than half of eligible population did NOT endorse present government.

The well-accepted principle of separation of power requests that the three branches of government (legislative, judicial and administrative) be well independent and separated one from another, so that the legislative and Judicial branches could exercise their control over administrative (executive) power.  Why is this necessary? Because power corrupts people, and unless a person in power knows that someone independent is watching him, he will go as corrupt, as he can.  This is why US law prohibits a person to be a President for more than 2 terms, no matter, how good he is.

In Canada, there is no separation between the administrative and legislative power, on the contrary, every minister, including the Prime Minister, is also a legislator – member of Parliament.  This creates an inherent conflict of interest: on the one hand, a minister is supposed to care for the good of the whole country, but on the other hand, he needs to be re-elected, so he has to provide a "special" care for his constituency, and any "special" care harms the general care.  Had Chretien not been an MP, he would have no excuse to lobby for the hotel in Shawinigan.  This nonsense should stop: if someone wants to be a minister, he
should resign his seat in Parliament.

The government in Canada is formed by the party, which gets the majority of seats in Parliament, and the leader of such party becomes the Prime Minister.  If this is a democracy, then what is a dictatorship by a majority party?  In fact, the party, holding majority of seats, can pass any law they please, and the opposition can only shout.  There is no mechanism of recalling a government, the opposition can not even call a public inquiry, and when such an inquiry is called, it is the government, who decides, who will head the inquiry.  Then there is such thing as party discipline, which obligates every MP to vote along the party line, so in effect, instead of representing interests of his constituency, every MP votes as Prime Minister tells him.

Let us take a more close look at the ministers.  Have you ever wondered, how Rock, a lawyer, can be a Minister of Health?  Should not he have a medical background?  Should not a Minister of Fisheries have proper education in fisheries, oceanography, biology or related fields?  I could never understand, how a person with no educational background in the
relevant field can be a Chief Executive Officer (Minister) in this field?  I am of opinion that he can not.  In order to see whether I am right, I suggest the following experiment: send all Ministers on one-year vacation, and if nobody would notice their absence, I made my point.

I was born in the old Soviet Union, and it has always been there that a Minister of Education was a Professor of Education, Minister of Health has always been a Professor of Medicine, Minister of Energy was an Electrical Engineer, etc.  Am I missing something?  None of us would accept a taxi driver, who does not know how to drive a car, so why should we accept a
Minister of Health with no medical background?  Are not Canadians entitled to have a government, where ministers are not just Prime Minister's best friends, but rather the best specialists to do the job, regardless of their party affiliations?


---
Are there political prisoners in Canada?

The answer is a resounding YES.  Just recently we have read about undercover police beating up and arresting Mr. Singh.  He is a well known protester from British Columbia.  To the best of my knowledge, he was never accused of any violent crime.  What is the justification to use undercover agents to arrest him and to use force?  None.  We hear things like that happens
only in totalitarian states.  Well, it happens in "democratic" Canada as well, but what is astounding, there is no public outcry.  Had this happened in China, the media would be all over China, numerous "civil liberties" organizations would be marching, protesting, sending lawyers to defend the arrested man.

Mr. Singh was denied bail and is being kept in jail.  How this can be justified?  According to the rules, bail can be denied for 2 reasons: one, there is reason to believe that the Defendant will try to leave the country and not show up for the trial - this is obviously not the case; two, there is reason to believe that the Defendant will commit another crime placing public safety
in Jeopardy.  In both cases, the onus is on the Crown to prove that at least one of the reasons exist.  There is no way Crown could have proven any of these to an honest judge.  The problem is that we do not have one: no one in his right mind would believe that using a catapult to throw teddy-bears places public safety in danger. It would have been funny, if it were not so sad.

It was reported that those arrested during the Summit were placed in cells with just one bed, four people in a cell.  At the same time we know, that 600 prisoners were transferred from Orsainville jail, which means that 600 beds were empty.  Taking into consideration that total number of arrested was less than 500, each arrested could have been provided with a bed. Minister Menard said that he would investigate - bloody liar - I assure you, that no one in Orsainville would do what they did, unless they had proper orders from the Minister.  All those arrested were political prisoners, because they were treated worse than the worst criminal. I have been in various jails, and in almost 9 years, I have never seen any criminal placed in a cell where he would not have his own bed.  In old Soviet Union political prisoners were treated worse than criminals, and we see the same thing in "democratic" Canada.

