(This page last updated March 29, 2011 with minor editing on June 23, 2011: NOTE: This posting remains in response to Canada's illegal farce of another "election" in 2011. It is only slightly modified from the 2008 version. This web page is intended to help the citizen to understand why these elections are frauds. The citizen is also urged to read the book, "Just Business" now available at http://JustBusinessTheBook.com . The book will be made available "free of charge" in its electronic form until May 2, "election day". Understand how to change our democracies. The book outlines why this critical to the future of credible democracy anywhere. Don MacAlpine)

INTRO

The law is not the property of the partisan lawyer. It is the property of the citizen. (Don MacAlpine, in court documents advanced since 2003)

About Don MacAlpine

I am a resident of Nipigon, Ontario, Canada since 1981. I am an aging, sagging-belly, "white guy" of 58 years of age. However, I suggest that these physical characteristics should not be used to judge me.

I refuse to post a picture of myself at any places where my literature is posted. I think that even you should start to challenge why our media is so intent on pictures to convey "any message". I would argue that it is time that we stop discriminating on the basis of what people look like or, worse, what religious philosophy they adhere to.

Instead, we need to start measuring the ability of any person on the basis of integrity of character in personal history and their actions, most of the time. We are all human but we need to know when to stand up to arrogance. Of even me. ...

Every November 11th we pause to remember that we still have tongues, hands, eyes and feet thanks to the blood shed in Europe in WWII. Our country signed a declaration in 1948 declaring that "never again" would the institutions for democracy, our Parliaments and institutions of justice, become the property of the partisan. I can only ask you to think carefully on this as you read "the book" (visit http://justbusinessthebook.com ).

It is time that we stood up together against the abuse of that Vote. If we do not, it is not the corrupted politician whom we should castigate. It should be ourselves.

Thank you for taking the time to visit. That is the first step to protecting democracy. Curiousity leads to musing. Thoughtful consideration leads to action. That is democracy at its best.

PERSONAL HISTORY

• Raised on a farm in Southern Ontario;
• Worked one summer in the belle province of Quebec as a teen in 1970 (my french is still terrible);
• Graduated from Lakehead University in Thunder Bay, Ontario as a forester in 1975 and became a professional forester in 1976;
• Worked until January 1981 in the private sector of the forest industry. In January 1981, arrived in Nipigon to work for the provincial government as a professional forester. Have been a resident of Nipigon ever since;
• Fired in 1982 because I dared to challenge bureaucrats under the control of the provincial Conservatives of the day. They were ordering me to violate government policy and my professional obligations as a forester;
• I won my job back after a lengthy legal battle. That incident began short days before Canada's new constitution arrived home in April 1982. That incident became the first lesson for me in how the most important institution of democracy, our justice system, has become corrupted. I invite you to review those circumstances in Parts 2 and 3 of my book. That book is posted at http://JustBusinessTheBook.com ;
• I resigned from the Ontario civil service in 1996 after fifteen years of service. I worked for nine years as a forestry consultant for First Nations. As a private business man, I also worked on developing a marble found east of Nipigon. As I had in my government job, I insisted on business conducted with honesty and integrity;
• I served as a town councillor from 1997 to 2000;
• In 2002, I encountered a situation where my constitutional rights were violated, in the stone related side of my private businesses. I filed legal action in February 2003 in a Thunder Bay civil court on my own. I began to discover the dismaying depth to which partisan-connected "legal professionals" have occupied our justice system and tainted it to the benefit of the partisan. I suggest that you need to read the "About Law" section to understand why this should concern us all;
• In February 2004, I was arrested for a letter I wrote on November 28, 2003 to then elected lawyer and Prime Minister Paul Martin. In that letter, I had protested the abuse which I had faced for over a year from bureaucrats and in courts. I emphasized that I had discovered that our courts were full of partisans listening to my complaints about partisans. That letter directed politicians to the numerous petitions I had made to them, and our courts, for over a year;
• In irony, elected Conservative lawyer, in opposition at the time, Peter MacKay, responded to an e-mailed copy of the November 28, 2003 letter. He basically agreed that the abuse and harassment I had faced was inexcusable. The circumstances of the lessons from this are expanded upon under the LEGAL EXPERIENCES section below;
• In 2005, I began to write a book detailing all of the circumstances I had encountered. The circumstances of that story, which can only lead any citizen of democracy to the conclusion that corrupted institutions of justice corrupt our institutions of democracy, are summarized below under LEGAL EXPERIENCES;
• I was in final stages of the completion of that book, Just Business in 2008. The book relates why Canadians, and Americans, should be concerned about the partisanship that is rampant into our institutions of justice and our electoral processes. I was in the final stages of editing parts that summarize the legal circumstances I encountered after 2002 when the October 14, 2008 election call was issued. I tried to get my arguments about partisan carry-on before impartial deliberations only to discover that the "judges" and "legal profession" have a rampant, and continuing, illegal history with partisans.

(More Background information to the personal history posted above can be found in the book, Just Business, now posted and available at http://JustBusinessTheBook.com .

POLITICAL EXPERIENCE

When I became a "professional forester" (in 1976), the rules of that "profession" required that my first loyalty be to the public duty. That public duty was to ensure that future generations had forests of as good or better quality than my generation used. I knew that I could not fulfill this sworn oath without political neutrality. I did not join any political party at any time and have not since taking my professional oath.

My conversations with my government supervisor of 1981, Ontario government forester named George Marek, originally from Czechoslovakia, confirmed for me that this was the right path. He had faced first the gun of the Nazi and then the gun of the Communist. He had fled to Canada after 1945 to get away from all of this. In Canada, he insisted, the bureaucrat and the professional forester must carry a complete aura of political neutrality when it comes to partisans. However, Mr. Marek spoke out freely on issues because it was his obligation and right.

I did attend political meetings where I wanted to make myself informed. I was in a democracy. I felt not only free to speak out on any issue but also obliged to speak out when any issue critical to the public interest arose. I dared to challenge the partisan in 1982 because I carried the political neutrality my professional responsibility required of me.

