It is ludicrous.

And irresponsible ‘journalism’.

As a distant observer, I once bought into the premise that Americans, having an opportunity to balance the power of one or the other group of partisans between Presidential elections, was a better opportunity for real democracy to become functional. However, I have, in recent years, become almost amused by the puffed up patriotism of the American voting institutions.

I might be amused if the very thing that ‘the vote’ is supposed to lead our nations away from, arrogance replacing real leadership, had not become the norm in America.

It might serve the purpose of real democracy, therefore, to warn Canadians and others, via this blog, not to buy into the precept sold by the international media that it is our obligatory duty as citizens ‘to vote!’

After all, the recent news items I have read emphasize things like ‘Hillary lost by only 112,000 votes! … in the State of …’. This implies that Americans, and the world, should accept that Hillary Clinton, ‘the lawyer’, is the best thing that Donald Trump is not. And should have used ‘the vote’ to keep Trump out.

I suggest that you visit a November 1, 2018 BBC News item at: . Watch the pop-up video which talks to Americans. Muse on the number of persons in that two minute clip who did not vote in the American Presidential election of 2016. And then listen to why they were the responsible ones.

The sham of international elections might be exposed inside America in the next few days. The shame of our incompetence to our real duty as responsible citizens of democracy comes to bear in the fact that, internationally, too many will use the lessons of WWII to wave flags about why guns are still needed around our world. In Canada, that will be November 11, five days after Americans can, but should not, vote on November 6, 2018.

Thankfully, in my plodding world of multiple responsibilities, which include the state of my own health, I will have a year to explain to Canadians why participating in a ‘process’ which is already in violation of International law, and, in Canada, at the very least, in violation of Criminal Code and Constitutional laws, legitimizes the very kind of corruption which the vote should be protecting us from.

The sad reality is that the Republican Senate’s appointment of a known Republican associate, Brett Kavanaugh, in support of the agenda of Republican President Donald Trump, to the American Supreme Court should be the deep signal to what ails America. And Canada. And Great Britain. And all of those other ‘democracies’ which claim that they have risen above the blatant graft of politicians gaining power in ‘democratic’ nations.

These arrogant ‘democracies’ will claim that they are unlike India and Mexico and …. .Why? Because they have ‘legalized’ the graft that gets unethical men like Kavanaugh into positions of power.

Aw, I am a man who takes the risk of maligning a man whom Donald Trump wants to make the epitome of moral American behaviour? Let me just summarize why I dare to publicly expose deep contempt for the American system of ‘democracy’ and its current ‘leaders’ of all partisan stripes.

And its ‘quasi-journalism’.

Question becomes if the citizens of ‘democratic nations’ will accept the writings of a distant Canadian as reason to reflect or if even the ‘journalists’ will become dismissive because, after all, only ‘experts in high places’ bear consideration in 2018.

Let me just say that the signals of the deep problems inside America’s, and Canada’s and Britain’s and … ‘democracies’ may come from the abuses fomented behind the ‘Brett Kavanaugh’ fiasco. What the common citizen, and the true journalist, should be assessing is why an overseer of the process to appoint Kavanaugh is so public and vigorous in attacking a lady from Kentucky who too obviously has issues of her own, but whose name was never made public in the Kavanaugh-appointment process.

The fact remains that Republican Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman, Chuck Grassley, is now vigorously sending the FBI after this Kentucky woman while the FBI failed to talk to women who verified antics by Kavanaugh, which would have corroborated one brave lady’s, Christine Blasey Ford’s, testimony before Grassley’s committee.

What is sickening is the ploy of Trump and his Republican friends to use the example of an obviously troubled woman to insist that this then makes the testimony of Ford an attack on the reputation of Kavanaugh.

What is most sickening is the failure of the journalists of America, and the world, to come out hard-hitting against this Republican abuse of power and privilege. Sorry. I ‘Googled’ this lady’s name and the Trump story. I was amazed at the number of pages of ‘reports’ that popped up. I had to really look hard to find the supposed ‘reports’ from ‘trusted news organizations’.

And that should lead the citizens, and ‘journalists’, reading this to start to ponder my contempt for the mainstream ‘news media’.

There is too much silence about the abuse of judicial position. Partisan oversight of these kinds of ‘investigations’ is apparently something to be feared inside America and around our world. No, I am not going to provide the links to the news stories and reports which simply illustrate why our electoral processes can be shown to be a complete farce because the whole Brett Kavanaugh fiasco is an international exposure of the disgrace of our democratic institutions of ‘justice’ and, hence, our voting systems.

For those Canadians and Americans, and others, who think that they should engage in any voting process, which has led to decades of this kind of abuse of power, it is time for deep reflection on why to not vote in 2018 or 2019 is truly responsible democratic behaviour. Question is if ‘the journalists’ will expand this debate to what Americans should be doing after their election and Canadians before their own illegal and farcical event arrives in 2019.

Oh, citizens know that there is something vastly wrong when Trump and Grassley engage in the same antics of ‘we investigated!’ which Trump played with his friends in Saudi Arabia after an American journalist was murdered inside the Saudi embassy in Turkey. Question is if the pathetic ‘journalists’ will get their heads out of the Arabian sands and into the light of what the laws of democracy really compel from an international perspective.

The stupidity is that America, and Canada, and Great Britain and on and on, will NOT engage international law to stop the abuse of the vote which then allows the empowered to appoint registered friends of the partisan into an institution which is to be COMPLETELY impartial in all ways. Instead, the tactic will become that human sexuality and a propensity for drunkenness will be the reasons for, maybe, defining Brett Kavanaugh as ‘unfit for a Supreme Court judge!’ And that will happen only if the ‘presumption of innocence’ in any allegation of misconduct for persons in our courts is protected by blase ‘investigations’.

The American ‘police’ engaged in investigations which mimic the Turkish and Saudi ‘investigations’ of a murder of a journalist inside a Saudi embassy. The appearance of ‘investigating’ does not justice make in either of these cases, especially when there is implicit direction from the very persons whose positions would be impacted if a truly impartial, rapid and thorough investigation were undertaken. But, I leave this argument to my web page in The Law section. There I will draw in the circumstances which make the Brett Kavanaugh incident an international concern simply because it is more evidence of the decay inside our institutions of justice around this world.

What does this have to do with elections, even this pending American one?

Our international plethora of partisans will not point to the repeat of human history which THEY undertake, AFTER they have already abused the processes of ‘a vote’. Partisans gaining power will NOT admit to adopting a tactic which Hitler undertook and which ‘democratic’ citizens should awaken to: Appoint your own partisan friend into the institutions of ‘justice’ so that, when it is alleged that Republican Brett Kavanaugh has violated the law, the process protects Republican Brett Kavanaugh, not the victims of his abuse.


Via the right partisan on ‘the bench’. Or in oversight of a ‘review committee’.

Oh, that lady from Kentucky should face some sort of punishment befitting the crime of lying in any process of justice. I would, however, not be surprised to discover in the end that she had her own personal history of abuses which led her to a state of anxiety which few males in our society understand. What is unacceptable is the complete silence inside ‘news organizations’ when it comes to protecting the brave who present the truth, such as Ms. Ford.

In the ‘news agencies’ which I perused, there was NOT ONE pointing the finger back at loud, unbelievable Mr. Trump to ask him if he has any PROOF that Ms. Ford’s testimony was not credible. I suggest that our nations do go to a Washington Post story about an NBC reporting fiasco during the Kavanaugh incident: .

However, I suggest it not so much for the criticism from one news agency (The Washington Post) about the conduct of another (NBC) when it came to one accuser of Kavanaugh. I suggest it because there was a compelling video available on November 4 from retired journalist Connie Chung. Chung exposes her own personal history of sexual abuse and ends, thankfully, in doing what few are doing in the public: thanking Ms. Ford for being so brave.

Publicly, I say the same to not only Ms. Ford but also to those credible witnesses who stepped forward with public stories to expose Mr. Kavanaugh’s blatant perjury (of his insistence that he was ‘never a stumbling drunk!’ as a young man).

