Wednesday, August 27, 2008

usa and canada cival rights are be taken away

I spoke with Detective Clauson today, August 26. Yesterday, on the advice of a former prosecuritng attorney, I withdrew my complaint with the Medford Police Department. The attorney was shocked that they had gone ahead and subpoenaed my phone records, and had advised me to withdraw the complaint with the understanding that this would be the best move I could take to protect myself from their witch-hunt.

Clauson stated he was going to keep investigating, anyway. When I told him that he now had no moving party, and thus no complaint, he said he would charge me with making a false police report. I told him he had enough evidence already, in terms of the tape recordings, to ascertain I had no filed a false complaint. It got pretty heated at that point, and I just hung up.

I spoke with his commanding officer, Sgt. Walruff, a few minutes ago, who informed me that they will proceed with their investigation, in the face of my pulling my complaint. I thought I had the right to withdraw--well, apparently I don't have any rights at all, do I?

I told Walruff the following: First, I file a complaint. Your department disappears the report, the evidence and even the dispatch call. When I complain about this, Officer Antley produces a police report attacking my sanity. When I complain to Sgt. Sergi about the disappeared report, he snarls, "Get over it!." When I further complain, the report is suddenly located by your department, and you say that is was simply missfiled, due to my name being misspelled, but was located by an address search. This is obviously a falsification by your department, in an attempt to make it appear that it was there all along, I told him that this is not possible--three members of the department on two separate occasions did an address search and the report was not found at that time. I told him that the department had thus falsified records. I told him that constituted a felony and I demanded to know which officer did that. He did not answer. I told him that I did not want the criminals running the Medford Police Department to do any further "investigating," as there is nothing in my phone records which will reveal the source of the calls.T-Mobile has repeatedly stated this, and to subpoena my records in the face of this constitutes an invasion of my privacy. I have been told by your department that there is not enough evidence to subpoena Tim White's records, and this would constitute an invasion of White's privacy. But not of mine, it appears.....

Not enough evidence? I have turned over emails from White to me and to others, which are defamatory and threatening. I have turned over the case number in Santa Monica, California, where Judge Bobbi Tillman granted a TRO against White, who had threatened my life. I turned over information that White had followed me across country when I moved to Idaho in 2006, for the purposes of further harassing me. I turned over the name and phone number of Patricia Johnson-Holm, who has received numerous phone calls and emails from White about me. I have also turned over phone records and voice mails.

I told him Sgt Walruff I was moving to Ashland and I wanted no more of the sort of "assistance" the Medford PD provides.

He told me they were going ahead with the investigation, anyway.This is not legal.. But nothing they have done in my case is, so why should I complain now? Maybe I should just plaster a yellow star on my shirt sleeve, and we can stop the pretense that I have any rights whatsoever and that the department is in any way assisting me.

Maybe they will find something to arrest me on. And if they can't maybe they'll just make it up, like they did that disappeared dispatch call.

Janet Phelan

john wilson work awesume

Dear Fellow Australians,

Below is a re-type of a transcript from the Burwood Local Court on 30 July 2008 when the "Magistrate" had the Sheriffs remove me when I demanded my Right to Trial by Jury and demanded the legal procedure of Challenging the Jurisdiction of the Court. On 20 August 2008, two Police Officers turned up at my work and arrested me, took me to Castle Hill Police Station, the Sergeant refused me bail, I was transported in the usual dog box on the back of a Police Ute to Hornsby Court, being put into cells each time, transported to Silverwater Jail for overnight imprisonment, transported to Burwood Court, to the cells, and released "on bail" at 1:00 PM to come back on 9 September....I 've not seen any Charge Sheet, Arrest Warrant, etc., etc..

Here are the words exchanged on 30 July 2008.

Yours sincerely,
John Wilson.

NOTE: Copyright in this transcript is reserved to the Crown. The reproduction, except under authority from the crown, of the contents of this transcript for any purpose other than the conduct of these proceedings is prohibited.

SOD:SND W3621-G 355/08




Commissioner of Taxation v John WILSON

OFFENCE Failing to comply with a court order to furnish Business Activity Statements

Ms DREVER for the Informant
Accused appeared in person

HIS HONOUR: Sir are you John Wilson?

ACCUSED: That’s me.

HIS HONOUR: Would you just stand behind the tall microphone please. Do you have anybody representing you here today sir?

ACCUSED: What’s your name?

HIS HONOUR: I’m magistrate Dakin. Do you have anybody representing you here today?