I have a suggestion: why don't we elect Mr. Singh to be Prime Minister?  For the first time in the history, this country will have a Prime Minister, who is not a crook.

---
Compare respectable US Senator Kerry and convicted murderer Fabrikant

Many people watched recently on CBC "60 Minutes" an interview with Kerry.  He claims that his platoon of Navy Seals has entered one hut in Vietnam village, encountered 5 men and killed them, because they might have jeopardized the mission.  Then they came under fire and returned the fire.  When they approached the hut they were shooting at, they found there only
women and children, all dead.  One of the members of his platoon tells a totally different story.  They encountered in the first hut 5 people indeed, but they were an old man, his wife and 3 of their grandchildren.

Kerry ordered them all killed, and personally held the old man, while the other man cut his throat with a knife.  The grandchildren were also stabbed to death.  Then Kerry went to other hut, rounded up the women and children found there and shot them in the back from close range.  The same story was told by one of Vietnamese who watched this slaughter from a
hiding place.  When the shooting ended, several babies were still alive and crying.  Kerry and his men killed them too.

Kerry has filed a report on this "operation" claiming that he came under fire, returned the fire and killed 14 Vietcong soldiers.  When he was asked why did he call the killed women and children Vietcong, he replied that in that war, everybody was an enemy, including women and children, because there were cases where women and children approached soldiers and shot at
them.  Even presuming that such events did take place, clearly, they were exceptions, rather than rules, and killing human beings, who he knew were unarmed, is a war crime.

Imagine, that Israelis would start killing all Palestinians in sight under pretext that some of them are suicide bombers!  The rules of war are very clear: you can not kill even an enemy soldier, if he is unarmed and surrenders, and under no circumstances you can kill an unarmed civilian. Kerry got a Bronze Medal for his crime.

Dan Rather was doing his best to present Kerry as a victim of war, rather than a war criminal.  His last words were: "We might never know, what really happened".  Excuse me, his own soldier told exactly the same story, as the only surviving Vietnamese eye-witness; probability of them to lie in exactly the same way is close to zero.  You have also graves of the people killed on that date, with their dates of birth, which proves, who they were and how old they were when killed.

You can also make an experiment: take a platoon, post it at the 100 yards distance from a hut, as Kerry described it, place 15 mannequins inside and tell the platoon to shoot for as long, as they want.  I guarantee you, that after they have finished, there will be at least one mannequin "alive", which would prove conclusively that Kerry lied.  He also lied that he used knives for
murdering the first 5 individuals, because he did not want to produce any noise.  Clearly, he was not concerned with noise, when he ordered shooting in the backs of remaining 15 women and children.  The real reason: he enjoyed killing people and wanted to experience the pleasure of killing one way - by knife, and then another way - by bullets.

I suggest yet another experiment: write to the War Crimes Tribunal and ask that they indict Kerry for war crimes and demand the US Government to extradite him to Hague.  I guarantee you that the so-called Tribunal will never issue such an indictment, and even if they did, US would never extradite him.  One thing is to demand extradition of Milosevic, and quite another - to extradite someone from US, especially when this someone is a former US Senator.  Had any justice existed, Kerry should be sitting in the cell, next to McVeigh, and waiting for his turn.  I am sure, during his war exploits he killed many more innocent people than McVeigh, and he did it for pleasure, there is no other explanation for his actions.

I was shocked a week later, when "60 Minutes" A. Rooney has defended Kerry, calling him hero. Why is he a hero?  Rooney himself admitted that he did not believe Kerry's explanation. According to Rooney, Kerry may have killed these innocent women and children, but this was a guerrilla war, every woman and child were potentially enemies, and Kerry is a hero because he risked his life for his country.  I have just one question for Rooney: should this be applied to Nazis or to Yugoslavian war criminals?  I am pretty sure that many Nazis had also risked their lives for their country, there is no doubt that they were fighting a guerrilla war as well, especially in Russia, - should they be called heroes too?  Was it a great injustice to hang them?  Should the same be applied to Srebrenica murderers?

