The Why Sponsor the Protest Sculpture, “The Salute”
Treason Or Justifiable Dissent?
Synopsis: When ‘the system’ is controlled by the corrupt partisan who claims to be the only person who knows what justice is, then to challenge this base corruption is far from treason. The question becomes if the responsible parts of our citizenry will have the courage to challenge a ‘system’ which returns us to 1929.
Don MacAlpine, Wolseley, Saskatchewan CANADA
July 22, 2018
There is much irony in my life. Perhaps the greatest is in the fact that my battles for justice for myself (and, hence, others) were forced to move to the Canadian province of Saskatchewan in 2011.
Ironic that I knew I was moving to a province where the Liberal and Conservative factions of Canada had united to create the provincial Saskatchewan Party. Ironic that I knew I was moving to a province where a man named Louis Riel had once lived. Riel had been portrayed to me in the Ontario provincial schools of the 1960’s as a treasonous man who deserved to be hanged, shortly after Canada became a ‘new nation’.
Ironic because I knew that, in September 2011, I had to pass through the Canadian province of Manitoba to arrive at my now ‘home’ in Saskatchewan. Both of these westerly Canadian provinces now promote Riel as a Canadian hero, a battler for the rights of his oppressed Metis people. Half bloods have rights too, Riel had dared declare.
So, am I treasonous or do I have justifiable, legally-grounded reasons for why I dared to challenge the current Queen of England, Elizabeth, in a registered letter mailed to her circa May 27, 2014?
After all, I am merely a man with a modern ‘writing pen’.
After all, I was a servant to racism when I swore my oath to the Queen in January 1981 so that I could begin my service as a ‘Queen’s man’ in the Ontario government.
After all, my unwitting ‘rebellion’ against an illegal ‘legal’ system, which protects lying inside government offices, began in March 1981. There, I witnessed ‘professional foresters’ run away from their duty to use their brains and their tongues to protect scientific truths about Ontario’s declining forests, known to me since 1971.
The truth of science mattered little to the rich and the privileged in 1981. The same remains true today as we continue to ignore the warnings of science to the greater dangers to children yet to come.
By 1996, the predictions of my forestry professors in 1971 came to fruition. The paper mills and sawmills began to slam their doors, leaving labourers destitute while the mill managers and profiteers retired to their condos in the tropics or big city Canada.
After all, my personal lesson became that the partisans of our nations will align to declare that the ‘public servant’ must bow to the rules of the partisan.
I was fired in March 1982 from my government job as a professional forester. I did eventually win my job back but I was penalized two weeks’ pay by a ‘triumvirate’ of ‘judges’. That penalty was for going public about the lies being fomented about forests I was to ‘manage on the behalf of the people’.
I was confused by this ‘judgement’. It seemed contrary to the principle that freed, albeit responsible, speech from citizens, even those called ‘civil servants’, was most critical in protecting honesty in government offices.
After all, I had been subjected to the loud trumpeting in Canadian media in early 1982 by Canada’s highest Liberal lawyer, then-Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau. The new Canadian constitution of April 1982 would make all citizens of Canada ‘equals!’ The suggestion was that the removal of direct control over Canadian government policy by ‘the Queen of England’ would force Canadian governments to protect the truth over all other things.
Despite this blarney being pumped into the nation’s ears, it took me another year and a half to get my job back. This was because a Conservative lawyer, appointed as a ‘judge’ to sit in September 1982 at my ‘Labour Tribunal hearing’ with a lawyer from the Liberal Party and another from the ‘socialist’, “damned near communists!”, New Democratic Party’s registered allegiances, declared that his Conservative friends in Toronto, Ontario were right to fire me. After all, said all three ‘judges’, in the end, the truth would be what the partisan in power in the moment would allow it to be. No matter the science. Or the real record in daily history.
The ‘other two’ agreed that I had protected the truth. The Conservative ‘judge’ did not care. His friends were in control in provincial Toronto and, hence, I should have bowed to them. ‘The other two’ agreed that I should not have gone public when I did because, after all, the partisan must be the one allowed to present ‘the truth’ in the twisted way that serves their bent best, and in a way that will better assure their return to political power.