ACCUSED: NO I’m here to challenge the jurisdiction of the court. I have it in written form and I’d like the stamp by the court and the court keep one copy and one copy to the opposition and I’ll keep the other two.

HIS HONOUR: All right so just before we get onto that Mr Wilson –

ACCUSED: Well you can’t get on with anything because I’m challenging the jurisdiction of the court. All proceedings cease. There is a peremptory stay of proceedings until the jurisdiction is determined by a special jury. That is the law.

HIS HONOUR: Do you want to swap places? Do you want to sit up here? Guess what?

ACCUSED: Do you know the law?

HIS HONOUR: Guess what?

ACCUSED: Do you know the law?

HIS HONOUR: Just listen to me. I run this court, not you.

ACCUSED: No, the people run this court, you’re only a servant of the people. You’re only a servant.

HIS HONOUR: I don’t dispute that, but it’s my court –

ACCUSED: It’s not your court, it’s the people’s court.

HIS HNOUR: -- and I’ll run proceedings.

ACCUSED: Where’s your name on the door? This is a court of the people. Not you.

HIS HONOUR: Now listen to me. I’ll listen to you but there’s one condition, you listen to me. Understood?

ACCUSED: Do you understand?


ACCUSED: Do you understand that I have a right for a trial by jury and that I am –

HIS HONOUR: No you don’t.

ACCUSED: Do you understand?

HIS HONOUR: No you don’t bu anywau listen to me.

ACCUSED: You’re saying I don’t have the right, you mean our right to trial by jury has beenextinguished? By who?

HIS HONOUR: Will you listen to me r I’ll have you removed. It’s that simple.

ACCUSED: I’m challenging the jurisdiction of the court, it’s simple.

HIS HONOUR: Will you listen to me. We are not at that point, right?

ACCUSED: Are we getting there?

HIS HONOUR: Well if you give me an opportunity to speak we might. Finish at 4 o’clock. There are a number of allegations before the court, there are ten allegations of failing to comply with a court order
to furnish a Business activity Statement for the periods September 04, December 04, March 05, June 05, September 05, December 05, March 06, June 06, September 06, December 06. Do you challenge the jurisdiction of the court in respect to those matters?


HIS HONOUR: There is a second set of proceedings –

ACCUSED: That is called subject matter. I challenge the jurisdiction. There are three basic grounds for challenging, one is subject matter, the other is relationship, the other one is competence. I’m challenging on all grounds. Now I’d like those papers stamped and returned to me please.

HIS HONOUR: There is a second set of proceedings, 19 allegations of failing to comply with the requirements to lodge GST returns for the period ending 30 June 2002. Do you challenge the jurisdiction of the court?

ACCUSED: I challenge the jurisdiction of the court to deal with those matters.

DREVER: Sir if I just may interrupt the defendant here. Your Honour in relation to the first set of offences the first charge is – I seek leave to withdraw that charge you Honour so there should be nine offences under s 8H of the taxation Administration Act, and the second set of offences your Honour I have no knowledge of.

HIS HONOUR: In fact –

DREVER: I believe they may be – the offences your Honour referring to in the second set may be the initial conviction which has led to this matter coming before the court again. They related to – were they in court your Honour on 17 December last year?


DREVER: Yes your Honour. The defendant was convicted on that occasion and failure to comply with an order made on that occasion means that the matters have come back to court today on a new Court Attendance Notice.

HIS HONOUR: So they’re the allegations under s 8G and s 8H.

DREVER: That’s right your Honour and in relation to the first charge I seek leave to withdraw that first charge, so the matters before the court –

HIS HONOUR: Whish is on or about 18 February 2008 at North Rocks, is that right, is that sequence 1?

DREVER: They all start in that fashion your Honour but it relates to the BAS for the period between 1 July 2004 and 30 September 2004.

HIS HONOUR: All right so, 1(i).

DREVER: That’s right yuor Honour yes.

HIS HONOUR: Why don’t you come and have a seat at the bar table sir. Have a seat over there. Now the prosecutor wants to withdraw sequencenumber 1 sir, which is 1 (i) on the Court attendance Notice. Do you have any objection to that?

ACCUSED: I’m objecting to the jurisdiction of the court.

HIS HONOUR: I understand that but do you have any objection to that charge being withdrawn? How can I determine jurisdiction –

ACCUSED: You can’t detemine anything, you’ve got no jurisdiction.