And I suggest that they and Ms. Ford now launch a major law suit against ‘President’ Trump for defamation of character. And to also file Criminal charges of breach of trust against Grassley for NOT sending the FBI to interview those women and men from both partisan organizations who stepped up to support parts of Ford’s veracity BEFORE the sham of Grassley’s other ‘investigation’ of a distant lady from Kentucky was used to allow Kavanaugh’s advance to remain unchallenged.

It is time that we, the common citizens, begin to send the message to people like Trump and Grassley that even they are NOT above the law. Ironically, citizens of democracy, no matter what the ‘journalist’ will try to educate you to, we do NOT need, nor need to trust, partisan lawyers to do this job for us.

No matter what partisan ‘judges’ and ‘lawyers’ may say, ‘the law’ cannot be used for the agenda of Trump and his Republican associates to the demise of the rights of all others. Sad thing is that the American, and international, citizens have every right to distrust the base Democrats who are also positioned inside American courts.

Start to think about what happens when those friends positioned, through base bribery to their elected friends, are faced with a situation where the opposing mob of partisans then does the same thing as the Democrat did: appoint their own. The Mafia Mobs of Partisans will not arrest the other partisan who abuses power because they would then, also, be indictable for the same crimes, conducted inside our nations since the legal promises made to all of us on this planet in 1948.

Problem is, will the American, and Canadian, and other, ‘citizens of democracy’ and their ‘journalists’ have the patience to read through this essay and then delve even further in my web pages to understand why NONE OF US should be participating in the farcical exercise which partisans have defined into an illegal ‘vote’?

Democrat or Conservative or Republican or Liberal partisan ‘appointed’, the sin of our ‘democratic’ nations begins inside our courts, the very institutions which are to uphold the law on behalf of all of us. After all, the law is not just for the registered partisans inside our nations.

How our justice systems work is more important than ‘the vote’?

Revisit that BBC video about the American election. Ponder why ANY ‘American’ would confess that they did NOT vote for Hillary as an option to Donald? Why do you ponder? IF you followed that American election at all in 2016, you would know that one of the major controversies against Ms. Clinton, by the summer of 2016, was that she was a ‘law professor!’ who undertook the vigorous defence of an aging rapist of a mere teen-aged girl.

‘Journalists’, therefore, become a major problem when they become the component which sails along on the wave which says that ‘Hillary was only doing her job as a lawyer!’, and a good ‘Democrat’ one, even ‘back then’. Defending her client to the state of attacking the mental state of the victim and her mother?

NO! Our incompetent ‘journalists’ are too often working under their own partisan flags of oversight. They do not stand up and ask when our institutions of ‘justice’ stopped having the primary premise of protecting THE TRUTH, and, hence, the victim. Yes, supposedly, even the victim is to tell the truth inside our institutions of justice.

Instead of a simple issue of whether a woman was assaulted by a physically more powerful, and a more privileged ‘male of position’, in too many cases, the victims are attacked while even the ‘judicial official’ will deny, deny, deny while a corrupt President will shout that ‘the presumption of innocence’ can be protected by weak investigations by police, badgered already for their investigations of the President himself.

Visit my bio at this web page. As I discovered in my own legal battles to protect my constitutional rights from partisan abuses, partisans will design and then gloat over a process which is contrived to benefit the partisan lawyers most of all. Yes, inside Canada, I watched my own rights be stripped away.

Understand what it means when the ‘judge’ you are appearing before announces that his or her partisan friends must be allowed to make ‘new laws!’ and rules, which violate international and constitutional law, so that ‘they can govern!’ Understand the criminal implications when one discovers, as I did, that every ‘judge’ whom I appeared before was a donor to the very partisan group I was suing in civil court.

These ‘judges’ had been oft appointed by the very same partisan persons named on my court documents.

So, yes, I will be working my way through a longer essay about the Brett Kavanaugh fiasco which leads to this long question for all citizens of the world: When a Republican lawyer, promoted to be a ‘judge’, is: 1) found to have violated drinking laws, starting at the age of 17; 2) sexually assaulted women, and the public evidence is provided on the basis of brave women who came forward; 3) says, in a 2014 address to a Harvard Law school, that he was part of the partying crowd that went on drunken college bus tours where the participants pledged that ‘what happens on the bus, stays on the bus’; and, 4) Kavanaugh then adopts the tactics of lawyers of today: “Deny, deny, deny!” when in front of a ‘judicial selection committee’, then what does it take to awaken Americans, and all others, to the depth of corruption which is enabled by allowing a corrupted voting process to give power to people like this?

Brett Kavanaugh engaged in perjury inside a corrupted, criminalized process which the Democrats of America will stay silent to because? Because they have used that judicial appointment process to try to place ‘their own’ inside American courts SINCE IT BECAME ILLEGAL UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW IN 1948!

Brett Kavanaugh is NOT condemned nor challenged by Democrats about his blatant attitude of ‘what stays on the bus’ is a mobster’s definition of justice, not what the law compels.

BUT those Democrats of America will stay silent because? Because their ‘legal experts’ are now inside courts where the phrase ‘presumption of innocence’ is allowed to supercede the legal duty to ALWAYS protect the truth via impartial, COMPLETELY impartial, institutions of JUSTICE.

When one partisan has done the same thing for too long, to accuse the other mob of breaking the law results in the finger being pointed at them.

Courts. Judicial systems. Whose primary duty is it to get to the bottom of the barrel to expose the dirty truths? Instead, America’s FBI is just another agency where Republican Donald Trump will exercise his ‘commanding’ power to attack that investigating institution so that they will gladly trot out a week of weak investigation to exonerate men like Brett Kavanaugh. No one cares, once again, that this will leave even high profile women, of both partisan factions, out in the field of moral integrity, swinging in the wind.

Much the same way Bill and Hillary Clinton did with Monica Lewinsky in that ‘sexual incident’ which got Bill indicted for semen on a dress and Lewinsky vigorously, and openly, attacked by ‘lawyer’ Hillary. Not so funny that Billy Bob America can be impeached and made to face the tune for lying about semen on a dress but Dumbed-Down Donald-the-Hitler America will openly dance at a largely attended, or unattended, ‘inaugural ball’ while his public stage of racism and religious intolerance faces not a whimper in international courts.

So, why do Americans, and others, want to engage in the pretense that their vote matters when the courts of our ‘democratic nations’ are in violation of international laws, supposedly set up to protect us from this very abuse of power, since 1948?

It is all about partisans protecting decades of sexist racism, despite the lessons to 1945.

It is all about ‘America’ promoting themselves, through bi-annual partisan propaganda (called electoral ads by the, sigh, organizations of ‘journalism’ which stay silent to their role in this), to be the ‘policing state of our troubled world!’

America cannot get the basic rules of law right, and protected, inside their own nation.

The same applies to Canada. Here, it is even worse because the citizenry allows themselves to believe that there is anything remotely legal about being told to bow down to a specific race (the English Tudors) and accept that the first in their bloodline is omnipotent, an ‘appointee of (a) god!’

Queen or King or Four-Year Dictator, elected or otherwise? Other nations stay silent to the fact that this forced submission to the narrow beliefs of the English heretic inside Canada mimics the religions of the pharaohs of old. Worse, this ‘freedom of religion’, which became illegal when the ‘ruling class’ would force this onto any other person after 1948, matches the insistence of Hitler inside ‘his’ courts.

Canadian courts mimic the Nazi rule that Hitler’s race was superior, and should be bowed down to by the rest of the world. Queen Elizabeth and her bowels’ offspring are the epitome of morality and ‘leadership’ and must be bowed to? Not under any credible international law which came out of Hitler’s era. Nor even the moral doctrines of ‘christ!’ which I was subjected to as a child.

As a few of the troubled citizens of America say in that BBC video, what to do about a corrupted system, protected by a vote which allows only the advance of the feverishly patriotic American partisan and the Queen’s-buttock-kissing plethora of Canadian partisans?

Sadly, the answer is in the law itself.

It will take courage to finally stand up for real democracy. This, ironically, requires the courage not had by many in 1929. However, surely the lessons to 1945 have gained us a burden of awareness which we need to awaken to?

Protecting and gaining real democracy starts by NOT voting in a system which has been so blatantly abused for decades that it is now completely corrupt.