In 1983, I may have had my face splashed on the front of the fall cover of Harrowsmith magazine, but I knew that the truth was dangerously oppressed by a system that seemed in complete violation of the principles spouted, publicly, in 1982. It took me two decades to understand that ‘the system’ WAS in complete violation of the principles of truth that became a principal reason for new laws after that disastrous record of human conduct to 1945.
It took me a long time to understand that the base corruption begins and is protected by the very ‘legal professional’ who is to stand up against even a hint of the resurgence of the tyranny of 1930, anywhere on this planet. It took me even longer to gain the record that the neighbour, the small citizen, too easily falls back into the sins of 1929, the sins of silence, in a recurring, bowing indifference to the corruption of ‘our system’.
So, in short days time, I will construct a ‘protest sculpture’. It is just as much a symbolic gesture at any citizen who will remain silent to the lessons I learned that led me to understand that our nations show little respect for international law, in a dangerous repeat of the circumstances to 1929.
After all, back in my job in November 1983, and serving under three different partisan organizations until 1996, I was told by select government lawyers to ‘just do your job’.
Shortly after returning to my job in November 1983, I was in a meeting with the citizens from the Red Rock First Nation. There, dark-skinned Terry Bouchard stood. He said that I seemed an ethical man, concerned about the truth. ‘As a government servant, why don’t you know anything about treaty law and our rights?’ he asked.
It was then that I first began to hear the phrase from provincial government lawyers: “Provincial resources are the property of the provinces to give to whom they deem as worthy. Treaty rights are a federal responsibility. We have no obligation to any person who claims to be First Nation. Send them to Ottawa!”
As I worked further afield from those government offices in Nipigon, Ontario, venturing into First Nation communities in the Thunder Bay, Ontario area, I saw the deliberate exclusion and racism that had led to despair. First Nation citizens were in a daily battle just to survive the racism being fomented against First Nation people. Meanwhile, government lawyers told me that ‘First Nation history and their Treaties are none of your business! Your job is to know forestry laws! WE will interpret treaty rights!’
That began my deep distrust of our governments in their legal duty to equality of persons and the truths compelled by the law. My real education to why all of this was wrong began in 1993 when I took my family to watch the landmark movie, Schindler’s List.
I did not know what the mechanics were but I sensed that this forcing of public servants and new citizens of Canada to an oath to a distant ‘Queen’ of the British race was no less racist than the enforced submission to the premise being perpetrated inside Germany, by 1929, that the Germanic race was superior to all others.
I left government in 1996, knowing full well that all was rotten in the ‘democratic’ promises loudly made around our world.
I naively thought change could be made via ‘the electoral process’. I first tried to enter federal politics as an ‘independent mind’ in the Canadian federal election of 1997. That became a first lesson in how the mechanics of ‘our vote!’ had been intentionally designed to allow the propaganda of partisans, all, to wipe out the independent voice. Knowing that I had faced three partisan ‘judges’ in 1982 led me to ponder the relevance of partisan-filled courts in the deliberate elimination of independent thinking from our institutions of governance.
After all, the squealing by Conservative lawyer, Brian Mulroney, about the Liberal faction appointing their own to Canadian courts, to the level of the Supreme Court of Canada, led to Mulroney defeating the Liberals and becoming the highest, ‘Prime Ministerial!’, Conservative lawyer in the land. Then the citizens of Canada became witnesses to Liberal lawyer Jean Chretien standing in Canada’s Parliament and squealing about Brian Mulroney appointing his own Conservative friends, to the level of the Supreme Court of Canada. And, Chretien then becoming the Liberal version of the highest lawyer in the land, appointing his own Liberal lawyer friends into Canada’s courts, at all levels.
Oh, asked by a Nipigon, Ontario business woman and friend, Maureen Dampier (whom I later was told was a good Liberal), to run in that town’s municipal election of 1997, I won the most votes. Oh, I began to learn how fickle and selfish the public often is. But I also began to personally witness how the abuse of power becomes self-serving ‘public service’ for too many ‘elected’ officials who care not one whit about the lessons portrayed in Schindler’s List.