Even after I returned to the public service, I took care not to align myself with any partisan party. This does not mean that I did not continue to remain politically engaged. As had been my habit even after I left university, I wrote all political parties about any issue that concerned me.

When the debates about revision to the Canadian constitution began under elected lawyer and Conservative Brian Mulroney, I took special care to participate. I applied to become engaged in the Charlottetown and Meech Lake public committees used to assess options in the early 1990's. It was there that I became first disappointed in the blatant manipulation of this process by partisans. I saw a number of unique proposals that were advanced by Canadians to make the electoral process relevant and accountable. I was glad to see Elijah Harper bring an end to the starkly self-serving proposal that came from the partisans in that era.

In the 1990's, even when I was still a civil servant, I began to hear about Preston Manning's new "Reform" party. I attended an inaugural meeting in Red Rock, Ontario. I had no intent, as a civil servant, of joining this partisan group. However, since they made loud noises about making politicians accountable daily through electoral reform, I convinced my wife to attend this meeting so that we would be informed. Since I had taken my own time to prepare extensive submissions to the Meech Lake Accord process, I was disappointed to hear the Reform party representative at that meeting presenting their simpleton proposal.

This "Reform" party had promised that they would listen to the people. I stood and asked the presenter why they were presenting such a narrow concept when they said that they would "listen to the citizen". The response was that they had debated this at their national convention and this was the policy their members had arrived at. I asked what made them any different than any other political party when they acted like this. The presenter, while obviously uncomfortable with the question, reiterated that, too bad, this was their national convention's position and they would not be amending it. When we left the meeting, I told my wife that this political party was doomed to fail.

I also took time off from my civil servant's job to make a brief presentation, again presided over by a judge/commissioner in a Thunder Bay court room. There, the judge thanked me for my presentation. I simply summarized my submissions I had made to Mulroney's Meech Lake Accord. The partisans were proposing to roll two large and relatively unpopulated areas, which had provincial and federal elected representatives, into the city of Thunder Bay. The city of Thunder Bay, which to date had been assigned only one elected representative at provincial and federal levels, would split into two ridings and gain the large geographies associated with the two ridings which, before then, had representatives elected outside the city. I protested to the commissioner that this defiled the very principles of "national" and "provincial" elected representation.

I pointed out that, not only would the city of Thunder Bay have control of their large municipal government, they would then, by numbers of people, control provincial and federal issues for our area. I warned that this was simply more alienation of Canadians who were getting increasingly frustrated by the preponderance of representation from Southern Ontario and Quebec in provincial and federal parliaments. I suggested that, if the country really adhered to their promise of national and provincial representation, then the number of seats should be dispersed equally across the province of Ontario and the country of Canada for each of these higher levels of government.

I resigned from my government job in 1996. In 1997, after making an initial inquiry to the fledgling Canadian Action Party (CAP), which old Liberal Paul Hellyer had started, I explored how the electoral process worked. I did not run in the 1997 election because of all of the administrative blockades I discovered. Nor did I join CAP although I kept communications open to keep myself informed about political issues. The details of this part of my political involvement form part of the book, posted at http://JustBusinessTheBook.com .

Since I had made public my interest in politics in the town of Nipigon, I was asked by a local business person to run in the November1997 municipal election. I garnered the most number of votes for Town Council and worked in this capacity until November 2000.

On December 12, 2005, I visited the office of the Thunder Bay riding Returning Officer, William Earl Everitt. I was seeking information about getting my name on the January 2006 ballot as an Independent candidate in that election. The subsequent discoveries of December 2005 led to a formal call from me into Elections Canada in Ottawa as a complaint.

Read the book to understand why the reappearance of William Earl Everitt as the man whom all candidates in the Thunder Bay-Superior area had to seek a formal stamp oof approval from to get their name on the 2008 federal ballot should concern all who say that they are for democracy.