This process of elected officials appointing partisan friends as ‘judges’ is in complete mimicry of the strategy adopted by Hitler! Why would ANY responsible citizen of democracy inside ANY nation claiming to be ‘democratic’ engage in a voting process which the partisans then use to make the vote irrelevant?

What are the solutions if our vote has been made irrelevant? Is it, as some elitists inside America returned to suggesting immediately after Trump’s 2016 ‘win’, ‘Secession!’? ( )

And, if one rich black guy, Kanye West, eagerly appears in ‘the oval office’ on October 11, 2018, expressing his great admiration for Trump’s intent to ‘Make America Great Again!’ (MAGA), can there really be a problem with the hero worship that even Jews of Germany initially were eager to enter into?

As many journalists noted, Mr. West’s meeting with Trump was full of as erratic commentary, as Trump is famous for. What concerned me most, however, was West’s reference to his ‘fact’ that his politically correct alignment with Trump led him to becoming ‘a billionaire’, simply because he had ‘put on this hat’ (MAGA). Watch the 4:05 minute long video at . West makes his ‘billionaire’ allegations about 56 seconds into the video.

Twenty days later, Mr. West has tweeted that he is walking away from politics because he realizes that he has ‘been used’.

What is disturbing is the recurring theme from prominent people of race that ‘whites’ just do not get it. In a Chicago Tribune opinion commentary on October 31 ( ), opinion columnist Dahleen Glanton, a black female, astutely notes that West does carry some credibility when the long-term history of racism in that nation is considered.

I will direct you, later, to a video where black comedian Dave Chappelle rightly observes that Trump’s antics are no different than what America’s people of race have faced after every election. Democrats have not protected nor advanced the rights of coloured people of America. Glanton suggests that Kanye West has some credibility because he has spoken with side-winder language which speaks to the lack of understanding of ‘whites’ about what people of race go through.

However, when do women and people of race, the poor and every other oppressed citizen in our ‘democracies’ start to get it? When the term ‘equality’ is not protected for all, what is it that enables the violation of even American, and Canadian, and international law which compelled that this principle of equality be protected FOR ALL after 1948?

When the rights of only one are removed, history shows, the rights of the rest of us are already removed. Matters not what colour or religion or social status we may be. West and Glanton and Chappelle must stop pointing at their faces and start pointing out that it was the invisible thing of 1930 (membership in the right partisan group) which began the march to power which protected racism, religious intolerance and the enslavement of those who were not aligned with the partisan in power.

When do ‘the voters’ start to ‘get it’ that, when they walk into a polling booth and pause over whether, this time, they should vote for this partisan or that one or, as Michael Moore, that ‘movie maker’ suggested in the 2004 election, ‘vote strategically’ so that the worst of the worst does not get power via a ‘split vote’, they have already failed real democracy?

When does the truly responsible citizen ‘get it’ that it matters not one bit if it is a Republican or a Democrat or a Liberal or a Conservative who is voted into a position of power? That did not matter by 1930 in Europe because? Because Hitler first gained power via the vote and then made the law his by putting his own into German courts.

When do our ‘journalists’ awaken to the fact that Brett Kavanaugh, and all of the partisans in our courts, become the ILLEGAL factor which strips away the term ‘equality’ in all sectors of our societies and, worse, makes exposure of THE TRUTH subject to the games of partisan, positioned ‘lawyers’ in every legal office in our nations?

NO!, ‘people of journalism’, start to ‘get it’ yourselves so that YOU start to awaken the voting public to the criminalized irrelevance of ‘the vote’ in this modern world!

Is it just about racism, as many columnists will insist? Is it just about ‘journalists’ now being openly derided and attacked by Trump? When do our ‘journalists’ start to do some navel gazing to expose their own role in all of this dangerous decay of our democratic institutions, internationally?

At the age of fifteen, I watched the 1967 race riots in Detroit on an Aunt’s television in an Ontario farmhouse. That more comfortable home than my family’s was short miles away from a site supposedly venerated by Canadians. Uncle Tom’s Cabin, just on the outskirts of the community of Dresden, Ontario, is now a federally-funded ‘heritage site’.

It is assigned special designation because it is the historic home of the man whose story was used in Harriet Beecher Stowe’s infamous book Uncle Tom’s Cabin. That book supposedly spawned the American Civil War to abolish slavery.

By 1966, I knew that racism was incipient in that town of Dresden. After all, in that year, my family had attended a United Church of Canada building in that community. We had moved to that small church after my wannabe-a-minister father stood up to the Oakdale, Ontario franchise of the same ‘christian’ religious order.

He had been asked by members of that congregation to challenge the ethics of the Oakdale church’s minister, a Charles Graham. Graham was caught associating in bars with another Chatham, Ontario minister, Rev. Russell Horsburgh.

Horsburgh was eventually convicted of child molestation but later ‘acquitted’. My family abandoned the tiny Oakdale church for the Dresden one because the very people who had asked my father to challenge Mr. Graham, many who were relatives of us, turned on my father. As is the history of the Roman Catholic church, it was years before Horsburgh was indicted for using booze to seduce young men. IF one searches out the name, ‘the religious’ try to exonerate while ‘gay commentators’ simply post observations that the man purposely targeted the youngest males he could find in any bar.

Mr. Graham, as these allegations came to fruition in later years, simply fled to the United Church version of ‘another diocese’. Ironic, therefore, that I was introduced by my Uncle Don, when he was a policing official in Marathon, Ontario, to Mr. Graham. I was now a married man, with a child of my own.

Graham’s face turned ashen when my uncle pointed out that I was ‘Evan’s son!’ It was not until years later that I discovered that, in that very era, the ‘Reeve’ of that town of Marathon was exposed, posthumously, as using booze to seduce and rape underage boys in remote cabins, while policing officials stayed silent. I also was introduced to ‘that Reeve’ inside the walls of the United Church of Canada in Marathon, Ontario, when Mr. Graham was ‘the minsiter’.

The sin of sex. The sin of racism?

In 1966, our family was engaged in discussions about why we then left that Dresden, Ontario church. Asked by that congregation to oversee their Sunday school, my father witnessed a young black girl coming to that church one Sunday morning. I can still see the young lady, dressed in her finery as the rest of us were. The look on her face, as she was turned away from the church’s doors, remains with me.

My father was furious because the men turning her away said that ‘‘They’ have their own Baptist church!’ in town.

We left that building in that moment.

I was 14 when I witnessed that. I heard my parents tell myself and my four brothers that racism was an intolerable thing which they would not allow.

So, in 1967, here I was in the farming home of an uncle-by-marriage, whom we knew had attended high school in that town of Dresden as a child. I was 15. Here I was, inside a family where one Aunt had already married a black man from British Guyana. We had welcomed them into our meagre farm home.

Here I was, sitting at a bountiful farm-kitchen table in Canada after watching the images of rioting and burning in America’s Detroit. Here I listened to my uncle, Bob Shaw, tell that small circle of the families of two sisters that “If god had intended there to be blacks, he would have made people spotted!”

At the age of 15, I was shocked to hear such words inside ‘my family circle’. My parents and aunt were swift and loud in their denunciation of this man but I never forgot that this incipient racism existed in my parent’s generation. In places I did not think it would.

Worse, in 1968, my mother’s youngest sister was to marry a Japanese-Canadian. My parents were very supportive of my aunt and this gentle, young man. My father eventually gave the toast to the bride at the event. However, short weeks before it was to occur, my uncle, a Don McGuire, my supposed namesake, appeared at our small farmhouse with his wife, Thelma.

Aunt Thelma had attended the Dresden, Ontario high school. It was rumoured that she carried the same racist attitudes as uncle Bob. Her racism, and my Uncle Don’s, was revealed in a Sunday luncheon meeting around our family dining table.

Asked that ‘the children leave’, my parents insisted that we ‘children’ remain. This was because we were ‘becoming adults and needed to start to understand these things’.

Uncle Don was a policing officer in the Ontario Provincial Police. Out of uniform, he and his spouse loudly petitioned my parents to stop this marriage between my aunt and this ‘Japanese-Canadian man!’ One interracial marriage in ‘our family’ was already one too many, they said.

My parents bristled. They indignantly said that they would not do as being asked. Pending-Uncle John and Aunt Elaine were obviously in love. My parents would only wish them well and help them along life’s journey when they could.