I left small town politics in 2000 to concentrate on my work, begun in 1996, to gain some economy back for at least one First Nation community (then called Rocky Bay First Nation) and to provide work for locals. In 2002, I knew that my constitutional rights as a self-employed business man had been, once again, violated by the New Democratic Party (NDP), Liberal and Conservative factions.
I knew this to be a fact under the law was because, in April 2002, the federal Liberals had loudly published full page ads. They were urging Canadians to celebrate two decades of a ‘constitution’ that protected, the ads loudly blared, terms of equality ‘everywhere!’ and ‘free speech!’ ‘Everywhere!’
When I warned Conservative partisans and their business friends, who were forcing me into bankruptcy after stripping my constitutional rights away starting in March 2002, that I would take them to court, I was, therefore, surprised. A Thunder Bay, Ontario court clerk informed me in November 2002 that ‘legal assistance is no longer available for the ‘self-employed’!’ This, she vehemently stressed to me, was because of new rules made by ‘the Conservative faction of Ontario!’
I knew that I had a legal case. I had seen Schindler’s List. I knew that the first step in anarchy is marking ANY individual as someone who could be excluded from impartial justice.
And, I knew that I had a STRONG legal case because I walked into a Thunder Bay theatre in May 2003. There I watched The Pianist. I walked out knowing that my nation had slid back into 1929 because I faced unlawful discrimination. The poor were being told they had no right to civil justice, especially if they could be defined as ‘self-employed’. The demarcation was beginning again in my nation which screamed to the world about the lessons to 1945 ‘which we must Never Forget!’
The days after I watched this movie was followed by unbelievable harassment and intimidation. This came from large corporate businesses. These miscreants had loudly sponsored the Conservative agenda in March 2002. They had become corporate sponsors of a partisan intent to deliberately deny base rights to citizens of Ontario, even in Ontario’s ‘courts of justice’.
Ontario’s elitists did as the Nazi supporters had by 1936. Sponsor the partisan. Applaud the partisan who makes new laws stripping the rights of others away while increasing your personal wealth. Deny culpability to what this does to the truth and to the rights of others who are marched into distant enclaves, reserves, concentration camps of exclusion.
New laws would be made to strip away the rights for people defined by even Ontario’s Premier of the day, a Conservative ‘business lawyer’ named Ernie Eves, as ‘self-employed’ or simply ‘poor’. The poor, hence, could be defined as unworthy of the term ‘justice’. In Ontario, Canada. In 2002.
Initially, I had warned 25 businesses which I owed money to in February 2003 that I intended to pursue only the Conservative Party of Ontario. After all, the citizens had not changed the laws compelling equal treatment in our courts and government offices. Partisans had. By May 2003, I also began to formally drag my big corporate opponents into Ontario’s civil courts.
All of the small businesses which I owed money to had withdrawn from trying to recoup my debts owed to them. It was six big Conservative-sponsoring corporates and their Conservative friends who warned that they would battle me.
The Canadian Tire Corporations and the big banks and insurance companies, and the accountants’ large ‘ethics-controlling!’ organizations were all big donors to the March 2002 Conservative party which had stripped my rights away. It was a circle of six remaining big businesses who used the phone and every other means to harass my person. Even as I filed court papers naming them as accountable for aiding and abetting the Conservative-factions’ denial of my base human rights to life through honest business and justice, the harassment by phone became unbelievable, even reaching into my spouse’s workplace.
That harassment accelerated into May 2003 until I had read Canadian Criminal Code law. I now knew that opposing parties COULD NOT phone and harass any citizen who was taking them to court in any matter. It was even of deeper concern in this case. After all, I was suing these partisan donors for aiding and abetting the removal of my constitutional rights by Canadian Conservatives, the very people who had defined me as ‘self-employed’ and, hence, ‘unworthy’.
That harassment did not stop until the end of May 2003 when I warned the corporate lawyers that I would charge them and their clients under the Criminal Code if the phone calls and letters did not stop, until after my days in a court of law with them.
