GENERAL MEDIA RELEASE - May 24, 1999
Deals with how politicians police to enforce their political agendas. Some back ground End notes
**** GENERAL MEDIA RELEASE - May 24, 1999 **** RULING ALLOWS POLITICIANS TO USE POLICE
TO ENFORCE POLITICAL AGENDAS - THE FUTURE FOR ONTARIO CAN ONLY BE WORSE!! - Ontarians have suffered frightening losses of human rights and democratic freedoms under Harris government. Now it includes the legalization of politicians using police to enforce their political agendas and there is little we can do about it. This is based on past and current events overlooked by the media in Mississauga. My actions in the past have been used for some unfortunate rulings that legitimates politicians using police to aid their the political agendas or worse. The effective elimination of opposition by police has been ruled on by the Ontario Civilian Commission On Police Services (OCCOPS), and deemed acceptable. As OCCOPS, decisions concerning police complaints are non-appeal-able to the courts, the situation is now dire. The creation of OCCOPS can be seen as the first concrete step in laying the foundation of dictatorial rule in Ontario, with an unaccountable police force carrying out political agendas. There is a strong Tory presence on this commission. OCCOPS, created by the Harris government, removes the right of Ontarians to appeal police misconduct to the courts, significantly increasing their level of unaccountability. So far OCCOPS has ruled that the police can make false statements, not properly investigate complaints, and withhold records requested under the Freedom of Information Act (FOI). Most, recently OCCOPS has ruled in favor of letting the politicians in the City of Mississauga use the Peel Police to carry out City Hall's agenda of harassment to silence democratic activists, who have been very effective in exposing the real City agenda and who have the support of the community. Mississauga, and soon Ontario, goes third world. Please understand I have done nothing wrong, but as I am poor and can't buy justice in the Canadian legal system, I am being used as a scapegoat to set legal precedence, that will in turn be used to draft news laws, under which all Ontarians will lose significant elements of their human and democratic rights. We are now less of a human being before the law. This means, the police can be sent after you and your family, even when you have done nothing legally wrong. This can't be allowed to go unnoticed or unchallenged. At this critical moment when we choose whose version of moral leadership will guide bureaucrats and law makers. Do you want law and order but without justice? Efforts have been made to find persons and lawyers to stop the government from using my case as grounds to set legal precedence and pass laws giving politicians more power to direct police for their own ends but in the words of Clayton C. Ruby, Barrister, "Redress for this sort of thing is difficult even if you are rich -- it is impossible without money."
The bottom line is my poverty prevents me from hiring lawyers to deal with the fact the Ontario government is knowing and deliberately making wrong judgments in both the police complains and Freedom of Information processes. Bad cases make for bad laws. The out come of these rulings will affect everyone, if I lose, we all do, that is how the law works. The FOI Act was changed by the current government to make it easier to stop persons like myself who were acting on behalf of residents in opposing the unreasonable actions of their local government, the City of Mississauga. My efforts were to restore residents democratic rights, to allow them to make an informed decisions, on environmental issues of concern in their community, by gaining access to City records through the FOI process. Hazel McCallion personally promised I would not get the records and shut down the FOI process, in the 94 election year, to keep her dirty little secrets hidden. To this day staff finds every way it can to up hold that promise. The Information and Privacy Commission (IPC), that administers the FOI Act, has made decisions so wrong it best to call them knowingly and deliberately wrong. Even the efforts of the Canadian Environmental Law Association
were brushed aside without proper consideration. For five years I have fought the City of Mississauga over the Cawthra Bush, won better deals then the City was offering, gained the support of residents and the academic community. In that time, the City under the leadership of Mayor McCallion has lead the crusade to deny residents democracies life blood, the facts, and her Councillors have sent the police after me as I expressed the intent to carry on informing the public as to what their politicians were really doing. Hazels voice is heard in the provincial legislature, right or wrong hear voice is heard over most others. She spoke out on the need to keep government records from persons who would blow the whistle on them and it is highly likely she and (law and order) Harris will again work together for that same goal by allowing police to be more closely controlled by political agendas. I can't fight back, my money is long gone, my personal life is all but in ruins and my health is suffering. If anyone out there cares at all about their basic rights, now is the time to get this story out, to show Ontarians their future is seriously endangered and to require the candidates to go on the record about how they will stop the loss of our rights and begin to restore them. You can't have human rights for yourself and your family while letting others lose theirs. In the past Harris has remove funding from those who could be trusted not to sell out and defend our communities and those who live in them. He has silenced their voices and created a social tragedy the public is only now beginning to becoming aware of. The voice of the good people silenced to remove the gains made to allow residents to participate to a greater degree in their communities. Why don't more Ontarians see the danger in what is going on? Why are there not more people standing up and saying no, we don't want Ontario to return to the bad old days? Maybe this apathy is based on the idea, they can kiss butt better then anyone else and it is only the losers we hear about running a foul of the law. Maybe they feel secure in the knowledge they and their family will be spared as they have the right friends. Or maybe it is Canadians are so convicted that Canada such a great country, that even self-serving corrupt politicians can't ruin it, even if they tried. They can! Slowly a bit at a time, just as a mighty forest is destroyed by cutting down one tree at a time. I know it has happened to my life, slowly you make sacrifices to just win the next battle with the City and that will settle the matter, its just around the corner, in just a couple months. Well five years latter..., let me tell you the story of the frog. If you put a frog into boiling water it will jump right out, if you put a frog into cool water and turn the temperature up slowly, the frog will stay in the pot till it dies in boiling water. Keep this in mind as you read the rest, you may start to see a pattern.