The problem is that American war criminals did EXACTLY the same things as Nazis, but they were treated very differently.  Here is an example.  Lieutenant Kelly killed many more unarmed women and children in just one Vietnamese village My Lai, than McVeigh did, he was convicted to life in jail, but he spent only 3 (three!) DAYS in jail, then he was placed under house arrest and paroled after 3 years.

Now, compare Kerry with me.  I have read many postings, where angry authors call me names for killing "four innocent and unarmed" individuals.  I have already addressed the subject of "innocent", and I can only repeat that not a single innocent person was harmed by me.  I also repeat once again, that I did not plan to kill anyone, I was provoked, and this provocation was not accidental, but deliberate and well planned.

Now I shall address the subject of "unarmed".  It is true, that the individuals I shot did not have at that time any gun with them, but one has to look at the whole picture - these individuals started first: they were murdering me by giving me a heart attack back in 1991, and in this case, I was UNARMED!  I undertook all legal means imaginable to defend myself - to no avail.  These people were murdering me, very legally and professionally, enjoyed it, and there was nothing I could do to defend myself.  No normal person takes firearms, when there is a legal way to defend himself.

People shot by me had a choice: to behave like honest decent individuals or to behave the way they did.  On August 24, 1992, I had no choice.

Once again, I challenge anyone: read my detailed description of what happened at Concordia and how media lied about it, and tell me what would you have done in my case.  If you find a way out of that situation, without shooting, let me know what it is, and I would admit to be a lousy murderer, and if you do not, then apologize.  Is this a deal?  So far, no one came with an
alternative.


---
Police has the license to kill

During the night of Feb. 8, 2001, 19-year-old Michel Kibbe was arrested for allegedly robbing McDonald's restaurant and brought to the parking lot of police station on Guy Street.  Police claims that he "bolted" out of police car, ran 54 meters to the edge of the lot and jumped low wall, plunging 8 meters to his death.  Parents say that police surveillance tape does not show him running or jumping.  They saw something like a sleeping bag falling from the wall.  The surveillance camera on McDonald's showed nothing, according to Surete de Quebec, it was returned to the restaurant and destroyed.  Parents are demanding public inquiry.

Do we really need spending millions on bloody lawyers in the case, which is so obvious?  I can tell you what happened free of charge.  Policemen beat up the guy into a coma.  In order to cover it up, they brought him to the parking lot and thrown him down - this is why parents did not see him running, but saw something "like sleeping bag" falling down.  You can also make the following demonstration: tie up your hands behind your back and try to run, - you will see, that anyone can catch you very easily.  This demonstration proves that if police wanted to catch him, they could do it very easily.

This is not the first case, where police kills a prisoner, and then claims that he killed himself by trying to escape.  Here is an example.  It was reported in the news on August 21, 1998, that one accused murderer in Vermont somehow managed to run away from the car transporting him when this car was on the bridge, ran to the bridge barrier and jumped down.  He did not know that there was only 12" of water deep below, so he got killed. How on earth could he get out of a moving car?  He was obviously killed or beaten into a coma in the car and thrown from the bridge.

Police has the license to kill.

---


FBI  "forgot" some documents on McVeigh

It was reported that FBI "forgot" to disclose certain documents on McVeigh; some say, 3000 plus documents, some say, 3000 plus pages.  McVeigh's lawyer was shown with several boxes of paper.  Each such box contains at least 10,000 pages, so clearly, we are talking about 3000 documents.  An FBI representative said that FBI had 1 BILLION documents on McVeigh, so 3000 documents constitute only 3 in a million, which is an excellent performance.

Do they really have 1 BILLION documents on McVeigh?  Let us do some arithmetics.  A book of 500 pages is about 4 cm thick, so elementary computations show that I BILLION pages will be 80 km thick!  If you presume, that you can read 1 page per second, it will take you 32 years (24 hours per day, 365 days per year) to read them.  In reality, you need at least 1 minute to read a page, so you will have to spend more than 1800 years!  These FBI guys take public for dumbheads.