HIS HONOUR: All right –

ACCUSED: Do you understand? You have no jurisdiction because I have not signed a Memorandum of Consent to say that I would be without a jury. It’s the law. No parliament can take away the rights of the people. Our most important right, the glory of English law, as Blackstone said, the glory of English law is trial by jury.

HIS HONOUR: Have a seat, if you’d like to of course.

ACCUSED: Thank you.

HIS HONOUR: Now where’s these documents you want me to look at?

ACCUSED: Why do you want to look at it, you’ve got no jurisdiction. Yu have no – there is a peremptory stay of proceedings. It’s in that document. Read it.

HIS HONOUR: I just asked to read it and you said I’m not going to.

ACCUSED: Then you are denying not only my rights, legal rights, but also you are denying legal procedure. This is the definition of a kangaroo court. Do you understand that this is a kangaroo court?


ACCUSED: It is a kangaroo court because you are disregarding legal rights and you are disregarding legal procedures. My right to trial by jury, you’re disregarding that, this is a legal procedure, challenging
the jurisdiction of the court, you are disregarding that. That is the definition of a kangaroo court.

HIS HONOUR: Do you want me to read your documents or not?

ACCUSED: No. You’ve got no jurisdiction.

HIS HONOUR: Proceed.

DREVER: Yes your Honour.

ACCUSED: You’ve got no authority to proceed. You are in violation of the law.

HIS HONOUR: You just watch it happen around you sir.

ACCUSED: I can’t hear – what?

HIS HONOUR: I said you just watch this all happen around you, you can participate if you want to—

ACCUSED: And you are defying justice, justice is the protection of right and the punishment of wrongs. You are going against justice. You are in contempt of court because contempt of court is interfering with the administration of justice.

DREVER: Your Honour I’ll just get my documents.


ACCUSED: We all must know our rights otherwise we have none.

DREVER: Your Honour I have a statement from the ATO office, does your Honour—

ACCUSED: You are not taught in schools—

DREVER: --I’m not sure if the defendant objects—

ACCUSED: --they are relying upon your ignorance. They are getting away with these..(not transcribable).. reports, it is all totally illegal. It is treason in fact. Treason. What these people are doing is treason. They are denying democracy. They are denying trial by jury, that is treason.

HIS HONOUR: One more outburst—

ACCUSED: I’m trying to help you.

HIS HONOUR: One more outburst and I’ll have you removed.

ACCUSED: I’m trying to help you.

HIS HONOUR: No, no, no.

ACCUSED: Yes you are, you’re doing wrong. Do you know the wording of the Bill of Rights? It says, “Even counselor, judges and ministers endeavouring—

HIS HONOUR: Are you going to allow the prosecutor to present her case?

ACCUSED: No because there is no jurisdiction in this court. It’s simple. We have the – there was even a case back in 1824 against the magistrates of Sydney and it came down heavily against the magistrates of Sydney because they were denying ordinary people the right to trial by jury. Have you read that case?

HIS HONOUR: Mr Wilson I just activated the duress alarm. You’ll be removed in a moment. You are interfering with the processes of this court.

ACCUSED: No I’m not. You are interfering the court—

HIS HONOUR: You just turned your back and addressed the gallery while a prosecutor was speaking—

ACCUSED: Because this is a public court.

HIS HONOUR: I’ve invited you to allow the prosecutor to present her case, she will not do so, I’m going to have you removed.

ACCUSED: I’m denying because they have no jurisdiction. Are you going to get the sheriffs, because the role of the sheriff is to protect our rights and allow us to exercise those rights in safety. That’s the role of the sheriff. Are you going to get the sheriff to disobey his duty.

HIS HONOUR: Mr Wilson, the sheriffs are behind you, I’m going to ask them to remove you—

ACCUSED: Do you know your job?

SPEAKER: You’ll have to come out sir.

ACCUSED: See, a simple question.

HIS HONOUR: I’ve given you many warnings, I’ve given you the opportunity to cease interfering with the processes of this court, you are refusing to do so—

ACCUSED: There is no court of proper jurisdiction. It is a kangaroo court.

SPEAKER: Let’s go out.

ACCUSED: I’ve been in communication with the Sheriff of New South Wales, I got a call – Chris Allen, trying to help him, showing him his own duty of care and he is to protect our rights and what you are doing is denying those rights. It’s a simple case of justice.

SPEAKER: Let’s go, let’s go.

ACCUSED: See they do this all the time, there’s only two sheriffs, normally about five or six. Contact me any time.

HIS HONOUR: Ms Drever?

DREVER: Yes your Honour I have--

HIS HONOUR: You might be able to present your case now.