One that makes us all frogs in the Harris pot. By the way what is the point of more money in your pocket if you don't have the laws and human rights to keep it there? Or as it has been said from the beginning of time, a fool and his money.... As there is an election going on, a reference should be made to the local Tory candidate, Margaret Marland M.P.P.. She is a long term, very close friend of the Mayor and I have never seen any example of her, personally doing anything to jeopardizes that relationship. It then comes as no surprise she offers no help to residents in their efforts to save the Cawthra Bush and has not responded to our calls for help. It is likely she will be elected by people voting out of habit, with no thought to the issues or party policies. As this province is governed by party politics, it matters very little if you like or dislike the person in your riding who is that parties candidate. You must vote (yes, you must vote in this election as it really, really matters), only for the party with the policies that you believe will best serve Ontario as a whole! Sorry Margaret, wish I could have say more about you but in five years,
you avoided us and our issues pretty good.
What I do want to know is, to whom are you really loyal ???? Some back ground: In 1982, Mayor Hazel McCallion was tried and convicted of Conflict of Interest. This is included to show what is about to say is in keeping with her past abuses of political power. In a nut shell Hazel took control of City staff's plan to release different development zones in Mississauga, in a specific order and through back room dealings, away from the eyes of the public. The land on which her home stood went from last in line (to be opened up to developers), to first. The judge noted she broke the law every way the law could be broken. But as the McCallion homestead wasn't sold at the time of the trial it couldn't be proven how much money they had gained by Hazel's actions. The lack of a dollar figure was key element. The plans to develop the City in a way that favoured the McCallion's still went ahead. When the property was sold no doubt someone laughed all the way to the bank. Mr. J. Graham the lawyer, who was once the Mayor of Streetsville and the lawyer who brought the action against Mayor McCallion, (the government didn't care about a corrupt politicians), notes Hazel is "intellectually dishonest" and "politically amoral". This event when looked at in detail shows a game player at work, a person who uses the rules in a very skilled fashion to get what she wants. It also shows how little our government cares about politicians using their position for gain and how low the moral standards are. The above comment are based on court documents and conversation with Mr. J. Graham. As the Mayor of Mississauga is Hazel involved one way or another in most every thing Councillors and City staff does and as Hazel has been in office for some 20 years, things have been her way too long, to be healthy for a democracy. This fact is recognized by most responsible governments and the reason there are limits to how many terms in office a politicians can serve. It is to stop them from being coming too well connected to staff and active in the placement of staff. Staff who are of the same mind as the politician who were instrumental in their job placements. Hazel has a history of over controlling City staff and they end up doing things that are morally and legally wrong. After all why didn't City staff say anything about Hazel's activities resulting in Conflict of Interest? Politics in Mississauga is a text book case of, given time and opportunity, power corrupts. Hazel has a habit of calling the police to do her bidding, on those who interfere with her. Once at the Living Arts Centre but as it was seen by media, no action. In the case of Dale Ritch of Tax Freeze '98, he says "She sicked the police on me", after being "confronted" by the Mayor. This is a very dangerous trend. A note about "Big Sister" is watching. While accessing City records outside the FOI process, a letter was found that said "A copy of each request shall be forwarded to the Mayor's office for logging and follow-up." by Dave O'Brien, City Manager. Clearly the Mayor is very interested in what I was finding out, maybe that is why at least one file disappeared after being viewed. Jan. 1994 - The City of Mississauga starts to log and tree farm the Cawthra Bush, next all forested areas in Mississauga. City also goes on to provincial lands and logs without notifying the Province of the City's true intentions, selling wood for profit. Resident protest stops the City. July 19, 1994 - Hazel McCallion shuts down FOI Act ("I have to tell you, we will not be providing you with the information, that you are requesting."), to ensure I could not get access to City records that showed City staff mislead the public. The City FOI Coordinator J. LeFeuvre allows this, she also hands an official FOI request over to the Mayor, improper and against City by-law 53-91, which removes the politicians from the FOI process. IPC, Compliance ruling I95-045M & I95-091M both support my position but who cares Hazel has spoken. The IPC was made very aware of these going's on, Frank DeVries, Appeal Supervisor but could do nothing. One reason was Hazel, despite a request to do so, made a point of not putting her decision in writing, so it could not be appealed, harder to take her to court or even to prove it happened. Not an honourable