I still recall my Aunt Thelma, in her hour of defeat, declaring that she guessed that she should at least celebrate that pending Uncle John was ‘at least christian’.

The mask of religion.

So, do not tell me, person of race, that I do NOT understand what racism is. I try to stand against it where I can, as a ‘whitey’ of society. I do so when my own rights, as an independent person, deliberately made poor through partisan manipulation of our ‘justice systems’, remain stripped away and I remain under personal threat from positioned partisans.

I learned from the human history that there are times in our own lives when we must be brave enough to stand up for the truth. That is why I loudly applaud Ms. Ford and her truthful friends while incompetent ‘journalism’ does not.

Indeed, this is my lecture to journalists to tell them, collectively, that it is time for your ‘profession’ to start to recognize that, as I came to learn by my own experiences starting in 2002, the failure of our democracies is NOT, primarily, in the illegal states of our voting processes. It is in the state of bribery which exists inside our institutions of ‘justice’.

It is the criminal registration of allegiances, by partisan lawyers, which then get us sexist and racist judges who are appointed to oversee courts and policing institutions.

Sexism. Racism. Religious intolerance. IF we were honest to the truths around us, we would be challenging the corruption of the institutions of justice.

A final personal tale for you if you do not understand how the insidious placement of racists and sexists inside our policing institutions results in the denial of justice for women and people of race in all of our nations. And, it is time for all of us to understand that, as in 1930, when the rights of one disappears, the rights of all others has already disappeared.

I now live in a trailer where my mother’s sisters, including the Aunt Doris who stood up against her husband ,Uncle Bob, arrived for the first and last gathering of a small reunion of ‘sisters only’. It was held at the request of my Aunt Elaine, that youngest aunt on my mother’s side. She exposed to the other three that she had asked my mother and father to allow their humble home in Saskatchewan to be the site to host what she wanted to discuss.

She had been molested by three of her older, teen-aged brothers from the time she was a child. The molestation would happen when her parents would leave the boys in charge of baby-sitting the almost-decade-younger children. One of these brothers was that eventual policing uncle, Don.

The only sister to acknowledge my aunt’s pain was my mother. The other three, as is atypical in these situations, insisted that they had never experienced sexual assault from ‘the three boys’. They ignored that they were older than these ‘boys’. Because it had not happened to them, it could not have happened to my youngest aunt.

It was after that meeting that my parents stopped their previously regular travels to Ontario to visit family. My aunt had simply asked that her brothers apologize for what this had done to her, emotionally. My mother died in 2016 and told me that her sister had never gained an apology.

What is bothersome to me is that, upon learning this, I deliberately stopped visiting my policing uncle in southern Ontario. What is astounding to me is that the man continued to show up in my Nipigon, Ontario home after his promotions in the Ontario policing force and a retirement ‘with honours’. On one occasion he was proud to tell my spouse and I that he had been asked by the then Commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police to undertake a ‘special investigation, from retirement’.

Julian Fantino, the Commissioner at that time, eventually became an elected official in the Conservative federal government. Fantino was elected after gaining a reputation of being hard-nosed against ‘people of race’ in the city of Toronto and in the provincial policing force.



Religious intolerance.

‘Citizens of Democracy!’ Stop attacking each other and stand up for the rights of all!

‘Standing Up!’ starts by NOT legitimizing an already corrupted ‘voting’ process by participating in it.

It starts by taking the public record and using it to get the sexist and the racists and the religiously intolerant out of OUR COURTS.

The public record shows that this denial of the term equality, across the board, is becoming an increasingly dangerous situation. It might be exposed more vigorously in the current American situation. The as deep issues inside other nations are then ignored for ‘the Trump game’. This leads to an international morass of injustice which prevails everywhere, especially in nations which claim that their farcical voting processes are ‘legitimate democracy’.

And that is where ‘journalists’ fail us.

November 1, 2018. Vox Media reports on Donald Trumps use of Cable TV to make another uninterrupted address ( ). Vox reports “… CNN aired Trump rambling about immigrants for 27 minutes … In an echo of 2016, the president got to repeat falsehoods uninterrupted. …

During his rambling presentation, and in questions with reporters, Trump made many factually incorrect claims about immigrants, immigration policy and crime — including claims that asylum seekers never show up in court (two-thirds do), that Barack Obama had a harsher family separation policy than him (Trump’s was much harsher) and that he’s getting billions for his wall (he’s gotten none).

He announced no new policy changes, despite a policy announcement being the premise that got cable networks to carry the speech live. But he did offer up claims ranging from ridiculous to racist:

* As Trump prepares to send more troops to the border, he said that asylum seekers who throw rocks should know “we will consider that a firearm. Because there’s not much difference.”
* He insinuated that there’s “a lot of money” moving around in the immigrant caravan, a reference to conspiracy theories about George Soros’s secret involvement.
* He said American women should fear men coming across the border, a near-verbatim use of the racist trope that men of color are a sexual threat to white women.
* He claimed there are immigrants who come to America with “big medical problems before they get here.”
* In response to a question about a Georgia governor’s race, he volunteered that Stacey Abrams, a Yale-educated black woman with years in public service, is not qualified to serve. …”

So, the public allegations are, again, that Trump is ‘racist’. His targeting of muslims is, apparently, no longer of concern.

What our journalists sadly fail to understand and expose is that our nations are returning to 1929 Germany. We allow racists, sexists and the religiously intolerant to tell us that international law is irrelevant because the laws of ‘our nations!’ overrule international law.

This is the very same thing which Hitler said. Why do ‘journalists’ miss this important issue while the focus turns to what ‘responsible voting’ is?

Sadly, the same thing ‘journalism’ allowed in 1930 is allowed in 2018, why? Because, to ‘understand the law’, the journalist does not read international law. They run to ‘the experts’.

Oh, visit my bio at this page. There, I briefly discuss my experience in Canadian courts. In watching the record from American courts, it is too clear that they are also full of appointed friends of partisans.

Better still, start asking those ‘law professors’ in our universities what their partisan affiliations are. Better still, given the lessons to 1945, how many of those ‘professors’ are teaching those eventual partisan lawyers that partisan alignment is the ‘responsible’, ‘patriotic’ thing to do, especially if a ‘lawyer’ wants to get into the Supreme Court!

The sin in journalism about this reliance on ‘experts’ in power mimics the ‘journalism’ of 1929: very few journalists, in fact I have found NONE, despite the lessons to 1945, question the legality of courts filled with partisans. There is no reference made, ever, in these public debates about how national ‘laws’ are allowed to override legal duties set down in international law.

There is no discussion on what having partisans in judicial positions does to the credibility of any electoral system.

There are too many examples in my life which point to how the electoral system has been made incredibly untrustworthy, while also being in violation of international law. Ironically, in 2008, I invited journalists in Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada to attend my application to become an independent candidate in the Canadian federal election of that year. Not one journalist showed up to witness how the fact that I had to gain the signature of a former donor to the Liberal partisan faction in Canada became criminal obstruction of my own rights to make voice.

Rules, about how our voting institutions MUST operate independent of partisan oversight, set down in international law, are completely ignored.

So, will international, not just American, ‘journalists’ awaken in the next hours to challenge the partisan history of their institutions of democratic oversight and how this corrupts America’s own voting process?

Why has the world forgotten that Republican George Bush, Jr. became President in the November 2000 election on the basis of a Florida State judicial ruling? Voting irregularities in Florida became responsible for defining whether the Republican or the Democrat would be made America’s ‘President’.

Instead of the Florida citizens getting a chance to vote again, the issue went before a Florida panel of ‘judges’. Known to be full of Republican friends appointed by George’s brother Jeb, then Governor of Florida, the court ruled in whose favour? George, Jr.

The Democrats did not dare protest this decision by entrenched Republicans in favour of a Republican because? They had played the same game of appointing their own to American courts. When the old criminal calls the newest criminal criminal for doing what the first criminal did, they can both get indicted.

This is how corruption is protected inside our courts, internationally.