LEGAL EXPERIENCES

• As a teenager, I observed a petty Criminal Code trial proceeding in a court in Petrolia, Ontario. This was part of our high-schooling before 1971, and years before our constitution actually arrived in Canada. We were told that Canada really had an understanding of what justice was all about;
• In 1980, I entered a small claims court room in Fort Frances, Ontario. A lawyer I had consulted told me that it would cost me more for him to represent me than it would cost to fight a complaint filed by a building contractor. A new house whose building we had contracted out suddenly had basement windows half the size we had expected. When I went back to "the contract", I saw that the substandard materials that were going onto this "new house" were completely different from those in a house which the contractor had shown us and then said "Yours will look like this!" The lawyer I consulted reviewed my counter claim and said that I should be able to win the case without him. The judge in this case probably made a good decision. He tongue lashed both the contractor and I for a bad contract. I did not win but I did not lose;
• As a "professional forester", I was required to be able to read and interpret laws written for the purpose of managing Ontario's public forests. However, when I joined the government, I was never once pointed to the words of the Canadian constitution of 1982 or the UN Declaration of 1948, or for that matter, to the First Nation treaties that allowed this country to come into being. We were told, as bureaucrats, to trust that the "legal profession" would fulfill the duty to protect the requirements under "higher laws", through the courts if need be;
• My firing from government in 1982 had led to extensive legal battles. The details of that ordeal are told in Part 3 of my book at http://JustBusinessTheBook.com . However, what should become significant in consideration to any election is that this is where I first encountered activities in our "judicial system" that should concern any citizen;
• Fired in March 1982, an order for the government to restore me to my position was released by the Labour Tribunal by November 1982. This hearing process was the first step before getting into a full blown "court" situation. Of the three board members who had heard my case, one dissented. The lawyer, Alick Ryder, who had represented me said that the one dissenting voice did not surprise him. Ryder told me that Peter Campbell was known to be affiliated with the Conservative party of Ontario. Ryder then informed me of the political affiliations of the other two "judges" who had appeared on the panel.
• I did not know the politics of these three when I sat in the "trial" portions of the hearings;
• In 1982, I had dared to challenge the conduct of the Conservative ruling party. Ryder informed me that, because a Conservative sat on the panel and dissented, the government of Ontario now had a much greater opportunity to appeal to a higher court. The Conservative-appointed Attorney General of the day was Roy McMurtry. Remember that name. Remember that Roy McMurtry was a member of the same Ontario cabinet that contained Mike Harris. And then take all of these considerations into account when you go to read the whole story in the book;
• While the ruling, in my favour, came out in the public forum in early November of 1982, I was kept away from my job. I was also not provided copy of the ruling until I demanded it from Ryder in January 1983. Why? Because the Ontario Public Service Employee's Union (OPSEU) was paying for Ryder's representation of me, Mr. Ryder had adopted the attitude that OPSEU, not me, was "the client". In fact, I started to receive orders from Ryder that met the interests of the union, not me, the whistleblower, as a professional forester.
• Read on to my discoveries by 2008 (given in more detail at , the Final Chapter section) that become relevant to why Mr. Layton stays so silent in all of the abuse of our tax dollars. OPSEU was one of the biggest donors to the New Democratic Party of Canada in 2002 and 2003. Mr. Ryder is a lawyer who, the public record shows, gives to the NDP;
• So, because of the back room politics I did not know about, I was not physically back into my government forester's position until late October 2003. This means that justice was delayed for a year and a half from my firing. I sensed that something completely unjust had occurred, but in 1982, I was only 30 and had much to learn about our constitution and lawyers;
• I successfully defended myself in a minor traffic court issue in the mid 1980's. That was a relatively easy proceeding in an open court. There I simply pointed out to the judge that an overzealous rookie cop had charged me for running a yellow light at a bridge construction site with no grounds. Despite the cop's insistence that he "had tested the stopping distance", I noted that the cop was in a small and unloaded car. That contrasted with my large pickup truck loaded with firewood. In addition to the extra weight to stop my vehicle, I reminded the court that a rain had just begun. I then referenced the fact that Ontario licensing tests for larger vehicles, which I had just taken, warned that fresh rain on highway oils increased the chances for skids. I told the court that I had tried to brake, as the cop admitted he saw me do, saw that I would not get stopped safely at the "stop line", so proceeded on through the one-lane traffic before the light changed to red. The judge lectured the cop. The opposing lawyer said that I should've been a lawyer and the judge threw out the ticket;
• I am not arrogant "about the law". Given the lessons of the Fort Frances contracting incident, I consulted lawyers especially in matters of business contracts. I did not get into the depths of reading the law until June 2002;
• However, an incident in a lawyer's office, related at Part 3 in the Just Business book, in 1997 became a first where I began to question the political motivations of lawyers, and hence their overall integrity. I was in the Nipigon office of lawyer Peter Young on business. I had also posted an ad in that month for an open meeting for the politics of the Canadian Action Party in that June 1997 election. Mr. Young asked for time to make a comment. He confessed on that day that he was a Conservative member. He expressed respect for the fact that I was engaging in the political field. However, he went on to say, that it was his opinion that "there are enough political parties in Canada."
• As soon as I heard this, I began to get concerned about the motives of lawyers and politicians. I suggest that the citizen of Canada start to think about this;
• Starting in February 2002, I began to encounter situations where I knew that my constitutional rights were being violated. I am now only going to summarize the events given in more detail in the book at http://JustBusinessTheBook.com;
• February 2002. I have appeared in line-ups at Ministry of Transportation offices for vehicle licenses. I have also been issued mining claims from the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines. I am treated by these government agencies on the basis of the time of my submission. I am not forced out of line by big corporations;
• An honest business man, I will not operate without the required permits from the Ministry of Natural Resources. I am dismayed when Dale Randa, a local supervisor in Nipigon, informs me that my permits are being set aside so that the permits required by big forest corporations get issued first. I know that this is a violation of constitutional rights in February 2002 although I have not read that law. In time, I discover more violations of the conditions of our constitution;