thing to do. The Mayor at an all candidates meeting (1994), in Malton was seen presenting me with some documents in the debate saying they were in response to my FOI requests and noting her concerns regarding the cost to taxpayers. She also noted she took steps to intervene in the FOI process. Apart from being totally out of order for her interference in FOI matters the City of Mississauga wastes more tax payers money fighting residents legal requests for records, to keep the dirt little secrets, hidden. More about J. LeFeuvre. After the election, FOI requests were processed again (in some but not all cases), but she kept the Mayors promise to withhold records and used every method she could. Like huge search fees, interpretations of my requests that withheld records and refusing to work with me (in a meaningful way), to find ways for cheap, cost effective access to records. Sept. 29/98 - J. LeFeuvre signs an oath that all comments in regards to Official Plan Amendment No. 11 were being forwarded to the Region of Peel for their review and approval. In fact, all except for Mr. Barber's. My specific concerns were delete from the minutes of the public meeting held at City Hall and the letter requested by staff containing my deputation was not included. J. LeFeuvre was informed of this error and instead of forwarding the letter as is her job, she presented an extreme interpretation of events to cover up what was really done. None the less I presented the concerns of residents directly to the Region of Peel and the City didn't get its plan approve. It called for more buildings in an environmentally sensitive area. May 1/96 - D. M. a City Barrister and Solicitor, begins legal harassment. He wrote in regards to a letter written to the Ward 1 Councillor Carmen Corbasson (the Ward that the Cawthra Bush is located in and I live), he claims it contents "libelous comments" and wants them to be withdrawn or there could be legal action. This lawyer refuses to note what comments he is referring to, so I have to go to City Council to explain how their lawyer is trying to sucker punch me. The City Council then directs him to (act responsibility), come clean with his accusations. When he does respond, he discredits himself by withdrawing his original claim and the comment he does interpret to be at issue, is so far out of context it reminds me of how kidnappers take a perfectly legal newspaper and cut it up to serve a criminal purpose. He was told to jump in the lake and there was no legal action. Your tax dollars a work. In the more then five years that I have written strongly worded letters and articles about anti-democratic activities in Mississauga, no one has tried to take legal action to stop me. They know I have what it takes to embarrass them for the effort. This would be a good time to note more about City of Mississauga's staff conduct and City methods of dealing with residents who don't do as they are told. All of this would not be possible without the necessary blessing of our elected officials. What is being noted shows that the unfortunate events to befall me and the community were not just random errors, honest mistakes or even as the City would suggest, all our doing, but are a pattern of abuse, harassment knowingly and deliberately carried out to end the communities efforts to save one of our most environmentally significant urban woodlands, the Cawthra Bush. It is often call "creating a crisis", this method is used to avoid granting service to a person or group (both in this case), by claiming some action was out of line, when really it is the accuser's conduct which is unacceptable. The City is very good at using this method especially if they know the victim has no the money or friends, in high places, to defend themselves with. A). Withholding services for groups or residents granted by the City in order to limit their effectiveness in opposing City plans. This also increasing the chance some statement will be made in error that the City can use to discredit resident efforts. Yes, down and dirty politics, doesn't matter how you win just as long as you win. B). Blame the withholding of services and other City actions on those making the request. Claim they are out of order somehow, while all the time it is the City staff and elected officials who are being confrontational and argumentative, to justify denying services and cooperation. C). Inform key persons and others in the community that I have been black listed and anyone who wishes to maintain their working relationship with the City will not deal with Mr. Barber. Examples, Peter Lyons, a co-author of the Cawthra forest management (logging and tree farming), plan that has so many residents upset. At a public walking tour, addressed concerns about City actions at Cawthra by stating my FOI requests cost tax payers $20,000. It would appear he was trying to pull a Hazel on me, manipulate people into thinking money was more important then democratic rights or human community and generally defame efforts at discovering the truth. While avoiding the original question. But he was no Hazel and there were soon calls of what happened to our democracy, do we not live in democracy? I was also thanked for speaking up. An FOI request was made for the records he was referring to, the official response was, "no records exist". Ratepayers groups have made similar claims but no one can said where this effort to defame me started and no one but me wishes to review the facts to