Second question: did FBI really forgot to disclose documents?  The media reported that FBI computer system is "antiquated".  I do not buy it for a second: FBI never had any problem with money, and I am sure they have newest and fastest computers.  There was a show recently about the Security Intelligence Agency, and the Agency representative proudly said that they had more computer power on a square yard than any other place on earth.  There is no reason to believe that FBI would be far behind.  Even presuming that FBI computers are slow, it has nothing to do with their ability to retrieve documents: slow computers just require more time to do the same thing.

Yellow media reported one FBI analyst saying that she did not want to introduce her documents into a computer database, because she was afraid that she would not be able later to retrieve them. I have a surprise for her: introduction of a document into a computer means making a copy of the document into a magnetic media, she still has the document on paper, so she has nothing to loose. On the other hand, if she does NOT introduce her document into a database, she would certainly not be able to retrieve it.  Did the yellow reporter know this?  Of course!  So, why is he doing this? Because majority of the public do not know computers and can be duped.  Were you duped?

One should note, that nobody mentions, how many documents WERE disclosed.  In my case, there were not even 100 documents disclosed.  Presume, that in McVeigh case there were 10 times more documents and this will come to 1000 documents, which is a lot.  Now, 3000 documents undisclosed is 3 times bigger than what was disclosed.  One can not just "forget" major part of documents.  It is my understanding that the undisclosed documents are dealing with existence of John Doe #2.  Several people claim to have seen him.  If FBI admits his existence, this would mean that FBI did not do its job.  It is much more convenient to claim that the matter is closed successfully.

Some people say, that since McVeigh admitted planting of the bomb, no document could change anything.  History knows quite a number of false confessions.  McVeigh could have confessed to something he did not do in order to protect someone, who is dear to him.  Majority of people, who knew him, say that they hate what he has done, but that they still love him.  The same thing A. Rooney said about Senator Kerry: he did not like what Kerry did, but he liked the man.  There is though one difference: McVeigh is waiting to be executed, while Kerry is hailed as American hero.  Should not Kerry be sitting in the next cell?

So, government knew all along that 3000 plus documents were not disclosed to McVeigh.  Why have they decided to disclose them now?  This is what my paranoidal mind tells me.  US government does not like the situation where McVeigh effectively spits in their faces, since he decided to get out "with a bang".  They know that McVeigh's execution will make him in the eyes
of many a martyr.  US government wants McVeigh to beg them for his life, this is why they are throwing at him this bait - new evidence, and his lawyers, paid by government, are trying to convince McVeigh to continue his appeals, though they know full well, that nothing will come from these appeals.

The main legal question here is: did McVeigh have a fair trial?  Let us recount facts.  His lawyer Jones got $10 MILLION - a very good pay to sell his client, and sell he did.  First, he simulated break-in into his computer, when he revealed to the media the contents of his private conversations with McVeigh.  I do not believe Jones was so dumb to keep sensitive documents unscrambled.  After all the newspapers in the country published that McVeigh admitted to Jones that he planted the bomb, there was no point to go to trial - the guilty verdict was guaranteed.

The next question is: did his lawyer do his best on the sentencing stage to protect the life of his client?  I quote just one sentence from Jones' speech: he told the jury that though his client has killed more innocent people than Bundy, Dahmer and other famous mass murderers combined, he should not be sentenced to die.  With such a lawyer, who needs a prosecutor?  He effectively equated his client with people, who killed for pleasure.  Is Jones really that stupid?  No, he was very well paid to sell his client, and he did.  McVeigh has finally understood Jones' treachery and fired him, but it was too late.

Now, what would an honest lawyer do in McVeigh case?  He should have called to testify Kelly (butcher of Vietnamese village My Lai), Senator Kerry and other well known war criminals, and asked them to describe in detail, how they cut throats, raped, mutilated innocent unarmed civilians, and how they got away with their crimes.  The jury saw the pictures of victims of Oklahoma bombing, an honest lawyer should show them pictures of people killed at My Lai, pictures of people burnt alive at Waco, picture of the wife and little child of Randy Weaver, killed by government with impunity (nobody was prosecuted for
these murders).