• In June 2002, I am in the Federal Tax Court system. I am there on my own accord. I refuse the counsel of a Chartered Accountant, Luft-Charlebois, who tells me just to file my tax report as I want. I am an honest business man. I tell the Chartered Accountant that, no, I will not hide. I will be the one making the petition to the Revenue Canada people. I will be challenging them on why they create discriminating laws that I know are illegal and wrong;
• Although I have not read our constitution or any other laws by that date, I trust that the judge I am to appear before to argue my points will consider it his first duty to protect the constitution;
• Instead, this is the first court room where I get lectured by a "judge". He does not care about the facts, only "the law". This is where I also first see the theory of lawyers "Policy is the prerogative of the government" put forward in writing;
• Knowing that the history of man has been that Nazis made murder even legal, I know that this is wrong. A new law cannot be created to violate the constitution. I start to explore more laws to fight this even as more violations of my constitutional rights lead to more financial constraints on my ability to protect myself under the constitution;
• By November 2002, the continuing violation of my constitutional rights drains my finances. I encounter "the last straw" from a bank corporation. The bank's name appears on the donation records to Conservative Ernie Eves. The bank gave more money than I ever owed them to Eves and others in the leadership event of February 2002 that led to my financial predicament. I begin to seek restitution in civil action;
• A "legal aid" clerk in Thunder Bay informs me that elected lawyer Ernie Eves and his partisan friends have changed the rules of accessibility to legal aid. Because I am "self-employed", Mr. Eves, an elected lawyer and former finance minister, and Conservative cohorts now declare that I do not deserve justice. I know that this is a violation of constitutional rights in November 2002 although I have not yet read that law;
• I approach lawyers for assistance in December 2002. I am warning that I am about to sue Mike Harris and Ernie Eves and others of partisan affiliations who controlled those bureaucrats and others who violated my constitutional rights. The facts of my case, I warn, show these violations started with more vigour in February 2002 but go back to 9/11;
• My claims are blatantly rejected advancement by some law firms. I discover that this is not because my arguments do not have merit. I begin to find the names of law firms who reject my overtures outright. Their names are on Conservative donation records;
• I get one from a Liberal paying law firm saying that I have a case but that I should not sue the partisan, I should only sue the government;
• I get one e-mail from one law firm sympathizing with my case but then saying that they cannot get involved. They do work for Ontario's public service union. The name of that union (OPSEU) eventually appears on the NDP donation records I find. OPSEU was an agent in the circumstances of a "strike/leadership convention" that became an excuse for politicians in power and civil servants in government to play politics with complete disregard to their duty to the citizen under the constitution;
• On February 7, 2003, I had no money to pay the court filing fees on my behalf. I had to stretch my hand out and beg for about $150 from someone else. A "court of justice" clerk in Ontario said that I must give her this money if I wanted to advance my case about the illegal and corrupt conduct of lawyers, lawyers who were politicians, politicians and bureaucrats who bowed swiftly to the command of the politician and the lawyer;
• By July 2008, I had found the links that became this: That $150 fee went to the pocket of the OPSEU member behind the counter. Her union dues in 2002 AND 2003 allowed Union Executives to re-direct a quarter of a million dollars EACH YEAR into the coffers that supported the federal New Democratic Party. This should be a first hint for the reader why Mr. Layton stays so silent in the abuse of our taxes to the benefit of Harper and Ignatieff in our Parliament;
• However, by February 17, 2003, I knew that the constitution was being violated again. I had finally read the constitution and other laws because I had been forced to advance my case on my own. I made written record of why I knew this was illegal conduct and Criminal Code abuse of position and power in subsequent court documents;
• In time, I discovered more and more violations of the conditions of our constitution as I entered the courts with Conservative Ernie Eves' name on my court documents. The most disconcerting of these happened in May 2003. In the middle of May 2003, I appeared in a crowded public courtroom seeking civil justice. Without reason being provided, I was moved to a separate court room where only the judge and the opposing lawyers sat;
• In March, in a similar hearing set-up, I had waited in a crowded court room to be heard. I knew that this May 2003 marching out of a room full of the public and into a secluded court room was a violation of the law requiring all hearings to be open and public. I protested to media and politicians. Silence;
• Eventually I discovered that I was denied taxes to advance my cause by rules set up by Conservative lawyer Eves but that a lawyer, Mr. Guttman, was now paid out of Ontario taxes. He appeared on Mr. Eves' behalf in early 2003 to oppose my arguments in court. The politicians will use our taxes in our courts. The citizen had better not;
• I continued to discover the plethora of partisan lawyers I was forced to face in civil court in June 2003. I eventually discovered that the presiding "judge's" name, Helen Pierce, was of a lawyer just recently appointed as a "judge" by Ontario Conservatives. Eventually, I found that she was a donor, when she was a lawyer, to the Reform Party of Ontario;
• Her favourite political party was wooing the Ontario Conservatives even as I started to protest the conduct of partisan Eves and Harris. I knew that the appearance of this partisan lawyer made "judge" was a violation of constitutional rights in June 2003 because, by the time I appeared before Pierce, I had read that law;
• On (or about, as the lawyers like to say) October 28, 2003, after registering, repeatedly, that bureaucrats of Ontario's courts and Ontario and Canada's branches of government were, repeatedly and persistently, violating my right to advance my case without harassment and with whatever limited financial resources I had access to, I sent yet another letter to federal politicians;
• This strongly worded communication to politicians was responded to via e-mail by federal Conservative elected lawyer Peter MacKay. He did not indicate that he found anything offensive about it;
•   On or about February 6, 2004, I received a phone call from a Lois Willett. She told me that she was a communications expert with the federal Minister of Revenue's office. In a polite conversation with her, I urged that her Ministry stop harassing me as I worked to get my cases, including the one against her agency, through the courts. I suggested that this was what the constitution compelled I be allowed. I was astounded. She told me that she had spoken to "lawyers in government and cabinet". She had been told by “these lawyers” that she need not know anything about our constitution. Her only duty, she said, was to tax laws. I expressed my concerns to her about this. I suggested that she watch the movie The Pianist and think about what she had said. I followed this conversation with a letter to federal agents and other politicians as well as the media;
  