see how true it is. Why is that? D). Censorship of records. In a number of cases I have spoken in regards to the issues before City staff and City Councillors and the City created minutes delete my specific comments to ensure the official record is cleansed of opposition. That in Mississauga we agree with City Hall. Those who control the minutes of meetings, control the meeting. E). There is no ombudsman to deal with residents complaints about City conduct. You must appeal to the same politicians who are carrying out their political agendas, for mercy. F). Create a committee that the City can hide behind and load it with persons who will see eye to eye with the City plans. Such as UFMAC, more is listed else where in this web-site. G). Call the police, if all else fails. The reason politicians call the police is to manipulate people into getting them to stop thinking, to use emotion and social prejudices in the place of reason, to put fear into them (it could happen to them for disagreeing). To use the Canadians trust and fear of government and its agents, against them. Nothing I have done merits the government actions taken and in way does it justify the law and justice being thrown to the wind. Apr. 23/97 - City Council walks out Council chambers as I try to gain necessary information to defend against their accusations in an FOI Inquiry. This fact is deleted from the official record. The City is well known for censoring the official minutes to make it look like they do no wrong and those who oppose them are out of order. Events like Council leaving to avoid answering the public questions, doesn't happen in Hazel land. At this meeting Council was confrontational and insulting towards me but I stood my ground and would not let them insult or label me. Jun. 24/97 - At an Applewood South Residents Association meeting, Councillor Carmen Corbasson avoids answering a question in regards to what action she has taken with the petitions from the residents she claims to represent. She loudly states, "Don unfortunately wrote a letter, that has some very serious accusations in to Mayor and members of Council about Council we have since referred matter, I think you know, to our legal dept., and Peel police and I am not going to comment any more.". First time anyone (including myself), in the room had heard of that and suddenly I was surrounded by angry and hostile persons. Her public stating that police actions have been taken against a person, who was posing a perfectly legitimate question is a crude method of manipulation. By her stating there was police involvement, she is suggesting some kind of crime had been committed, this takes advantage of Canadians trusting nature in regards to government (that is before Harris). This course of action is designed to defame, discredit and destroy public support for her and the City's opponents. Let this method take root once and soon lazy, incompetent and/or morally corrupt or just plain political predators everywhere in Ontario will start to use it as the standard method of avoiding accountability. Just to put things in perceptive who is Councillor C. Corbasson? She is a long term City employee who thought so little of our community and those who live in it that unless she was elected, she would not move into Ward 1. The methods used by C. Corbasson in her election campaign resulted in Len Wasylyk another candidate for the Ward 1 riding, expressing concerns in City Council about the unfair advantage Ms. Corbasson had in her election campaign e.g. use of records in City Hall. I wrote about witnessing votes being moved from the early leader in the vote counting Gale Green to C. Corbasson. G. Green tried to take legal action as there were a number of improper events taking place but was scared off by the City. The election of 94 was full of fraud such as a bogus candidate which resulted in an elected official being thrown out of office. Does Mississauga know how to hold an election or what!?! Councillor C. Corbasson has never made a reasonable effort to work with the Friends of the Cawthra Bush & Greater Mississauga Area (FCB), her actions are totally out of line. Her lack of effort in defending the residents from her Ward, when they address City Council is note worth as well. The best way I have of describing her actions is, she represents the government to the residents, she does not represent the residents to government. The same can be said for Margaret Marland our M.P.P.. The greatest danger is, she is setting legal precedence that politicians need not deal reasonably with resident groups that disagrees with government, they need only defame or slander them in public and/or call the police on them, in order to avoid their issues and concerns. July 9/97 - Police are at my door, being confrontational and argumentative. They make false statements, informing me there is no complaint, which was not true. Official police documents list a "complainant", there is a report to record events. If it walks like a duck and walks like a duck... They inform me no crime has been committed, no threats were made, so why are they at my door? They say, they don't like my demeanour (they must mean if I don't stop standing up for community rights, the meaner they will get.) Yes in Mississauga the Peel police will be called if politicians don't like your attitude! Here is a sample of what took place and what was reported to OCCOPS. Officer Shah - ...They are concerned about you intimidation, your demeanour.