Instead of this situation being recognized and challenged by ‘journalists’, the debate becomes, repetitively, one about the citizens’ failure to vote in a rampantly criminalized system which allows sexist, racist, religiously intolerant ‘judges’ to rule on what will or will not be allowed in the open, racist rhetoric of 2018. This happens inside all nations claiming to be ‘democratic’, not just America.

Why is the media so culpable in this? I suggest that you visit a speech given by comedian Hasan Minhaj at the 2017 White House Correspondents Dinner ( ). It is almost painful to watch Minhaj’s swipes at main media America but what should be more discomforting is what happens at the end of that 25-some-minutes speech.

In an era where Trump attacks journalists, it is not hilarious to see Minhaj become serious and demand that all journalists have the courage to stand up and protect freedom of speech, apparently ‘America’s First Amendment!’ in its constitution.

‘Journalists’. Silent to the lessons to 1945 which led to international promises, ‘laws’, in 1948.

‘Freedom of speech’, IF you read the UN Declaration of Human Rights, does not allow anyone to deny rights, or to give speeches saying that they will take away rights, based on how a person looks or what synagogue, church, mosque or temple they may choose to enter. Or not enter.

What is incredibly unbelievable to me is that ‘journalists’ carry on with a blindness to this base fact, that any nation’s ‘law’ cannot override rights imbued under international law. The excuse of ‘freed speech’ allows open marches by blatant white supremacists inside America. International law is clear that it does not allow what even ‘journalists’ know is wrong: the public, or private, suggestion that any other person is unworthy or unequal to another, even when it comes to ‘social status’.

I suggest that you also take the time to watch a video which is over a half hour long. CNN’s Christian Amanpour interviewed quasi-news comedian Jon Stewart along with comedian Dave Chappelle: .

The sin of journalists is revealed in the sin of Chappelle. Chappelle, as host of Saturday Night Live on the night after Trump’s election victory in 2016, ‘eloquently’, to some, said that Trump must be ‘given a chance’. In the interview with Amanpour, about 7 minutes in, Chappelle felt that the only alternative to ‘giving Trump a chance’ in 2016 was to run riotously through the streets?

Give the blatantly racist, the sexist, the religiously intolerant ‘a chance’? What lessons have we learned? Is there an insidious, cynical distrust of our justice systems? As supposed protectorates of human rights and the term ‘equality’ inside all ‘democratic’ nations, why is there silence to what the function of our courts is compelled to be? Why do those, who know that they are being oppressed, not educate themselves to the law, instead of allowing it to be read at them?

I suggest that you, the reader and the ‘journalist’, visit web sites which talk about the German Justice Lothar Kreyssig. This astounding man was in German courts before the WWII hostilities broke out. Kreyssig, the record is said to be, was the singular judge inside Germany who refused to recognize Hitler as ‘the fount of the law’, as the Nazis, the partisans of the day, wanted. ( )

Kreyssig was the singular judge who filed criminal code charges against the leader of the Nazis who was in charge of engaging in euthanasia inside Germany’s mental institutions and other places which Kreyssig had been assigned a ward for.

This is why Kanye West was totally inappropriate in his insistence that we stop criticizing Trump. West, a black man, insists that ‘the vote’ is what defines moral behaviour and that this makes Trump above reproach? Good god, Mr. West! In the spirit of words which you used in that ‘so respectable!’ oval office, stay the blankity-blank away from politics and politicians! And our courts! Until you understand human history!

Kreyssig was a man who refused to join the Nazi partisan group or to even bow to Hitler’s statue. Inside today’s ‘democratic’ nations, the record is too public that our ‘legal professionals’ are eager to register their loyalties to ‘one partisan or the other’. So, when West gains the view that his allegiance with Trump gained him ‘a billion’, why should we despair?

Because we all have that lesson of Oskar Schindler (Schindler’s List) and what happened when ‘business men (and women)’ saw the gain of money as their only legal responsibility. 1939? 2018? The lessons of our human history place a deeper burden on us.

By 2003, in Canadian courts, I was warning that this positioning of partisans in our courts violated Canadian criminal code law. The Canadian Criminal Code forbids the abuse of power to gain even a hint of an exercise of influence to the benefit of the powers of any partisan, as an elected official or as a person who gains in status or position because of registered, or even hidden, loyalties. The partisan, who has the power to promote or deny, is NOT allowed to promote partisan friends.

By 2004, I had finally read international law and knew that international law compels impartial courts in all ways.

Yes, under The Law page I will eventually post (in the next week?) the excerpts of international and Canadian laws which I then began to reference in 2003 and in 2004 in stern warning to positioned partisans of Canada. Indeed, by November 2004, I was warning Canada’s judicial officials that they should carefully consider the precedence of the Nuremberg trials to 1946. As I filed these warnings, I sent the ‘justices’ this other version of Kreyssig’s brave history: .

Still, in every court application which I have made, I can identify partisan affiliations and links to the ‘judges’ who began to assess my civil complaints against partisans in Ontario after 2002. In fact, as I eventually identified to Canada’s courts and elected officials, as legal warnings, the record shows that 99% of Canadian ‘lawyers’ belonged to or donated to a partisan group which might have some hope of gaining political power.

In some 15 years of fighting for impartial justice for myself, I only encountered one Canadian ‘legal professional’ who claimed to be independent from partisan affiliations of any kind.

What is ironic, in my personal experience, is that a political friend out of Manitoba, a former independent candidate in the Canadian federal elections of 2006 and 2008, which we both tried to participate in as independent candidates, sent me an email of April 10, 2010. Eduard Hiebert’s email arrived as I began to prepare for what would become my final appearance, my final stern warning to Canada’s corrupted ‘judiciary’.

Eduard and I had changed from discussing electoral processes, and how they should be reformed, into discussing what the partisan manipulation of our courts did to even credible voting systems. Eduard wrote to me on that April day, about my discussions with him: “… Thanks to your work picking the wheat from the chaff, you have opened my awareness to how politicized our judiciary is. I also keep trying to show you that our media is also extremely politicized and selective, not only in what (they) report on but how.

My point is here is a good example of where both Canada and Spain have a highly (politicised) judiciary system, however OUR media can only see this with other countries like Spain. This vision by OUR media turns “willfully blind” regarding Canada, US, Israel….”.

Eduard then connected me to a story carried by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation’s (CBC) radio program, As It Happens. That link, is no longer available in 2018 but the show’s summary was in Eduard’s email: “… JUDGE GARZON CHARGED Duration: 00:06:06 He’s known for targeting international figures for their roles in alleged human rights abuses. Taking advantage of universal jurisdiction, Spanish Judge Baltasar Garzon has called for the arrest of Osama bin Laden, gone after American officials for alleged torture at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, and was responsible for Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet’s arrest in London in 1998. … But now, his name is being connected with a different kind of abuse.
… This week, Judge Garzon was ordered to stand trial on charges of knowingly overreaching his power. … Reed Brody is the spokesperson and counsel for the European division of Human Rights Watch. We reached him in Brussels. …”.

I listened to the radio interview. I was struck by Brody’s insistence that this was a rare man in the international judiciary who insisted that members of the legal profession should not have partisan affiliations of any kind, especially of paid membership with or donations to, partisans who might be the persons who would or could make them ‘judges’. Brody pointed out that the very ‘judges’ in Spain who were now indicting Garzon were once associated with the Spanish version of the Nazi party, a party which had overseen the mass murder of Spanish citizens during that civil war which Hitler’s air force used to practice their carpet bombing.

Garzon had also worked in international courts.

In harsh contrast to Garzon’s public position on the requirement for complete independence in the ‘legal profession’, I also provided Canada’s courts, by 2004, reference to a Statistics Canada study undertaken in the 1990’s. That study showed that 94% of Canadian citizens do not belong to nor donate to any partisan group, including the fringe ones, like ‘those Commies!’

94% of Canadians prefer to be seen as ‘independent thinkers’ freed of partisan connections. In Canadian institutions of justice, compelled by international law to be able to prove that independent thought is being used to lead to credible justice, 99% of the ‘legal profession’ are registered to an allegiance with the narrowed thoughts of select partisans.

Comedian Dave Chappelle is no different than the balance of our citizenry. He follows ‘the mainstream media’ and believes that he is, hence, informed. He allows the ‘experts’ to persuade him that, if he does not vote, his only option is to protest in the streets. He fails to read and understand the most important laws on our planet. And that becomes the general sin of our populace.