In his argument, an honest lawyer should ask the jury whether there is much difference between what Senator Kerry did, and what his client did, and if there is not much difference, then he should ask the jury, why should his client be treated differently from the way Senator Kerry is being treated.

The logic of McVeigh's defense should have been as follows.  He was pursued by US government for multiple premeditated murders, and the honest lawyer should have shown to the jury that US government itself is guilty of multiple premeditated murders of its own citizens, as well as citizens of other countries, so it has no right to pursue anyone, including his client, for murder.  This would be a bomb!

McVeigh was a bonanza to some architectural firms: they are now making a lot of money designing buildings for US government, which are capable to withstand explosions.  Nobody is telling US government, that there is a much cheaper way to make its buildings safe: to stop its criminal behavior, and nobody would want to blow up US government buildings in
the first place.

I wish to make it clear: I do NOT condone McVeigh in any shape or form, I would not be able to live with myself, had I harmed even one innocent person.  All I am saying is: justice should be not just for McVeigh, but for all.  If McVeigh is waiting execution, Senator Kerry, Janet Reno and many other murderers should be his neighbors.  By the way, had Janet Reno and others been prosecuted in due time, there would be no bombing in Oklahoma.
 
---
Art imitating life

If you watched the show "The Practice" on ABC (May 13), this is what you saw.  A District Attorney was shot dead.  His female friend, also a DA, visits the criminal, who ordered hit, in his holding cell and gives him an ultimatum: either he reveals, who shot the male DA, or she would arrange his release in general population, and arrange that he would be killed there.  The criminal understands that his life is in danger, and betrays his accomplice. Instead of arresting the accomplice, the female DA arranges his execution by police in the hail of bullets, without any verification, whether he was guilty or not.  Now you understand, why there are practically no hits on either prosecutors or judges: the criminals know that they would be killed, without any trial.

To me, the show was a "deja-vu". On August 19, 1992, I was accused of contempt of court, because I have distributed an E-mail, where I called the Chief Justice of Quebec "chief injustice".  The same evening I received a call from Dr. Hogben (he was the President of our Faculty Association), and he told me that he knew about the accusation, that I will be convicted, placed in jail, and "anything can happen in jail", which I understood as a death threat. Some people expressed opinion that I was paranoidal to take the situation as a death threat.

Well, let us compare my situation with that in the show. A seasoned criminal took a threat from a little DA as a serious death threat and gave her what she wanted. In my case, the threat came from the Chief Justice of Quebec Gold, who was at that time also Concordia Chancellor. Now, was it reasonable for me to take this threat seriously?
 
---
 

                                BOOK REVIEW:

Paul Palango, Above the Law.  McClellan and Stewart Inc. Publishers, 1994

The book has a subtitle: The Crooks, the Politicians, the Mounties and Rod Stamler, which creates impression that there are two counteracting forces: crooks-politicians and Mounties, and the best of them - Rod Stamler.  The book has also a very good epigraph from Montesquieu: "When I visit a country, I don't examine whether the laws are good, but whether they are executed, because there are good laws everywhere". This is especially true for Canada: it has not just good, but excellent laws, the problem though is that nobody gives a damn about them.

The book is based on information provided by Stamler, so clearly he would try to present himself as honest cop, enforcing the Law, no matter what.  Let us see if he succeeded.   The book starts with the end of his career.  He decided to take a walk to the Parliament Hill to greet the protester Glen Kealey. Wow, what an honest and brave cop! Was it really just honesty and bravery or something else?   He was the Head of Economic Crime Directorate of RCMP, he was the main person to decide whether RCMP should investigate Kealey's allegations honestly or sweep them under the rag.  Quote from the book: "The Kealey story appeared to be a non-starter even to Stamler.  He had already reviewed Kealey's allegations and had come to the conclusion that it was impossible to prove the truth of what Kealey had to say.  It was Kealey's word against another's; there was no independent corroboration." Assume that this was true: Kealey's word against another, but this is what the
police investigation is for: to find corroboration; if Kealey gave him it all why would one need police?