By then, I was also sickened to learn that the ‘lawyers’, who were vigorously defending this misconduct, were themselves, or their law firms, large donors to the very same Conservative faction that had defined me as ‘unworthy of unhindered justice!’ by November 2002.
Fees to get ‘registered’ into Canada’s courts? To the rich, they are cents on their dollar profits. To the poor, they are deliberate blockades to accessible justice.
Time, that lost me time in making money in a ‘real job’ because I had been forced to become my own lawyer? Defending the advance of my case from motion upon motion filed by Conservative-linked lawyers? The general public understands not one bit what all of this has done to the term ‘justice’ inside too many nations.
I had read too many Canadian laws by the time my first real civil court hearing began in June 2003. Therefore, when I discovered that the presiding ‘judge’ at my June 20, 2003 hearing was a conservative-party-donating Helen Pierce and that the December 17, 2003 presiding ‘judge’, Paddy Smith, was a Liberal donor, who sided with Pierce’s original ‘judgement’ against my request for a civil trial by a jury of my peers, I knew that the criminality was in our ‘legal profession’.
Now that I am in a province where the combining of these partisan factions was applauded by federal liberal conservatives and conservative liberals, the real intent of partisans, to protect their elitist friends, is exposed even more.
By January 2004, I knew that Ontario’s Conservative lawyer Ernie Eves played a role in selecting, ‘nominating’, conservative-linked Pierce and Liberal-donating Smith. I knew that this was not just ‘criminal influencing’. It became a repeat of irresponsible human history.
Both of these people had donated to either party short months before their nominations would be presented by Eves’ provincial Conservatives to Canada’s federal Liberals. The federal Liberals were the final step in supposed scrutiny and approval before any lawyer could become ‘a judge’. In this case, it was too clear that Conservative lawyer, and Premier of Ontario, Ernie Eves had put forth a conservative faction friend, Pierce, as well as Liberal lawyer, and then Prime Minister, Paul Martin’s Liberal friend, Smith, in a ‘we nominated one of yours, you appoint one of ours’ partisan trade-off.
The fact that Martin was seen as a real friend of the business community in Canada and Eves had returned to politics after being a business lawyer in Ontario’s financial district becomes more evidence of collusion. The loud hurrahs in the Canadian business community when Saskatchewan’s Liberals and Conservatives had melded in that province simply confirms the problem that this exercise of influence into our courts implies.
After all, Hitler came to ‘elected power’ when Germanic partisans melded their collective interests to bow to a common interest of the elite in society.
I knew that I had faced deliberate obstruction of justice from, first, Ms. Pierce because my civil application named Ernie Eves as a primary target. I knew that the implication became that even Liberal lawyer, then Prime Minister Paul Martin, was indictable under Canadian criminal law for the same charge, by January 2004, because I had started to hint, in my court presentation to Mr. Smith, the Liberal-registered lawyer, that this bribery of elected officials to gain prestige inside Canadian courts, via a registry of partisan allegiances, was a monstrous thing. And illegal under base Canadian laws.
When both Pierce and Smith aligned to say that I should be denied justice because ‘government must be allowed to make new rules so that they can govern!’, I had the movie lessons from that 1993 movie and that May 2003 movie about what led to ‘The Holocaust’. I knew that ‘the system’ in Canada was a mockery to this lesson history and the Canadian laws I knew had come to be because of it.
So, when I was arrested in February 2004 on orders coming down from Ottawa (as made court record of in an answer to a question which I plied against a Revenue Canada agent from Thunder Bay, Ontario in my Criminal trial of September 2004), I knew that our planet’s democracies are dangerously back into 1929.
Why? Because, ironically, in July 2004, as I researched laws related to my own pending criminal trial, Canada’s federal Minister of External Affairs, Liberal, you guessed it (?), lawyer named Bill Graham stood in front of Canada’s ‘free press’, ranting.
A female Canadian photojournalist had been beaten to death in an Iranian jail. Graham was ranting that the ‘trial’ in Iran against her murderers had “violated international law!” This, said a furious Graham, was because her family and all others were barred from the Iranian courtroom where the ‘trial’ was held.