Jon Stewart, unfortunately, a person called ‘the oracle’ in Ms. Amanpour’s interview, illustrates the height of journalistic stupidity when, 8:54 into the interview, he says that he thought that ‘Trump had disqualified himself’ with his racist and sexist statements back in 2015.

What? What sand pile do journalists have their heads buried in? Did Hitler disqualify himself? What really failed the people of Europe by 1933? Their bland trust in ‘the vote’ or courts which were filled with racist and religiously intolerant friends of the ruling partisan of the day?

By the date of my criminal trial for my arrest, by positioned partisans of Canada, in Nipigon, Ontario in September 2004, I was referencing Canadian and international law. I had been forced to read these laws to defend my own rights.

By May 20, 2010, I made my last appearance inside a Canadian ‘judicial’ hearing room. My opponent was a good puppet of the Liberal partisan government of the day. Baba Forson was, just conveniently, a large, woman ‘of race’. I had warned her predecessor, a ‘government lawyer’ with the last name Ratcliffe, that I would be asking him, bluntly, for his partisan allegiances and, if he carried any, I would be asking for police in that courtroom to arrest him for obstruction of justice and the exercise of influence in my case.

Ratcliffe apparently bailed out. Forson became the bumbling, substitute lawyer, the person of ‘race’ and the right sex to show that the Liberal faction of Ontario is not racist nor biassed in any way in how they apply the law. What was hidden was that I knew that these lawyers would take an oath of allegiance to that Queen of England just so that they could gain the comfort of ‘government lawyer!’

I had prepared a written statement for this ‘hearing’. I started with these words. I purposely capitalized the words in sections so that I would know where I wanted to add emphasis in my presentation to the court: “… Before these proceedings begin, I have this question for the court: DOES THIS COURT RECOGNIZE THE CONDITION OF LAW FOR THE CITIZEN’S RIGHT TO A COURT WHICH IS COMPLETELY IMPARTIAL?…”.

I asked the presiding ‘judge’, directly, if he had any partisan history in his career as a ‘legal professional’. He refused to answer the question. I did not know the judge’s name at the time. I knew that my legal right to impartiality made the judge’s name less relevant than any judge’s partisan history.

Further into my presentation, I read this about Spain’s Judge Garzon: “… A Judge Garzon in Spain is facing Criminal indictments. These indictments were started by the old political faction of Nazi dictator Franco. This action was started by the old political faction because Garzon dared to start an investigation into the murders of political opponents of Franco’s old faction.

Before succumbing to public pressure to end the Franco regime, the old politicians had passed a law declaring that the country’s political murders could not be prosecuted. Garzon had declared that this was illegal and started investigations into the disappeared.

Garzon is also a very rare international judge who insisted that judges must be freed from partisan allegiances.

So, is it not ironic that it is old judges, who were old members of Franco’s regime, now sit on the review board for a matter brought forward by Franco’s old political party?

Is it not ironic that international media are appalled ON MAY 18 that Spain’s institutions of justice, IT’S COURTS, are full of judges appointed from only two political factions in Spain?

What is the relevance of this tale from a distant land?

For the legal professional and the citizen in this room, the relevance is this: SPAIN WAS NOT A COUNTRY SITTING AT THE UNITED NATIONS in 1948. Canada was. CANADA SIGNED AN INTERNATIONAL LAW PROMISING COURTS WHICH WOULD BE COMPLETELY IMPARTIAL. …”.

What was I facing in that court room on May 20, 2018? The Liberal government of Ontario was preparing to strip more of my property rights away, even as I battled to gain courts freed of partisan oversight. After all, I had warned Conservative partisans in November 2002 that I intended to sue them for their removal of my constitutional rights and my subsequent loss of honest business, ironically, involving a ‘deal into America’.

So, I asked that ‘presiding judge’ if he carried any partisan linkages in his career as a lawyer becoming a ‘judge’. He refused to answer.

By June 7, 2010, I knew his name. “J. F. McCartney”. Within minutes I had found his name on Liberal party donation records.

This discovery simply mimicked what had become eight long years of records made in my own civil case, as an independent-minded, hard-working citizen. I had faced Conservative-linked judges, even one named Helen Pierce on June 20, 2003. She appeared in a court matter where I named what was then Ontario’s highest ranking politicized ‘lawyer’, Ontario’s Provincial Premier, Ernie Eves. Eves’ name was on the front pages of court-submitted documents which Pierce insisted she had read.

In December 2004, my court submissions to Canada’s Supreme Court, a court which is filled with ONLY Liberal and Conservative appointees, was rejected by a lawyer who was defined as a ‘court clerk’ in that ‘supreme court’. I researched the name of that ‘law clerk’. He was listed as a Liberal donor. By that time I had added the name of Canada’s highest elected lawyer, then Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin, to my court documents.

In December 2005, I re-filed my legal action, having little hope for its advance because I now had too many records of the depth of corruption inside Canadian courts. I knew that the same disaster of partisan influence existed in America (the Florida vote fiasco of 2000 being the first indicator). On the same day when I filed my court application, I then walked into a federal Elections Canada office in Thunder Bay. I eventually warned the presiding elections official that my application to become an independent candidate in that month was required to be accepted by him under the circumstances of international law.

That warning was rejected. I researched the name of the Elections official giving me this ‘judgement’. He was a donor to the Liberal faction.

At Eduard Hiebert’s urging, in the Canadian federal election of 2008, I made another formal application. I invited Canadian media in Thunder Bay to attend with me at the office of Elections Canada. I wanted witnesses to listen to my warning to that same Elections Canada official as to why, if he disallowed my name on a federal ballot as an independent, his partisan affiliation made him a criminal. He was a man who was exercising influence and obstructing my rights to freely make voice before the people, a condition set down in international law.

Not one journalist appeared at the hour of this appointment.

Why? Because the ‘journalist’ will run their microphones to the mouths of those who are complicit in this violation of international law and then blame citizens for ‘not exercising their vote’ in a system which most citizens no longer trust. However, citizens must also recognize that it is they who buy into the propaganda that, if they do not vote, they are incompetent citizens in ‘democracy’.

No, sadly, the schools of ‘journalism’ are incompetent citizens of ‘democracy’.

BUT, the citizen must start to take some responsibility here.

We will listen to the lawyer who tells us that we must know the laws which allow us to drive a vehicle, safely, on public freeways.

We will allow ‘the partisan lawyer’, even to the height of the appointed partisan ‘judges’, of the despicable likes of Brett Kavanaugh (and, yes, I will be dedicating part of The Law web page to discussion of the issues of unbelievable incompetence in journalism when it comes to that case in America), to tell us what laws will drive the democratic engines of our nation?

What does it take to awaken our nations to what happens to the credibility of any voting process when partisan judges rule on issues related to those processes? The signs are too easy to find which the journalists seem blind to.

How many journalists will say that they can pass a test about what laws will enable them to drive a car, not a necessary thing to live in a democracy? How many journalists can actually say that they have sat down and read the 1948 United Nations Declaration of Human Rights?

Some ‘legal experts’ will claim that this ‘declaration’ is ‘non-binding’ on its signatories. No matter what the partisan lawyer will twist ‘the law’ to be, ANY document presented to 48 countries as a signed commitment to their citizens in 1948, and renewed with vigour in even more nations in 1998, becomes like any other publicly presented document ‘of legal intent’: it is a contract with citizens which becomes binding as a publicly made and committed-to promise.

How many ‘journalists’ can point citizens to the section of that international LAW which declares that all courts must be COMPLETELY impartial, as must be any voting system?

As the American ‘mid-term’ elections draw nigh in 2016, NBC News carried a report on an elections clerk closing a voting centre in downtown Dodge, Kansas. One must scroll down through a long NBC news page before getting to that November 1, 2018 story at:

Eventually, the November 2018 story starts with this note: “… U.S. District Judge Daniel Crabtree denied the motion by the American Civil Liberties Union seeking a temporary court order that would have forced Ford County Clerk Deborah Cox to reopen a voting location at the old Civic Center location after she moved the city’s only polling place to a site outside city limits and more than a mile from the nearest bus stop. …”.