Don B. - That doesn't come under any crime or anything right?
Officer Graham - Right.
Officer Shah - If it did you would be under arrest.
Don B. - I see there is no crime, there is no complaint.
Officer Shah - That's right, but they have some concerns,"
&
Officer Shah - Your demeanour.
Don B. - Be specific what don't you like about my demeanour?
Officer Shah - When you get worked up.
Don B. - Quote! give a specific example.
Officer Shah - If I had a specific example it would be a crime. It goes on and on like that. Word games, head games and then they wondered why I was upset at them! Another example of the word games being played and covering up for the politicians is when they mention a letter I wrote about the day City Council left, so I couldn't go the record or ask necessary questions. These Officers told me the City didn't know what to make of that letter, so they called the police, well that makes perfect sense. If you don't understand what a person wrote, you call the police. To me, the intelligent thing to do would be to ask the person what they meant but that would not involve the police or direct them to take action would it? These officers explained what the City wanted this way, "uhm they (the City), frankly didn't know what to do about it or they could do about it, so they called us." & "Over the past several months they received some letters, from yourself the contents of the letter concerned them a little, some of the dialogue in the letters was unclear, they were not sure how to take it. So they wanted to know from us, if there is something criminal..." Don't do anything to try and working things out, the City agenda involves intimidation, harassment and definitely no working with residents who don't agree with the City. My problem is that after the City repeatedly intimidates and harasses me, I didn't go away as a good Canadian should, when threatened by government. So remember, when Hazel waggles her bony finger at you, telling you how wrong you are and that you should "fade away", leave before confused City staff and Councillors call the police on you, to make sure you are gone. The City has a very well paid legal dept. why is there no opinion from them?? Maybe they are smart enough to know this is so wrong they don't want to be involved. There are so many more ways that this is wrong but on to other items. They didn't investigate the fact that politicians created this conflict or care they were using the polices name to create hostilities in the community. They filed a false and misleading report on which they can wrongfully base future legal actions against me or other FCB supporters. July 28/95, a policy was adopted in regards to how elected officials and police interact, "on no account shall contact investigating officers directly". May 28/97 City of Mississauga Councillor and member of the Peel Police Service Board, as well as the "complainant", Nando Iannicca, contacts the Chief of police, N. Catney and within hours the investigating officers, Constables Graham & Shah are in direct contact with that elected official. Interesting, what is more important, politicians or the rules. Then after the police create a scene on my door step these officers do this "Carmen Corbasson was notified about this contact with Mr. Barber." Interesting who they report to. It should also be noted, N. Iannicca made false statements that could be, by interpretation, justify police involvement. So much for playing by the rules. The new Chief of the Peel police was informed that if he didn't step in and make it clear to politicians that they couldn't use the Peel Police to be their bullies and do their dirt work, the lives of those working to save the Cawthra Bush would be in danger. Not being a person who votes for more police and their pay raises, just an uppity Canadian peasant who doesn't know his place, the same service granted to City of Mississauga politicians was denied. Which set the stage for the July 11/98 assault. Frederich Biro, Executive Director of the Regional Municipality of Peel, Police Services Board, was also made aware of the matter (Politicians using the Peel Police to harass and intimidate, a local democratic and environmental activist), in a letter dated Sept. 24/97. Nov. 5/97 - D. M. again but now a Senior Legal Counsel, writes in response to petitions present to the City. Only one element of these petitions was asking the City to grant me access to records, as I am the researcher for the FCB. He writes that I had sign the legal forms enclosed granting the City permission to contact everyone who signed these petitions and inform them that I am the appellant in Order M-947 & M-1019 and whatever else they chose to say. The City states "in the absence of your consent, the City cannot properly respond to those individuals.", mean spirited or what? Oct. 9/97 - A complaint against the Peel police for their involvement in politics and other actions, file #97-130. The Police try to thrown out the complaint and OCCOPS rules in my favor. 98-COM-0001 the first OCCOPS ruling and it is against the Peel Police, another reason for them to want to nail me for something. In Dec./98, S. Maycock, Inspector writes that in their opinion the complaint is unsubstantiated and no action will be taken (I have proved them to wrong in the past). Review #99-COM-0033 follows. OCCOPS decides the police can make false statements to aid in serving a political agenda. OCCOPS decides the police can to be used to enforce a political agenda. OCCOPS decides the police do not have to do a proper investigation when working for elected officials. OCCOPS had gone on the record before this, with reviews that show they are the friend of the Peel police. Such as, OCCOPS also supports officers not properly investigating complaints to let other cops off the hook.