DREVER: I have my witness here your Honour but would your Honour allow me to tender her statement?


DREVER: I tender a statement of Elizabeth Vestos(?) of the ATO dated 2 June 2008 and does your Honour wish me to tender a statement of facts at this point?


DREVER: And the defendant’s record. I tender those documents your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Thanks. Just pardon me while I read that material.




Monday, June 30, 2008

australias freedom fighters john wilson

Tanya Gadiel MP,
Parliamentary Secretay for Police,
Level 35,
Governor Macquarie Tower,
1 Farrer Place,
Sysney, NSW 2000.

Dear Tanya,

Re: Being killed by Police.

I have just received a warning (see below) that I might be killed when the Sheriffs trespass upon my property (see the email below the warning).

I do appreciate that corruption and treachery are on a scale unparallelled in Australia's history and the stakes are extremely high.

Because of BANK FRAUD and JUDICIAL CORRUPTION, the Australian People are losing their Laws and their Liberties and, indeed, their Nation.

The RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY is the crucial factor, as it has been for centuries, and that is why the Criminals and Traitors are so determined to wipe it out.

In the email below to the Sheriff of NSW, I have made my intentions clear to ward off trespassing persons in uniform.

Because of the sheer viciousness of the evil-doing Banks and Judges, those trespassing Sheriffs will probably bring Police Officers with them, with guns.

When I turn the hose on the trespassing Sheriff's Officers, the Police Officers will move on me and arrest me.

That I do not mind because, at the hearing of charges against me, I will again demand my RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY.

I would like your assurance that I will not be shot and killed by Officers of the NSW POLICE FORCE (ABN 43 408 613 180).

The denial of the RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY is TREASON because it is a DENIAL OF DEMOCRACY.

It is also the denial of JUSTICE and the RULE OF LAW.

My website ( tells this story.

Yours sincerely,
John Wilson.

----- Original Message -----
To: John Wilson
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 9:04 AM
Subject: Re: Sheriffs Trespassing

Dear John,

Please be most careful. They have the "guns," and
you have the "right," but it is not "accepted" by them.
This is a LIFE threatening situation. I had a
friend who was killed because of this confrontation.


----- Original Message -----
From: John Wilson
To: John Wilson
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 2:24 PM
Subject: Sheriffs Trespassing

Date: 1st July, 2008

Sheriff Chris Allen,
Office of the Sheriff of New South Wales,
Level 2, Downing Center,
143-147 Liverpool Street,
Sydney, NSW 2000.
Tel: (02) 9287 7263
Fax: (02) 9287 7222.

Dear Sheriff Chris Allen,

Re: Do you really want to destroy Truth, Justice, Freedom and Democracy?

Apart from your Officers assaulting Ray Lovett at the Blacktown Local Court last February, here is another reality for you to face.

Last Thursday, at the NSW Supreme Court, Queen's Square, Sydney, yet another KANGAROO COURT (Matter File No: 012130/08) was conducted with "Associate Justice" Harrison disregarding my inalienable Right to Trial by Jury and disregarding the legal procedure of my Challenging the Jurisdiction of the Court. She bulldozer through the 15 minutes in a pre-planned fashion to unlawfully award a Writ of Dispossession against me. I suggest you obtain an audio recording of proceedings.

Now, I put you on notice that if any of your Officers come onto my property at 331 North Rocks Road, North Rocks, with any false and unlawful documents, such as a "Notice to Evict", etc., they will be trespassing. I will order them to leave and, if they don't, I will turn the hose on them.

I have already had to repel your Officers on a pervious occasion when they tried to serve a fraudulent document from a Kangaroo Court (see ).

All the Courts in Australia belong to the People for the administration of Justice .... which is "the protection of rights and the punishment of wrongs". They do not belong to the Banks or any other corporations or entities. They belong to the People - for People to go there for redress and remedy of disputes, and for protection against bad laws, oppression, corruption and thieves.

According to one section called "Mission" on your website, "The Mission of the Sheriff's Office to protect the New South Wales justice system.", and another called "Vision" says "Our Vision is that: all participants in the judicial system can access their right in safety; the public trusts the integrity of the jury system; the community is confident that the orders of the courts deliver justice; and our people are well trained and highly motivated to achieve our Mission", etc.

And yet you allow Judges and Magistrates to disregard People's Rights and favour criminals by aiding and abetting fraud so that their victims are destroyed.