The story notes that this move of a downtown polling station was challenged by a ‘Democrat’ volunteer with the ‘ACLU’.

No one identifies the partisan history of the ‘judge’ Crabtree who sides with the polling station clerk, who is identified as being Republican.

Ironically, to get to this story, one must read through an NBC ‘Asian America’ report on May 16, 2016. That story is about a voting related incident in New York during the election process of that year. That story’s headline reads “… Second Official Suspended Amid Audit, Investigation Into New York Board of Elections…”. That story notes that one of the suspended officials was a Democrat. The second was a Republican, under investigation ‘without pay’, for purging names off voter lists.

We are not told the partisan allegiances, if any, of the officials overseeing these workers. We are not told why Republicans and Democrats are not forbidden in institutions with oversight of any electoral system where their members stand to gain.

Apparently the 300 plus million citizens of America are all Democrats or Republicans? Therefore, independent citizens cannot be found to supervise American election processes?

Silicone Valley and Kanye West, nor the elitists of Canada and other nations, will not suggest engaging THE LAW to ‘take down’ the criminalizing of our vote. They cannot because such an action would enter courts corrupted by partisan appointments, courts which protect the bi-partisan, not independent thinking. Instead they will suggest ‘secession’. Why? Because the rich are glad to have become rich to the point that they can bribe officials through a ‘legalized donation system!’

Via the ‘secession way!’, the rich hope to gain greater local resources to sponsor those who say that money is the best measure of good and moral conduct because some god, not the rules of hard labour being rewarded, wants the rich to be rewarded.

No, this is not about destroying principled business which allows hard work to be rewarded. It is about the LEGAL duty of our governments to ensure that, as it was for Mr. Schindler by 1940, money is not used to protect the partisan-sponsor’s right to ‘make money!’ while the rights of all others disappear into slavery to the concept that getting rich is all that matters in this world.

The election of racist-sexists must end in 2018, in every nation claiming to be in respect of the principles and promises of 1948 laws. The appointment of sexist-racists to our courts must be recognized for its criminality and then dealt with via the law.

Not via irresponsible talk of secession.

Not by a person going into a balloting booth to ponder which of the lesser worst-among-the-worst one should mark a ballot for.

Not by aligning with the Democrat billionaire who starts a petition to have Trump impeached (  ).

Enough of the rich Democrat or the rich Republican being the one who defines for us what justice should be.

Visit my bio, but come to understand this life lesson that leads me to clarity to what we must all do as worldly citizens of credible justice and real democracy.

In 1982, I was fired as a professional forest scientist. I did not get the significance, in that year, of my appearance before a ‘judicial tribunal’ in the legal fight to get my government job back. After that ‘hearing process’ was over, I learned that the lawyers, partisans all, I later came to realize, came together to declare that I could only get justice in front of a promoted lawyer from each partisan faction.

I later learned the truth. One. A promoted lawyer from the socialist, New Democratic Party (NDP) faction of Canada. Two. A promoted lawyer from the Conservative faction of Ontario, the ‘partisans’ of government who had overseen my firing because I refused to accept their orders to lie about the science before me. Three. A promoted lawyer from the Liberal faction.

I knew the rumours in 1982 were that the NDP sourced their electioneering dollars primarily from unions. I knew that the Liberals and the Conservatives drew their electioneering dollars from dollars which were re-directed from big business. What should have been government tax dollars to ensure that the legal conditions of accessible justice could be met went to partisans on the premise that is was an honourable thing for big business to sponsor the liberal or the conservative view on business and taxes.

It took me years to understand the significance of all three of these ‘judges’ aligning to declare that I should suffer a loss of two weeks of my wages. Why? Because it was their view that I should not have protected the honesty of the science before me in 1981. I should have just shut up and allowed the ruling ‘government of the day!’ to twist the truth into their own agenda.

As Trump and Grassley and Kavanaugh do in America today.

By 1996, I had served in an Ontario government under all three of these factions. I was tired of the oppression of scientific and other truths. I was concerned about the abuses of the rights of Canada’s indigenous people, Canada’s ‘First Nations’.

In 1996, I began to understand that I had allowed myself, because of the comfort of position, to be educated by government lawyers as to what the law compelled. I came to recognize that I became a willing servant to incipient, oppressive racism inside governing offices.

In 1997, I became a small-town elected official, a personal witness to how self-serving elected positions have become.

By 2002, I was into a situation where I began to understand that my silence to the injustices against women and First Nations and others had created the return of our nations to 1929. I became a person forced to read the law on my own so that my own rights would be defended. I came to understand that, because I had allowed partisan lawyers to read what the law would say for others, they were now trying to read my rights to me.

By my arrest of 2004, I knew to what extent the partisan exercise of influence would be used to oppress open criticism of the criminalizing of Canadian, and other, courts. I came to understand that all of the powerful partisan organizations did not care about principled democracy. They were more concerned about being able to assign, what should have been public tax money to benefit all citizens, into the coffers of their friends,

In 2006, I began to take my electoral experiences of 1997 and the laws which I had read by 2004 to challenge the corruption of the Canadian electoral system.

By 2007, I had uncovered the donations from Canadian policing officials into the coffers of only the Conservative or the Liberal friends of big business because, for most police, ‘justice’ is about nations filled with more of them and more of them getting bigger and better guns.

The principle that the law was to remove the abuse of the gun had disappeared into the bribed propaganda spit from the mouths of the ‘elected!’ partisan.

In 2008, I petitioned the ‘journalists’ to begin a journey of exposure to how all of this has corrupted our electoral processes. I offered ‘journalists’ discussion about the fact that all of this insidious corruption is protected inside corrupted courts.

From the ‘journalists’? Silence.

In 2016, I delivered a brochure into the mail boxes of every residence in Nipigon, Ontario. I warned that Conservative ‘Reeve’, Richard Harvey, was on the cusp of doing to me the very thing which had happened to anyone in Europe after 1929. I dared to demand impartial justice and a credible voting system.

Because I dared to dissent, I was about to lose my house in Nipigon. That house housed all of my documents related to my 45 years of scientific and legal work.

I warned the residents of Nipigon that, if they participated in Mr. Harvey’s public intent to strip my property and documents away before I had full hearing before impartial courts, they were no better than the 1930 citizens of Europe. The lessons of history. Citizens who were glad to see dissenters and Anne Frank and her family disappear from their properties so that the complicit citizen would gain.

In the subsequent, ILLEGAL, dispersal of my property by corrupted courts in Ontario, an employee of Nipigon, under Conservative Harvey’s direct supervision, became the singular ‘bidder’ on my property. Hard copies of my legal documents disappeared. Criminal obstruction of justice and destruction of evidence in my still unfinished battle? Try to sell that to policing officials who gave to Harvey’s Conservatives, indeed to that Conservative lawyer, Ernie Eves, for years.

So, now I am in Wolseley, Saskatchewan, in a town ruled over by donors to the Saskatchewan Party. I am in a province with courts full of the appointed who are selected from the Saskatchewan Party’s lists of complicit partisan lawyers. I prepare for a year end battle as Americans prepare to engage in an election that is designed to protect the corruption which mimics 1929 Europe.

What is the lesson?

International law compels justice for all of us. Regardless of sex. Regardless of race. Regardless of religion. Regardless of geography. Regardless of so many things but especially of one thing.

Regardless of social status.

Something we might all want to think about.

International law compelled us to stop being ignorant to the rights of others.

Something Americans might especially want to consider as some of them gain even more fear about the approach of another caravan of humans, this time from South of America, not across the vast waters separating white rats fleeing their slums of Europe after Columbus found the Americas, only on behalf of ‘the white rats of humanity’, apparently.

Something we need to all think about if we are indeed the moral creatures we claim to be, who believe in ‘majority rights’.

It is hard to find hard numbers identifying how many ‘poor’ are in the world. I gave up looking for an easy statistic from the economically conflicted ‘World Bank’. Its organization falls into more bravado about how ‘extreme poverty’ has been reduced in the world.

My snide and cynical view about an organization ruled by world bankers is that their measure becomes insignificant to the person who is really concerned about those who are already starving to death, or dying violent deaths in the battle for survival, which we hope never comes to our doors.