Ontario goes third world. The Police Services Board takes the part of my original complaint dealing with the police chief, OCCOPS review file # 98-COM-313. In fact they held a trial in secret, no transcript or other records to refer to. The Toronto Sun, Sept. 11/98, writes about Dudley Laws getting a new trial as the judge had meetings with the Crown without his lawyers present and no transcripts were taken, a secret trial with no records, "The perceived fairness of the vital characteristic," said the court panel headed by Chief Justice Roy McMurty. "Public confidence requires scrutiny where possible. Private trials which exclude the accused are antithetical to this core value". How can there be two so very different legal systems in Canada? The Police Services Board didn't investigate this very serious matter of political interference in a meaningful way. I tried to get clarification of issues to better present an appeal but Frederick Biro, Executive Director refused the request, as I had made an appeal! Other complaints stemmed from the main one, as I tried to find justice with the low cost complaints process (what a joke), here are some other examples; Police complaint file #98-088 - OCCOPS Review file # 98-COM-342
Against Det.. Steinhart, as he will not investigate an key element of my complaint and will not put his decision in writing. My word against his, guess who lost. Police complaint file #98-089 - OCCOPS Review file # 98-COM-343
S. Maycock, an Inspector in the Professional Standards section that deals with police complaints, thought it would be a good idea to investigate herself. OCCOPS agreed with me it was not. D. Honer, Superintendent, rubber stamps her original findings, I note in a follow up review of his actions that he was confused about which complaint he was to make a decision on. The OCCOPS rules that in spite of the that fact and that she openly admitted to violating the Police Services Act, as she apologized for her actions, then it is OCCOPS opinion that her conduct "do not constitute misconduct,". Police complaint file #98-090 - OCCOPS Review file # 98-COM-344
The clearest example is in their FOI section, two people process requests, one an officer, the other civilian. A FOI request comes up with nothing, efforts were made to clarify the matter, still nothing. The Officer suggests I make a new request with a longer time line, which is done but this time it is handled by the civilian. Records were found no problem, the time line was not the issue it was the person handling it! OCCOPS gives its stamp of approval to the police withholding records by falsely saying there are none. OCCOPS decides it will disregard its mandate and not review police actions and decisions. As a result their ruling their FOI section is supplying less records to requests, they are significantly less accountable now. How does OCCOPS work? Their lawyers do a summary of the matter and the public doesn't get copy. Then OCCOPS forms an opinion, this ruling need not be explained in a meaningful way. From what I can see they don't error on the side of caution, which would mean they care about human rights. A substandard legal process that puts residents lives at risk. As for the persons who sit on the OCCOPS commission, I have been informed they have very strong Tory ties (high paying ties), and one appears to be an ex-Tory-campaign manager! Police, what do we know about them? Putting aside all the fear and self-serving myths, lets see them as human beings dealing with human beings. Police are gun carrying bureaucrats. The most dangerous wing of the government as they bring guns into your community and a Canadian bureaucrats is one of the most unaccountable kind. The police are trained to kill, the interrogation methods they are trained in include lying and misleading, to gain the advantage. The police are trained in law and as a natural consequence they know how to avoid the law and its punishments. Lets not forget officers get advancements for things like tickets, arrests and convictions, they can see your pain, as their career move. The police can ruin your life by false charges laid because of deliberate or sloppy work. The police enjoy special privileges that include lesser sentences for equal crimes. The police culture portrays officers as incapable of error, as a result when was the last time a police officer said they were sorry for killing innocent persons? That they publicly wept for a victim of one of their shootings? When was the last time the officer responsible for killing someone's family member said they were sorry and begged forgiveness? We treat them like they are better then most common folk but do they not stone wall investigators like any common criminal? It was not that long ago the police were told to stop making notes using pencils, as the police would just rub out the notes and write in more incriminating notes. In Peel I have noticed police use two note pads. Why is this and does it not try and accomplish much the same thing? In the court system, the testimony of police is often refereed to as test-a-lying as it is so unbelievable. It will significantly harm our society to allow this increase in their unaccountability to continue. They are only human if we set the standards high they will raise to them, set them low and they will sink to them. Finally, in all the countries that we are told are examples of unjust, oppressive, morally corrupt or even evil governments, they all have one common element, unjust laws enforced by unaccountable police forces. The less accountable the police, the greater the number of