International law demanded that all courts and their trials have to be open to public scrutiny, shouted Mr, Graham.
Hence, I began to warn the Canadian legal profession, in its whole, by November 2004. It was THEY who had taken us back to 1929.
IF the Canadian lawyer will shout to the world that all trials must be ‘open’, because that is what international law commands, then these lawyers needed to understand that I had tracked down the 1948 United Nation’s Declaration of Human Rights and freedoms. And, if the trials of 1946 in Nuremberg bear any merit in our modern world, then Canadian, and American and, ad nauseam, courts, which are filled with partisan ‘judges’, who declare that their partisan friends in ‘government’ must be allowed to make new laws to overrule international rule of law so that the partisan can ‘govern us’, then the partisan judges of Canada and America and, ad nauseam, should be in jail for aiding and abetting this criminal removal of our base human rights.
Courts that are open, accessible and COMPLETELY impartial.
In Canada and America there are NO guns being held to the heads of these lawyers to force them into partisan allegiances. They do this to ensure that they have a better chance of becoming ‘a judge’. Given the lesson of what this partisan positioning did in Germanic courts, this is reprehensible for ANY person who claims to be for ‘impartial justice’ in any way. Worse, in Canada at the very least, criminal code laws forbid this very thing as an ‘exercise of influence’. Such activity leads to an ‘obstruction of justice’. This is because ALL citizens seeking justice are denied a system of justice which is compelled to be accessible and impartial for every citizen of this nation. And planet.
International law, you will learn, demands Canadian, and other, courts be accessible and impartial, even when issues are raised about our electoral processes. Instead, our courts are so blatantly in violation of international law that the voice of the privileged partisans usurps the rights of all others.
Impartial and accessible courts, for every citizen, are a legal requirement under international law.
So, am I treasonous when I dare to declare that there is not one ‘nation’ on this planet that operates in respect of international law, including those defining themselves as ‘democracies’, and that it is now the job of each and every citizen of any moral conscience to change our world?
How do we achieve lawful change?
First, muse on this document. Eventually consider my challenge in May 2014 to Canada’s supposedly benevolent monarch. Then wend your way through this web site to understand why the citizen of any moral conscience will step forward to sponsor my protest sculpture, “The Salute”.
The lessons to 1948 show that anarchy begins on the side street, in our backyards in small towns and big cities. It begins in our incompetent silence to the lessons around us.
To challenge this international corruption is not treason.
To stay silent to the mechanics of international corruption is treason to the lessons of our human history.
So, yes, come to an understanding why I will be mounting a ‘protest sculpture’ in arrogant ‘salute’ to the final Canadian town where I saw 1929 return in the same silence of Europe’s citizens of that era. It is not just about an incompetent town of subservient racism called Wolseley, Saskatchewan. It is about, yes, even an American ‘institution of justice’ that will rapidly indict a President named Bill Clinton because he lied about semen on a dress while an international tragedy, in the form of Donald Trump, rants on electoral stages that the Muslim should be barred from any godly nation and that all Mexicans need to be fenced in.
Oh, we are back to 1929. But, rest assured we can and should do something about all of this. It can start with you understanding why you should sponsor “The Salute” to start a peaceful and lawful Revolution by Pen.
First, understand why any and all of this is caused by our Holocaust Anxieties. However, to challenge this sad return to bowing to the modern pharaohs who claim to be appointed by ‘god’ is Not Treason.
Holocaust Anxiety: When Holocaust Anxiety Becomes Holocaust Ineptitude:
We have allowed the justifiable anxiety about inhuman history to 1945 to permit religious rites and beliefs to supercede all other human rights commanded under the international laws of 1948.
Essay coming soon.
There is no treason when a nation’s, or ‘empire’s’ ‘benevolent’ ruler or a nation’s constitution is in violation of international law.
Essay coming soon.
Generating Real Democracy: How our ‘democracies’, ‘the vote’ and our institutions of ‘justice’ have been made irrelevant by partisan entrenchment. What we need to do about it.