Pretty naive beings we are when the world is full of over 7 Billion people. And even business minded CNN reports that “… 71% of the world’s population lives on less than $10 a day …”. ( )

“Lives”, or exists?

So, if democracy is truly about engaging every one, via a credible voting process, in public dialogue on issues of science (about what we are collectively doing to this planet) and how we respectfully resolve the issues of survival for more than just the privileged among us, do you, as an ‘moral American citizen of democratic conscience’, on November 6, 2018 vote for Donald Trump’s faction? Do you allow human fear to allow the role of Nazis to return in 2018? Do you hope for violent blood shed to forcefully stop those who just want dialogue, and sometimes even justice, in regards to their situations also?

Do you vote for ‘the other faction’ whose history has been a string of judicial appointments which protect the Democrat from accountability for even the simplest breach of international law, historic breaches of extreme stupidity which are no longer being discussed in America, why? Barack Obama, supposedly a ‘constitutional lawyer’ by training, promised to shut down Guantanamo Bay where a 15-years-old Canadian boy, Omar Khadr, was incarcerated and tortured. It remained open until???

This breach of international lessons and the subsequent international laws happened despite the spectre of the Nazi boy soldiers in our world history. After ‘the victory’ of 1945, blue-eyed boys carrying guns were admonished and sent home as their commanders committed suicide or were hung. The pale-faced boys were not beaten and tortured. They were sent home, warned to stop repeating inhumane history.

Therefore, should Americans, on the basis of what the Democrats have done, in mirror of what the empowered Republicans do now, rule by fear, rush to join that Billionaire Democrat’s version of ‘justice’?

CNBC. October 28, 2018. Headline. “… Trump Slams Democratic Donor Tom Steyer After He Was Target In Bomb Plot …”. ‘Journalist’ Lora Kolodny reports: “… Trump lashes out at Tom Steyer days after billionaire Democrat donor was targeted in bomb plot …
* Steyer has donated tens of millions to support Democrats running for Congress and started a petition to see President Trump impeached.
* Earlier this week, federal authorities arrested a Florida man who is suspected of sending potentially explosive devices to vocal Trump critics including Steyer. …”.

When do we all get it: when you allow fear to rule and create silence, eventually the violence appears at your door. When you allow the corrupt to promote promises which use corrupted institutions to gain power, you become the enabler.

Luckily for Canada, we have about a year to stop the illegitimacy of our electoral processes and the corrupted institutions of justice which protect those partisans who have abused them. The model for constructive, productive change exists in the lessons of bravery which come from the peaceful marches of Martin Luther King, Ghandi and even Mandela.

We need to invoke the power of the law to return a credible vote to our nations. This is not achieved by engaging in corrupted voting processes.

While this web page will eventually lead to more detailed presentation of what to do, I hope that rational Americans will be encouraged to think about this, before or after their election. And that credible Canadians of democracy will start to step up to ensure that real change is effected before the Canadian federal election scheduled for October 2019.

Here is a summary of what I suggest that the responsible citizen of democracy should prepare to do:
1. DO NOT engage in ‘exercising your right to vote’. Ignore the complacent ‘journalists’. Recognize that using an illegal process, which is in violation of YOUR right to select THOUGHTFUL LEADERSHIP freed of partisan manipulations, legitimizes an illegal process. In the minds of these criminal partisans, if you accept the vote, they are given power. IF you do not vote, the partisan will claim that it is your loss, no matter what the law compels;
2. Having NOT engaged in the farcical ‘vote’, OR having engaged and then realizing that your rights to an untainted voting process were violated, write a letter of legal warning to make an official legal record. Address it to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of your nation. Copy it to the presiding, current, highest elected office in the land, for example ‘The President’. In the letter briefly state that you do not accept the vote of (November 6, 2018) as legitimate because it is designed by and overseen by partisan officials. Reference public record of things like that Asian-American NBC report as public evidence of this fact, if you think you must… At this stage, you are merely registering your intent to sue and/or pursue violators of your rights;
3. In the same letter, reference the sections of the UN Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 which compel your nation, as a signatory, to provide impartial courts as overseers of all legal duties of governments, including voting processes;
4. Recruit like-minded individuals. Form an organization of your own accord, through voluntary or with minimally paid support (I prefer the latter because, in this case, ‘voluntarism’ carries the implication of enslaving oneself to the good of others while others trot along with their own comforts in life not being impacted);
5. DO NOT make this a partisan organization with ANY purpose to gain elected power in the future;
6. ENSURE that it is clear to all supporters, and outside agencies and citizens, that the singular purpose of this organization is to PEACEFULLY AND LEGALLY FORCE signatory nations of 1948 international law into legal recognition of that international law inside institutions of justice, first, and then inside voting systems;
7. RECOGNIZE that, ultimately, this movement will ALSO end with LEGAL NOTICE to the United Nations organization in New York. RECOGNIZE that the moment that ‘super powers’ gave themselves special privileges inside the United Nations, they were in violation of the UN’s own code of Human Rights, and the term ‘equality’. However, ensure that the first step towards protection of the word ‘equality’ begins inside your own nation;
8. Under the auspices of this new organization, start to prepare a document, written in words understood by the citizen, which gives legal warning to the entrenched partisans now in our institutions of governance and justice. That document will warn that they must meet a time line, set out by the citizens, as to when entrenched partisans will recant the criminality of their gaining of power and their abuse of power and privilege OR eventually face criminal trial for violation of international law (in Canada, it is clear that Criminal Code law and valid parts of the Canadian constitution have also been violated by these partisans for decades);
9. Citizens of the organization, if partisans do not agree to cooperate and work towards revised rules for voting and judicial appointments, will draft credible rules which meet the spirit of international law (eg: ‘legal professionals’ WILL accept that their singular role in society WILL BE to protect the COMPLETE impartiality of institutions of justice and that, for example, IF they decide to ‘enter politics’, alone or under the flag of any partisan organization, they will accept that this will deny them the potential for being appointed to the justice system… donations or memberships in partisan organizations will NOT be allowed for the ‘legal profession’… (note: funny thing is that I heard lawyers protest that this kind of a denial for them, to pay money into the pockets of partisans, would be a violation of THEIR right to ‘political association’. Funny thing is that these idiots do not have the bravery to express public opinion on public issues but instead see paying into the pockets of their ‘mouthpiece’ as not having any state of bribery. Unfunny thing is that partisan lawyers fall silent to the laws forbidding abuse of position and breach of trust when their partisan ‘mouthpiece’ makes move to promote said lawyer into a position of being a ‘judge’);
10. As the organization swells, and only if the illegally entrenched continue to deny the criminality of their actions, the warned officials should be provided updated copies of the number of citizens who are prepared to join in legal action against entrenched partisans who have abused their positions of power. This should happen perhaps monthly;
11. While the ‘legal professional’ or ‘the partisan member’ should not be banned from joining such an organization, they will be required to recant their abuse of international law to the demise of the rights of others…

How long will such a thing take? It depends on how many responsible citizens rapidly step forward and engage. However, contrary to what Dave Chappelle implied in that interview with CNN’s Amanpour, there is a legal option for Americans and others to start to make peaceful change inside their nations. IF they cannot walk away from this election and its corrupt process with good conscience on November 6, then they can engage this system after that farcical ‘election’ to ensure that a tyrant is removed from their presidential office in a process that is freed of the implications of rich Democrats simply wanting to puff up their own positions.

Canadians? Get off your butts and start NOW to ensure that YOU actually have a credible voting process while the nation also gains a credible justice system to ensure that credible democracy is returned to our nations.

I may currently be in a state of partisan-imposed poverty which does not allow me to travel BUT I am willing to dedicate some time to sit down with any citizen or ‘real journalist’ to talk about all of this in the nearby city of Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada. However, any citizen or journalist MUST agree that no pictures or video devices will be used in such meetings. I will allow voice recordings only.

I value my privacy more than the notoriety which Donald Trump craves. I may be a Donald in legal name but, so far, I have more real hair than he… Does this make me a more credible, real person for democracy????

Seriously, send me an email via this email address if you want to meet to talk…

Don MacAlpine, Wolseley, Saskatchewan CANADA

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.