wrongly laid charges, detainment's, trials and convictions. Are you willing to gamble your and your families lives on just the hopes, rather then laws to protect your loved ones human rights? July 11/98 - Former City Councillor Dave Cook repeatedly assaults me at the Applewood Acres Homeowners Association's summer BBQ. I am invited to this event, then I am attacked out of the blue, for no lawful reason, by its President! It is bad enough Dave Cook's assault leaves me scared for life but the legal consequences are worse. I tried to get a lawyer to protect my rights in this case and through whom to present my evidence. As this case was taken over by the Crown and having been made aware of how far bureaucrats would go in falsifying records to its advantage, I was not willing to blindly trust. Inquires were made about what to do if a lawyer couldn't be found in time and I got a lot of bad advice especially from the Victim/Witness Assistance Program. But the real kicker came when the Crown stood in front of the judge and denied that I had made him aware of evidence to disprove the claim D. Cook was being attack with a camera. Attacked with a camera? It is not even believable but why bother with a believable story, he knew he wasn't going to lose, given circumstances. While trying to find the easiest way to access City records, to get around the blocks put up by City staff (keeping Hazel's promise to withhold records), a method was found that would turn every government file management system into way to search through all their files and leave no stone unturned. At Mississauga it was called ARIS or Active Records Index System. The effort to suddenly become a lawyer over night to deal with these and other appeals was quite a shock to the system and took a lot of time out of my main effort, saving the Cawthra Bush. Large submissions were made in an effort to find something that would work, not being a lawyer it was unknown what course to follow. The IPC was of little help and would often not even provide proper legal definitions of words that were being used. Then there is even a different legal system that these inquiries were conducted under, administrative justice, very hard to understand system. Not all appeals were lost, but enough were. Order # M-716, dated Feb. 22/96, by Tom Mitchinson, Assistant Commissioner - The Canadian Environmental Law Association (CELA), agreed with me that this method was an important discovery and they bent their rules to make a submission that ARIS should be allowed as a method of access. Then by shear chance the very thing J. LeFeuvre was doing all she could do to keep from me, was delivered to me. A couple pages of the ARIS records. It appeared I had a winning case but in Canada, the law is written to allow for great abuse, if need be. A request was made for a "test for a hostile institution" given the conduct of the City of Mississauga. This didn't happen as governments always likes to operate under a double standard. Government is staffed by honourable persons who would never knowingly harm citizens or their efforts but the public is full of frivolous and vexatious persons out to harm government. Another element in this cases is Hazel. She had intimidated the IPC by just turn off the FOI process in Mississauga. Did the IPC give her what she wanted to stop the spread of this method? Also the IPC could no doubt see the danger in my efforts, governments generally like to operate in secret. The IPC decided to change the Inquiry without notice, after submissions had been made! Rendering CELA's and my submissions useless. It was like going into court with a winning case for a speeding ticket and getting convicted of parking! A lawyer reviewed the IPC decision and agrees it is out of order, the decision is not governing on the issue. A court appeal would involve more money then I could ever hope to have. I believe the IPC knew this and knowingly and deliberately made a wrong decisions knowing it would stand. This set the stage for what was to follow. A request for reconsideration and amending order M-716 was made to the IPC Aug. 31/96 after many efforts seeking full disclosure and clarifications. Feb. 28/97, Donald Hale, Inquiry officer denied my request. Order # M-870, dated Dec. 3/96, by Donald Hale - The IPC used a number of bureaucratic methods to confuse the issues and make it very hard to address. They mixed up the appeal numbers resulting the Notice of Inquiry being inaccurate. They followed the City's lead in calling one request the same as another, even though the wording was not and that I was requesting something they could deny. The IPC then didn't listen to anything I said about what existing records would respond to the request and said the City should write a decision letter about accessing an one page document it created for this Inquiry. The City did and said I could not have it, as their lawyer was involved in it, I get nothing, end of story. The IPC said I didn't want what was requested, after all how would the requester, an untrained member of the public, even know what he wanted? Order # M-947 dated Jun. 4/97, by Anita Fineberg - Frivolous & Vexatious - now they know I can't fight back and the ARIS issues has been disposed of through total injustice. It was time to strip me of my human rights, so the City of Mississauga can stop the flood of records into the community. Just to note how fair the process was, the IPC said it was fair to treat both parities equally. So to pit a person with no legal training and little resources against a lawyer or lawyers of 10 years or more experience