• On or about February 12, 2004, I sent another polite letter to the highest elected lawyer of Canada, Prime Minister Paul Martin. I pointed out that the Gomery scandal was, conveniently, started by an "Auditor General". She was scathing in her remarks about carry-on in Quebec. I pointed out that this Auditor General had the same record as "legal professionals";
• As a "chartered accountant" professional, who had worked in the Province of Quebec for some time, she gave to the Liberals. I pointed out that the business community had a reputation for warming up to the now new PM Martin over older Liberal Chretien. However, I asked why an auditor general, who had been a privileged member of the Chartered Accountants in Quebec, had never ensured that her own profession did not allow misreporting of the use of our taxes before the "Gomery scandal" erupted;
• I dared to politely ask if this might be carry-on from the very standards of "professional" manipulation I had encountered from Liberal-paying accountant Dennis Buset in Thunder Bay. For that story see the book Part 3 at http://JustBusinessTheBook.com ;
• 1982, this "professional" had suggested that my spouse and I not bother to report cash received. However, he then required us to sign the documents prepared by him as being our problem when I pointed this error of his out to him;
• I had also pointed partisans of all stripes on February 12, 2004 to the fact that I was in tax court after I had refused, in 1999, to file a tax return as my "professional accountant" suggested that I do (Luft-Charlebois). I noted that, in 1999, I had refused to follow that accounting firm's advice that I simply file as I wanted. The "professional" said this was okay to do because it was highly probable Revenue Canada would never find the differences. I refused in 1999 because I am an honest business man. I was also not going to allow differences in treatment between citizens and corporations to be advanced in that federal department of taxation;
• So, on or about February 12, 2004, I politely wrote suggesting that the politicians needed to start to explain why "professional accountants" were mirroring the behaviours of partisan lawyers: dealing with issues only when it was politically expedient to their partisan leanings;
• On February 24, 2004, I was arrested by police officers. By February 2007, I had found that the arresting Ontario Provincial Police officers gave "directly or indirectly", as the Criminal Code forbids, to only Conservatives or Liberals. I was not aware of the details of this illegal redirection of tax dollars by Ontario's police until February 2007. They are paid via taxes on the principle of impartial justice for each and every citizen;
• I was, at final Criminal Code trial in September 2004, not allowed by a judge, whom I later found picture of "mentoring" younger partisan lawyers, to discuss the February 12, 2004 letter and the subsequent circumstances I had uncovered;
• Eventually, at my September 2004 Criminal Code trial, the police and Crown Counsel were only concentrating on the October 28, 2003 letter. The police, lawyers and judges eventually manipulated the justice system to exclude all other polite and legal applications I had made. They eventually allowed only one letter to be discussed;
• On the day of my arrest, I could not afford a lawyer. I was given ten minutes on the phone with a legal aid lawyer. He advised me that there would be a bail hearing via phone in Nipigon on the next day. He then told me that, no, he would not be my representative on the next day BUT that, based on the fact that I was once an elected municipal official in Nipigon and had an impeccable reputation with the law, I should not have to post any bail;
• On the next morning, after a cold night in jail, I was led into the detachment's commanding officer's office. After waiting for some time, I was subjected to an electronic session where the noise on the phone obscured the judge's name and the "bail proceedings". I heard a newly appointed "legal aid" lawyer tell the court that he had just had my file dropped into his hands;
• I was hustled into an office where the public, if they came in, would see me on the phone. There, this so-called new "legal professional" refused to accept the suggestions of the "legal aid" lawyer of the day previous. He would not argue for complete release on "my own recognizance", no bail and no signing-in, as the previous lawyer had suggested should happen. Indeed, this new "professional" first suggested that Crown Counsel were asking that I would be forced to stay within the bounds of the town of Nipigon;
• I loudly protested to this "professional", who did not take the time to learn the background the "legal professional" of the day before had, that I could never accept that condition. This would have removed my access to the only remaining source of income as a forestry consultant. I was never given this newest lawyer's name or his partisan background;
• What is most offensive here is that police officers in Nipigon, whom I had worked with as youth or on Town Council committees, stayed silent as to my reputation in the community. Instead of demanding all of the related documents, including the court documentation my letter of October 28, 2003 warned all whom read it to carefully reference, police officers not familiar to my character were assigned to the case. They then selectively chose what letters they would present to the persons ordering my arrest;
• By June of 2004, I had extracted a confession from the Crown Counsel who had directed my arrest. He admitted that, yes, he was the same David Mackenzie whose name appeared on NDP donation records. The October 28, 2003 letter made direct reference to OPSEU. So, start to think carefully on what then transpired because an NDP lawyer entered a case where I complained about the conduct of a major sponsor of the federal and provincial NDP in 2002 and 2003;
• The presiding judge of that day would not allow me to advance my arguments why this was a breach of our constitution, especially when my February 2003 civil application included events involving OPSEU. By June of 2004, I knew that OPSEU was a significant sponsor of the provincial NDP. I had not yet found their repugnant generosity to Jack Layton's NDP in 2002 and 2003 (not stumbled upon until July 2008);
• I suggest that the reader read the whole story through the book, available at http://JustBusinessTheBook.com . That book exposes that the "judge" who refused to listen to why MacKenzie's partisan paying should be of concern, was found in a picture in a lawyer's rag sitting beside a young lawyer, apparently wanting to become a judge;
• This young lawyer's law firm was a donor to the Liberals. This judge who refused to listen was participating in a "mentoring" program set up by lawyers to encourage young lawyers to become judges;
• Think on this. "Education". In Nazi and Communist regimes, it was used to indoctrinate the young to believe that what they were doing was right;
• In preparation for my November Criminal Code trial, my brother discussed my circumstances with a southern Ontario lawyer. That lawyer assessed the letters I wrote and said that I should have never been arrested. I then took the four letters, initially used by the police as an excuse to arrest me, to a lawyer with the Mauro Petrone et al law firm in Thunder Bay. There I met with a lawyer named Sebastien.. He looked at the letters and said that I should have never been arrested. I knew that his law firm was affiliated with the very Liberal Prime Minister, and elected lawyer, Paul Martin, named on the letters. However, Sebastien George laughed when I said that, if I should never have been arrested, then the charges should be easily disposed of;
• No, said Mr. George, and I think that it would be in your best interest if I represented you. But, you see, he wanted $2,000 down to start to listen to me after the initial "20 minute free consult". ($200) per hour thereafter. ($2,000) per hour for any court appearances;
• The December 2004 court filing I attempted is discussed in the book http://JustBusinessTheBook.com . That documents the subsequent recommendation from a Toronto friend directing me to "legal aid" lawyers who claimed to be solely for justice.
• One from Toronto said that she could not represent me. When I plugged her name in to public political party donation records, it was listed as a Liberal party donor;
• The other, a Thunder Bay lawyer recommended to me, just refused to respond. He eventually sat at the back of the Nipigon court in September 2004 observing my trial. When I plugged his name in, he was on the Conservative listings;
• I knew that this partisan manipulation, so that we, the citizens, must put money into the hands of the lawyers before we are granted justice, is illegal;
  