If we look at page 275, we find the following passage: "On July 17, 1991, however, Ottawa Justice of Peace Lynn Coulter ruled that Kealey had 'reasonable grounds to believe a crime had been committed' and allowed him to proceed with private charges against thirteen top Tories and three top Mounties - Inkster, Jensen, and civilian Deputy Commissioner Michael
Shoemaker."  Now, how one can explain that honest and professional cop Stamler was unable to find sufficient evidence to indict politicians, but Kealey, who is not a cop and has no investigative powers which police has, managed to find sufficient evidence? Not only politicians were indicted, but also Head of RCMP and his Deputy Jensen were indicted as criminals!   Now we understand why Stamler resigned in 1989: he was a smart rat who felt that ship was sinking, and in addition, probably, the private firm has given him much bigger salary than that he had at RCMP, and they gave it to him not for his talent of investigator, but for his connections in RCMP.   It becomes also clear why Stamler came to shake hands with Kealey in 1989: he did not want to get indicted, and he succeeded in fooling Kealey, who took him for an honest man. We read on page 276 that Stamler testified at the hearing conducted by judge Coulter, "but won't comment  on what he said at the hearing".  Why would not an honest cop comment?

The secret of Stamler's promotions becomes clear from several scenes, if we interpret them correctly.  The first one is described on page 134, where Stamler, who was at that time a nobody, is being whisked to a personal meeting with the then Prime Minister Trudeau.  We learn that the purpose of the meting was Trudeau lecturing a cop on how he, Trudeau, respects the law, independence of police etc.  Come on, get real: why on earth any Prime Minister would need to meet a cop for such a lecture?   It was a clear attempt to pressure Stamler into leaving  Trudeau's minister alone, and Stamler understands him perfectly well: he assures Trudeau that he had no evidence of criminal activity of Munro, though it is clear from previous text that he had.

The meeting lasted 45 minutes, and Stamler pretends that he did not understand the real meaning of the meeting:   Stamler is quoted saying: "I felt proud  to have leader of the country who so strongly believed in the importance of preserving the integrity of Canadian criminal justice system."  If this was the case, why then the whole meeting was made in secret?   This is how it is
described:  Stamler was called to his superior;  as soon as he came, his superior took him to the then Solicitor General  Allmand, who, in turn, took him through several empty corridors to a room where Trudeau was waiting for him.   This was not his cabinet, and Stamler did not pass through his secretary.   The meeting was a secret one.  Why?

The second scene is described on pages  157-159.  Stamler was invited to lunch with a prominent lawyer, a Queen's Counsel.  The lawyer is not named.  Why? This lawyer tells Stamler: "You did such a super job in the Hamilton Harbour
case and the dredging case.  You know, there is a lot of politics involved in getting ahead in the RCMP.  You need support to get to the top level."  The message was clear: if you want promotion, leave the politicians alone. Stamler claims that he ignored this message.  He describes further how he fought with Quebec justice system to have Senator Giguere indicted.   It is
though mentioned in the book that Tarasofsky  denied Stamler's account of events.   Well, give us the Tarasofsky version of the story and let us decide, who is telling the truth.   Tarasofsky version is not given.   There is though an indication where the truth is: Stamler started rising very quickly in RCMP after these events.   If the prominent lawyer was right that in order to get
promotion in RCMP one has to have political support, this means that Stamler did get political support, and this means that politicians were pleased with his way of "prosecuting" them.

Stamler has been promoted to the top job in drugs enforcement.  There is one phrase in the book which betrays what he was actually doing all his time.  This is a quote from page 210: "Stamler took to travel so well, he wore out his passport and soon earned the nickname the  'Rocket', not always  said with affection by those left behind".   Translation: Stamler did not give a damn about his job in Canada, but used taxpayers' money  for pleasure travelling, which was resented by his subordinates.

Stamler has decided that in order to fight drug trafficking he has to go after profits of traffickers.  We read on page 220 how successful he was in this: "In 1983, the first full year of anti-drug-profiteering program, convicted dealers forfeited $10 million illegally gained assets to the government.   The program was not only effective, it also was a political success".   Let us do
some arithmetics: drug trade in Canada is estimated in tens of billions, so $10 million does not constitute even 0.1%, drug trade can really survive such losses!