and all the resources that government could offer them, was fair, yeah right. Here is some of what I was accused with; Trying to find ways to make my requests faster, cost effective and more likely I could afford them, clearly they wanted to use high cost as a method of withholding records. Accused with conspiring with others to gain access to records the City wants to withhold from all members of the community to ensure informed decision making would not happen. Some how it is wrong that most of the records requested were on one subject, the Cawthra Bush. Accused of not being able to afford the huge fees the City charged when it didn't follow my instructions on keeping fees affordable. Requests were made to the City asking it to waive fees for the benefit of the community, rejected. When you think about it, how can City staff afford to find their own files, given these high priced FOI requests access fees? There was mention of a secret City report about me. In Canada, medieval justice methods are still in use, you can't face your accuser, heard all the evidence, in effect trial in secret. This is not the only example, the Police Services Board did the same thing. On page 17, is the best example of the IPC acting with malicious intent towards me. "In addition, the appellant has repeatedly appealed decisions of the City in which he was provided access to the records to which he was seeking access. An example of this conduct relates to the ARIS/IRIS appeals in which the issue was addressed by Order M-716. The appellant continued to pursue appeals in which the same matter considered in that order was the only issue in dispute. Again, I can think of no legitimate purpose, nor has the appellant offered one, for this exercise." As the ARIS issue has been repeatedly documented, explained to the IPC and Anita Fineberg was refereed to it, I don't not believe this person is as incompetent or as unprofessional or as stupid as she carries on. I believe this is a total and complete lie entered into an official government record to discredit and slander me. Government sponsored slander and it is in Canada. The IPC went to great lengths to never directly address the ARIS issue. Some details of the FOI orders that are currently being used to limit and remove the publics right to know what their government is doing. It is still possible to challenge these rulings in court if your are a lawyer who would like to do their patriot duty. Where is the media in all this????? That is noted else where in this web-site. It is also of note that the McCallion's own a highly censored publication in Mississauga. End notes: I can go on, there is lots more (it gets worse), and it is all backed up with a small a multi-media library, well suited for the modern age. But there is a limit to what people will read or even take an interest in, especially if they think it somehow it is someone else's problem and never to be theirs. Another note about public support. In 1994 I ran as a candidate for Mayor because it was so upsetting that Hazel violate our right to know by shutting the FOI access (the law of the land), and the media didn't care. Resident had a right to know who and what kind of person Hazel is. But Hazel is a popular politician (the worse kind), so few cared. Popular politicians can get away with murder! None the less I came in third of six candidates and in 97 came in second of four candidates. With a increase in votes, enough to get the deposit back, which only Hazel and I did. By the Provincial standards I was ranked as a legitimate candidate, who also matched election spending with Hazel. Speaking of elections it should be noted Hazel gets elected with less then one quarter of eligible voter support. Could say a lot about that. For me to go public with this does put me at risk, as the police have been working hard to create a case against me and there is little I could do to stop them. The City has in effect declared open season on or put a contract out on Donald Barber, do as you please the police will help you do the deed and cover it up. If I have the same resources as those funded by our tax dollars, I can assure you none of this would have happened. There is little doubt the City, police and IPC will have fancy words to say they were fair and just when asked about this matter. The devil is in the details, look deep and it is clear the Harris government (or as some call it, the Harris-ment government) and Hazel McCallion are both working very hard to strip you of your human and democratic rights. Even if Mississauga is a text book case of a government gone bad, what does it matter if no one cares? If they think it will be always happening to someone else? How many people have to become victims before people realize it will not just go away by just changing the channel on the TV? We can't afford a one law for the rich and one for the poor that all too often see them as automatically guilty and in effect as only having the rights afforded to animals. We all lose in that system in the long run. In spite of any government ruling I am expressing my opinions, common sense understandings and the opinions of others, for the purpose of promoting public debate, to help reform our laws for the enrichment and benefit all Ontarians. Other details on my web-site; Such as how the City found people for its Urban Forest Management Advisory Committee (UFMAC), to make false statements to destroy the Cawthra Bush, help the City try and deforest one whole side of the Cawthra Bush and disregard the hundreds of petitions by residents. Along with our victories.
|