• I made record of this in a March 2004 Criminal Code complaint filed with the local OPP. I updated that complaint periodically as more discoveries like this were made. Initially Ontario's OPP did not deny the merit of my story. In fact, in the summer of 2004, an OPP officer in plain clothes was in my home. He expressed admiration for the way I had organized my complaint and the merit of my complaint. He (read the book to discover his name) expressed hope that I was continuing with advancing my complaint. I informed him that I was and that his police force had directed me to take my complaint to the RCMP. After August 2004, my complaint was being bounced back and forth, reportedly initially because of "jurisdictional issues" Eventually, another Liberal cabinet minister had sent my complaint to the RCMP in London, Ontario for review. I found the response from a policing official in that city totally ludicrous;
• By 2007, I had made these disturbing discoveries. London, Ontario is a city where policing officials used police associations to sponsor, largely at that time, the Liberals in Ontario. Further research led to my discoveries that Ontario's policing agencies, including the OPP, were directing our taxes paid into cops salaries back to,while Mike Harris, Conservativc, was in power, only the Conservatives and then eventually the Liberals. I never found police donations to the socialist NDP or any other political faction. The implication was that the cops were redirecting our taxes paid to the political parties who were public in their position that they would support cops over the citizens in "tough on crime" attitudes. By February 2007, I was directing letters to both OPP and RCMP officials, warning that they were in breach of the Criminal Code sections forbidding "influencing" and "breaches of trust" (visit the About the Law button);
• I tried to subpoena elected Conservative lawyer Peter MacKay to the November 2004 trial to verify that the e-mail I had from him was indeed his. He simply avoided the process server I had hired. I had no funds to compel him to attend. I was denied full and fair hearing by an elected partisan lawyer who said that he cared about what I had said on November 28, 2003. By September 2004, he had manipulated the law to his advantage, again, when challenged to stand up for justice;
• I cannot say that this surprised me. Remember that this is the same lawyer, elected Conservative, who was castigated by old members of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada (PC) for violating an agreement with party leadership opponent, David Orchard. MacKay violated his agreement with Orchard and merged the PCs with the old Reformers alliance. Stephen Harper, Conservative, rewarded MacKay with control of Canada's big guns. Scarey thought. that;
• I tried to subpoena Lois Willett, the lady who had said that lawyers in cabinet had declared that she need not think about constitutional law. Conveniently for her, the federal civil service was on strike. By the time the process server had found her on the phone, she was adamant that she would not accept his papers. She suggested that I needed to do a Freedom of Information request. I knew that this was impossible to complete as I now had only days to my trial date. I also knew that I had no financial resources to force her attendance in court. I did not have time to send the cops to get her as the law would have allowed me. I knew that this was related to the illegal shenanigans by "lawyers in cabinet";
  