Here is yet another quote from page 248 about the allegations that Prime Minister Mulroney profited from  the Airbus affair: "Stamler's gut feeling was that both deals probably required thorough police investigation, the kind that might have been undertaken in the early 1970s, but was now impossible".  Why? He was at that time the Head of Economic Crimes Directorate, it was his job under the law to either investigate or resign, if prevented, and do it as loudly as Minister Blais-Grenier did in protest.  Did our honest cop do it? No. A very interesting revelation can be found on page 97.  Members of RCMP, instead of doing their job, used privileged information to play on the stock exchange.  This is the quote: "The Mounties were so busy sending material back and forth to stock brokers in Edmonton that the police work was often put on
hold."

Jensen was the one who authorized payment to Olson for bodies of children Olson killed.  Jensen also was the one who laid charges against reporter Small who leaked budget.  Stamler claimed: "That was his duty as a police officer.  There was no compromise."  Indeed, a huge courage is required to pay a murderer for evidence of crime which he, as a police officer, was unable to discover, and also it took a lot of courage to charge a reporter, after the Prime Minister called this leak a crime.

There is even more interesting revelation on page 260.   Mounties started investigation of Senator Cogger.  According to Stamler, when he was away from the office, a telex signed by Jensen arrived ordering to discontinue Cogger investigation immediately.  Jensen now insists that he never sent the telex. Stamler says that he up to this day does not know who sent the telex.  Is not this a childish game?  Stamler was away from office when telex arrived.  As soon as he came back and saw the telex, why did not he call Jensen and ask him then whether he sent the telex, especially as he claims that it was unlike
Jensen to stop an investigation?  Jensen was as crooked as Stamler, and he finally was made a scapegoat for his yet another "courageous" decision to delay charges against Grise, so he had to resign.

The main purpose of the book becomes clear from two chapters: one titled "Pierre Trudeau and the Rule of Law" and the last one "Fighting for the Rule of Law".   Both describe how Trudeau fought for police independence (remember his meeting with Stamler?), and the last one describes how Chretien continues this fight for the Rule of Law.  The remaining chapters are about corrupt Mulroney.   Conclusion: Liberals are good, Tories are bad.   I wonder if population will swallow this stupidity.   Politician is a crook by definition: why would anyone want to be Prime Minister with salary less than half of what he would make as a lawyer, if it were not for billions of dollars which he spends as he pleases. Just look at the Mulroney spectacle.  I call it a spectacle, because nothing there seems to make any sense.   First, the letter to Swiss authorities was leaked to media by an RCMP officer.   Why would he do that?  Then we see several media reports, which make little sense.  Example:
on CTV reporter claimed that the Swiss bank account was opened by wife of Moore, and this account never had more than $500.   Simple question: why would anyone open an account in Switzerland for just $500?  Reporter does not bother
to ask this obvious question.   The whole thing though starts making sense, if this was just a spectacle, where Minister of Justice was able to give a lot of money to his friends by hiring external lawyers and a consulting firm.   He paid consultant $160,000, which is about his annual salary.   Nobody asks a simple question: why not to appoint this consultant to be a Minister of Justice.  It would have been much cheaper, because he, hopefully, would not need to hire yet another consultant.   Nobody asks yet another question: why did government need to hire private lawyers if they have about 20,000 employees at the Justice Department, and at least half of them are lawyers? Brian Mulroney won too: he got $2 million, of which $600,000 for public relations firm.   What kind of job did they do to deserve such a payment? Compare this with the settlement for shooting death of Francois, who was shot "by mistake" by police.  They got about $20,000, which is 1% of Mulroney
settlement, plus millions paid by government to its lawyers.  So, both government and Mulroney are winners: they got the money, and who is the loser?  The taxpayer, as usually.

In the last paragraph of the book we read yet another praise for Stamler's courage: "In allowing his story to be told, he felt it was his duty to take one more tough stand".  Indeed, a great courage is required to praise the party which is now in power and to malign the one which is not.

Is not it clear to everyone that there is no way any police would be able to prosecute a politician, when the head of police reports to the government? Why not to try another arrangement: let the police report to the person appointed by the opposition?  And the same goes for other so called watchdogs: Auditor General, Commissioner of Information, Privacy, Ethics, etc.