• In the summer of 2004, I was preparing for my Criminal Code trial when then federal Minister of Foreign Affairs, Liberal elected lawyer Bill Graham, started yelling in the press. Graham was a member of "the federal cabinet" that Willett had said she had talked to. I issued a subpoena for Bill Graham for my September 2004 Criminal Code trial. This was because Mr. Graham, like Liberal "Minister of Justice" of the day, Irwin Cotler, was recorded as being a "lecturer of law". Mr. Graham was also now on public record for castigating Iran for failing to respect international law in their trial against murderers of a Canadian journalist. I wanted to ask Mr. Graham to confirm that, therefore, the same standard must apply to Canada's courts. While Michael Gravelle MPP was also a target of my subpoenas to advance my argument that my constitutional rights had been violated since February 2002, I had asked especially for Mr. Graham;
• Mr. Graham had yelled in the press that international law required Iran's court rooms to be open to the public. I wanted to point Mr. Graham to my May 2003 march into a court room where only lawyers and police sat. I wanted him to admit that standards in those same laws, which he had castigated Iran for, had been violated in my case. I wanted him to admit that the November 28, 2003 letter was simply my way of yelling like he had in public, only with different words, my own words, after a year of pummeling by partisans in tainted courts and corrupted bureaucracies;
• I also wanted to present him with evidence of partisan lawyers becoming involved in my civil case and then my arrest. I then wanted to point him to the international law I had found by July 2004 saying that all citizens, regardless of social status, etc. had a right to full and fair consideration before a completely impartial court, freed of the stench of "political association";
• The day before my trial, I was forced to argue in front of a judge about subpoenas I had gained for then Minister of Defense, and elected lawyer, Liberal Bill Graham. Mr. Graham and Mr. Gravelle's legal representatives in that September 2004 court room were later found to have paid links to the Liberal Party of Canada. Both of these politicians had received vast numbers of e-mails and letters from my person as soon as I began to encounter violation of my rights in February 2002. The lawyers for both of these elected officials had already submitted a sworn affidavit to the court;
• From my experiences in 1982, (see JustBusinessTheBook.com, Part 3), I knew that any submission to the courts that was sworn to be true could be considered perjury if it was proven not to be. I pointed the presiding judge to the bulging files I had for both of these politicians and protested that perjury had been committed. The judge simply laughed. After all, partisan lawyers have made themselves above the law. They are persons of impeccable character, no matter what the real documentation may be;
• The same judge laughed when I also protested that I needed Graham and Gravelle because I intended to argue constitutional points in my trial for the next day. Again, the judge laughed and said that he knew that I would not be allowed to argue constitutional law. This was despite the fact that, by July 2004, the Crown Counsel I was opposing, Mackenzie, had suggested to the judge of the moment that I had written to him wanting to argue constitutional points. That judge had agreed to set aside a full day for my arguments in September 2004. Now, a day before my trial, I was told by another judge that I would not get to argue the full case;
• In my Criminal Code trial of September 2004, I was at least able to procure admission from the government bureaucrat, who had delivered the complaint about my November 28th letter to the police, that the direction to file the complaint to have me arrested had come from their head office in Ottawa. That office was occupied by Liberals. However, by that day of my "trial", the Crown Counsels had manipulated the duty to full consideration so that I could not argue the relevance of court submissions of June 2003, December 2003 and the plethora of other firm but polite warnings I had issued as I uncovered more and more abuse of the principle of impartial law by partisan "professionals". Instead, the court room listened only to the verbal presentation of parts of the letter police supposedly found offensive. All other documentation was forbidden;
• Mr. MacKay, an elected lawyer who wants us to believe that he is a man of impeccable character, conveniently manipulated the system so that he could not be compelled to appear to point out that, as a partisan elected lawyer, three months earlier he had found nothing offensive enough to stop his somewhat lengthy commentary to me;
• The presiding judge, six months after two "legal professionals" had said the arrest should never have occurred and two others, one Liberal and one Conservative, defied the postings at their web pages saying that their only interest was for "justice for the poor", threw the case out saying that the letter was "only a rant at government";
• Elected lawyer Graham can rant publicly about injustice in Iran. The citizen of Canada had better not, even to politicians who rant themselves;
• Think about all of the news recently about wrongful incarcerations being dismissed in Canada. "Legal aid"? In November 2002, when I had called the Thunder Bay office asking for assistance to advance my civil case, I was told that the only way to get help was if I was seeking Family Law or Criminal Law assistance. "Equal before and under the law" as our constitution requires? This rule has been changed by legal professionals with a deep history of partisan affiliations. Then they appear with their hands out demanding money from anyone seeking justice;
• Indeed, even after I had been Criminally charged, who did I have to apply to? Thunder Bay lawyer Marc Bode was in charge of the "legal aid" offices in Thunder Bay in 2004. Mr. Bode's history can be linked through paying to the Liberals. Indeed, Mr. Bode was eventually nominated by the Liberals and was appointed and then promoted as a "judge" in the Provincial court system in recent months;
• In 2004, I refused to succumb to Mr. Bode's insistence that I had to "follow their rules" if I wanted "legal aid". Mr. Bode told me, no, I did not have to simply fill out a simple form declaring that "I am too poor to afford a lawyer" that would subject me to Criminal Code charges of fraud and perjury if it was found that I was not destitute. No. Mr. Bode wanted copies of the last four years of not just my income but of the income of my spouse. And of bank accounts;
• I pointed Mr. Bode to the fact that biker gang members were appearing in court rooms in 2004 with lawyers in tow and slapping cash down on the table to post bonds. I told Mr. Bode that his legal aid rules were a violation of the constitution. The hardened criminal did not then have to expose every bank account and the past four years of revenue declarations. The rich business man did not. The poor did. Mr. Bode first denied my application and, then a month later, came back petitioning me to re-apply. So, despite the perception in the public eye, even those with Criminal law issues do not get legal support without first fulfilling a bureaucratic process that assures that the Liberal or Conservative or NDP affiliated "legal professional" will get their palms filled with cash, either from the disposal of income of the poor accused before trial even commences or from the tax which the partisan controls;
• Mr. Layton wishes that he could absolve himself in 2008? No. It is the OPSEU members who also then gleefully rub their hands because there is more paper work that justifies more of them, instead of one piece of paper from the poor person that declares "I am poor" and subjects them to perjury charges and jail if they are not. In other words, Mr. Bode sat smug in his position as overseer of "legal aid" in 2004 and cared not about the burden he put onto the poor. Mr. Bode apparently felt that getting reams of paper and not auditing those papers for the real situation of the person pleading for assistance was more justifiable than getting one piece warning the poor person that, if they did not enter the court on the principle of truth and honesty, there would be consequences;
• Instead, the courts have no consequences for lawyers who commit perjury on behalf of partisans (i.e.- Graham and Gravelle). This creates the disdain for the "legal profession" which I found recorded, again and again, at web pages about the lawyer like CanLaw, etc. by June 2003. Indeed, I had already made record of the standard of respect for lawyers, which I had found posted publicly, again and again, in front of "judge" Pierce by June 2003;
• So, in November 2004, I rolled all of the experiences I had accumulated in the Tax Courts, the Civil Courts and now the Criminal Courts. I made them one presentation to the Ontario Court of Appeal. I argued that the pervasive discoveries I had made about partisanship into our institutions of justice meant that the only way that I would get a fair civil trial in my matters about taxes and Conservatives was in front of a jury of my peers;
• In November 2004, I could not afford to drive to Toronto, the only place where people of Ontario are allowed to appear in a "Court of Appeal". I knew that this was yet another constitutional violation because the international law requires that justice be applied regardless of geographic location. My brothers and a business friend appeared in that court room to ensure that my arguments had been fully listened to. The court of that day was presided over by Ontario's Chief Justice, Roy McMurtry;
• Remember good old Roy? Conservative attorney general in 1982. Uses the "dissenting pronouncement" by Conservative tribunal member, Campbell, to launch "an appeal" that keeps me away from work. Makes this decision with the blessing of the Conservative caucus in Ontario in that day. That caucus includes Conservative Mike Harris;
• Good old Conservative boy Roy appears in November 2004 in a matter where the documents name Mike Harris and Ernie Eves and good old boy Conservatives. I have read enough law by November 2004 that I know that this is Criminal Code conduct. I add this fact to my Criminal Code complaints sent now to the RCMP and the OPP. I send this to both police agencies because by November 2004 they have demonstrated that they are confused about "jurisdiction". I have not yet found that the OPP officers, as a collective "association", are donors to the Ontario Conservatives. I eventually find this in 2007;
• Having passed the hurdle of "legal process" in Ontario courts, I focus on my December 2004 application to the Supreme Court of Canada. I have read enough laws that I have also read one that allows a number of separate court cases to be rolled into one argument in the Supreme Court. I am simply arguing that, because the courts are so full of either Liberals or Conservatives and sometimes even NDP, I cannot get fair civil trial before a singular judge. I have faced too many arguments promoted by partisan lawyers which have been considered by too many judges with provable links to the same partisans. I must, therefore, be allowed to advance my arguments in a civil trial before 12 of my peers as the law compels;
• I have begged and borrowed more money to get this submission to the Ottawa address of the Supreme Court. As the law compels, I am also required to ship off copy of my arguments to the parties I have implicated in my complaint. I am dismayed to see the submission to the court return in the mail. The reviewing "clerk", who is really a lawyer, does not deny the merit of my case. However, he wants it separated out into a manner that would cost me three times of what my December mailing to the court cost. I know that the law says that the courts cannot deny advancement of any argument based on "form";
• I look up this Supreme Court clerk's unique name. It appears on the Liberal listings. I am complaining about activities of Liberals and Conservatives and NDP;
• In January 2005, I send another complaint to the RCMP and the OPP about this fact. I know that a partisan appearing to rule on a complaint about partisans is now obstruction of justice so I name the Liberal paying law clerk. It is not until February 2007 that I discover that the OPP officers, through their "association", make paid record of where their allegiance of the moment lays. By 2007, I discover that, when it is clearer that the Liberals will be in power in Ontario, the allegiance of this police force changes from Conservatives to Liberals in preferential paying. I never find a record of their paying to the NDP;
• Unaware in January 2005 of the paying relations of Ontario's police, I still believe that there may be a chance for justice. I discuss this with elderly parents who then provide a loan to allow me to survive. What meagre money they provide swiftly disappears into the costs of the number of copies of legal documents and fighting the almost daily nonsense of the parties I am filing against harassing me for money I do not have. I finally try to file this renewed civil action, that rolls all of the circumstances of illegal partisan behaviour I have discovered into it, in December 2005;
• On December 12, 2005, I take a side trip from filing my initial court papers to meet with William Earl Everitt. Liberal Paul Martin has called an election. I am fed up in December 2005. I listen to Mr. Everitt outline election rules that I know are created by partisans to favour partisans. So, I make record of why even our electoral process has become a system for the partisan and in violation of our Criminal Code;
• I put the full arguments about all of this into the same court wicket where a "court clerk" had denied my application in February 2003 until I had begged for money from someone else. I noted in December 2005 that I was applying for a filing fee exemption. That, I was told, needed to go before a single judge;
• In January 2006, I received notice from the judge that he did not care about constitutional rules of accessibility and complete impartiality. If I refused to fill out the same kind of paperwork Mr. Bode had demanded, he had no choice but to reject my application;
• I looked up "Judge" Platana's history. Not only did he come from a Northwestern Ontario law firm with their own unique history of partisan paying. He was also the judge who the lawyer rag lauded. "Judge" Platana was the regional leader of "judges" in the Thunder Bay District. He was praised by the lawyers for creating a "mentoring program" for young lawyers. I knew that it was not just offensive that this same lawyer's rag showed a picture of the "judge", who had appeared at my Criminal Code trial in September 2004, sitting beside a young lawyer whose law firm was affiliated with the Liberals. It was also a breach of the Judge's Act, forbidding any "judge" from engaging in any activity that might give any member of the public even a hint that partisan influence was anywhere in the halls of justice;
• However, by January 2006, I also had been directed enough times to the "committees" supposedly set up to keep judges, police and lawyers honest to even their own rules of conduct. To make a case before every "committee" set up for this purpose, which is supposed to "be impartial", one must first get past the "assigned reviewer" of the initial written complaint sent. When I reviewed these committees, they were full of "judges" or lawyers, with their own partisan history. Even in the case of "civilian" police committees, most committee members had some linkage to one of the Big 3 partisan groups;
• I invite you to (eventually) visit http://JustBusinessTheBook.com . There I make record that a study by Statistics Canada in the late 1990's noted that fewer than six percent of Canadians pay into or belong to any political party;
• This means that, despite the fact that 94 percent of the Canadian population could be recruited to serve impartially on such committees, these committees are instead rampant with partisan appointees;
• Therefore, knowing the waste of time and futility of making a case before all of these bureaucratic and partisan infiltrated "committees", I sent warning to all parties I had named. I warned that I was only setting aside the legal actions I had begun in 2002 and 2003 to write a book exposing all of this to the public. HOWEVER, I WARNED THAT, IN TIME, I WOULD BE USING IMPARTIAL COURTS TO PURSUE MY CASE EMANATING FROM 2002;
• Instead of respecting the right to freed voice to expose such things, two thirds of my time has become dedicated to fighting off bureaucrats, "legal professionals" and corporations directly linked to the violation of my constitutional rights in 2002;
• By September 2006, I had made two presentations to Ontario's "Justice Committee". There I presented a stern warning as to the illegality of elected lawyers appearing in hearings that would increase the privileges of the "legal professional" while reducing the rights of the citizen. I also made record of the presentations in September 2006 where other individuals protested this nonsense before the same committee;
• A lawyer in Saskatchewan on September 26, 2008? A report from a "judge" was chastised by the lawyer for David Milgaard's family and lawyer. Remember Milgaard? Our taxes went to pay to compensate him for 23 years of wrongful incarceration. His family's lawyer made the observation that "public commissions" become self-serving to those entrenched in our justice systems and institutions of governance;
• In June 2009, a young cop appeared on my doorstep, warning that he would arrest me if I continued my tactics to stop the continual phone harassment from "collection agencies" working on behalf of the big corporations. I was still warning these corporations of my intentions to drag them into untainted courts once my book was completed. The book details my stern warning to this lad, whom I suggested was acting like a Nazi. I warned that his policing "association" was donating to the very political parties named on the same documents that I had named Canada's major political parties on. I warned that his policing organization was breaching the Criminal Code by aligning themselves with lawyers who, by 2009, my data showed were 99.9% connected to mostly the Liberals and Conservatives and rarely the NDP. I warned that Canada was in a situation which mimicked Nazi Germany before 1936. There, partisans took control of courts and policing agencies and began to change the law to take away rights of the citizens. My blood ran cold when this young Nazi told me that, tough, this was the way it was in Canada and if I did not like this fact, I could just move out.

We need to think more carefully about this. The book makes full record of the circumstances encountered.

I intended to make my voice heard through an electoral process that is forced to respect our constitution and the international law of 1948. I received verification by September 26, 2008 that my application was rejected as "incomplete". This was simply because I refused to allow bureaucrats to violate my constitutional rights.

Now, I intend to use the trangressions that occurred before and during the 2008 federal electoral process to make every citizen think about what their duty is here.

Please visit http://JustBusinessTheBook.com and the balance of the pages at this web site to consider what our critical roles are in stopping the abuse of our voting rights AND our right to make voice.