By your not arresting these "Judges" and "Magistrates" (in inverted commas because their appointments are lies, ie: Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second of the United Kingdom has no executive power in Australia and, therefore, she does not, nor through any "representative", commission these individuals) your inaction, you are party to the Treason and to the perverting of the course of Justice.

Please contact me on (02) 9872 1661 so that we can meet and resolve this very serious situation.

Yours sincerely,

John Wilson.

To unsubscribe from this mailing list, please click "Reply" and type in the word "UNSUBSCRIBE" under "Subject".
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.4.3/1526 - Release Date: 6/30/2008 8:43 AM

__________ NOD32 3182 (20080612) Information __________

This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.526 / Virus Database:

the modern gestapo

Home | About | Columnists | Blog | Subscribe | Google

The Heller Misdirection
by William Norman Grigg
by William Norman Grigg


Freedom! Glorious freedom! A young American celebrates the freedom to pee under the kindly gaze of one of our nation's many fine paramilitary police officers.

"A nation of slaves is always prepared to applaud the clemency of their master, who, in the abuse of absolute power, does not proceed to the last extremes of injustice and oppression.

~ Edward Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.

Like the inhabitants of other formerly free societies, Americans are content to define "freedom" in terms of those liberties we are permitted to exercise. Yesterday's Supreme Court ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller (.pdf) is perfectly in harmony with this self-defeating concept of "freedom."

It is entirely appropriate that the decision was written by Antonin Scalia, the most reliably authoritarian and consistently liberty-aversive member of the Court. With an air of regal condescension, Scalia allows that the Second Amendment acknowledges and protects an individual right to armed self-defense. He then explicitly limits the extent to which that "right" can be exercised, thereby redefining it as a State-conferred privilege.

We can't really expect a statist creature like Antonin Scalia to embrace the view that the right to keep and bear arms includes the right of citizens, acting either individually or collectively, to kill agents of the state when such action is necessary and morally justified. Any other view of the Second Amendment is worse than useless; this is certainly true of the view that emerges in Scalia's Heller opinion.

"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home," summarizes Scalia at the beginning of his opinion (emphasis added).

A few paragraphs later Scalia elaborates a bit on the implied limitations of the "right" he describes. Insisting that previous Court rulings effectively limit "the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes," he asserts: "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.... Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those 'in common use at the time' finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons." (Emphasis added.)

Nothing "dangerous and unusual" here: Combat-armed occupation troops patrol Katrina-ravaged New Orleans as part of an operation that included disarmament of law-abiding citizens.

When government grants a liberty and then restricts the manner in which it can be used, the result is not a right, but a limited, conditional license. Scalia's passage cited above will inevitably be seen as a license from the court for legislative bodies to enact, or fortify, laws against "dangerous and unusual" weapons – such as the scary-looking guns ritually denounced as "assault weapons, for example. And other even more troubling portions of his opinion will abet further restrictions on the purposes for which firearms can be used.

At various points in his opinion, Scalia brushes up against the radical origins of the Second Amendment. For example: "The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable [the] citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens' militia would be preserved." (Pg. 2; see also 22–28)

The clear implication here is that the "ancient right of individuals" to armed self-defense includes the right to organize for the purpose of insurrection against a tyrannical government. Scalia revisits that theme in reviewing efforts by George III's government to disarm American colonists (pg. 21). Discussing the ancient origins of the right, Scalia notes that "the Stuart Kings Charles II and James II succeeded in using select militias loyal to them to suppress political dissidents, in part by disarming their opponents" (pg. 19). He quite usefully admits that "when able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny" (pp. 24–25), without teasing any specific application from that provocative observation.

Although he draws only scantily from the vast corpus of insurrectionary writings by the Founders that deal with the right to armed self-defense (the most notable being Madison's endorsement, in Federalist essay 46, of direct military action against a tyrannical central government), Scalia does cite some interesting literature of that sort from the mid-19th century.

For instance, he quotes John Norton Pomeroy's 1868 book An Introduction to the Constitutional Law of the United States, which stated that the Second Amendment would make no sense unless it enables citizens "to exercise themselves in the use of warlike weapons. To preserve this privilege, and to secure to the people the ability to oppose themselves in military force against the usurpations of government, as well as against enemies from without, that government is forbidden by any law or proceeding to invade or destroy the right to keep and bear arms...." (emphasis added).

Given the chance, they'll grab your guns: A house-to-house gun grab in New Orleans.

From the foregoing it's clear that Scalia is aware of the insurrectionary origins and purpose of the Second Amendment. Passages of that sort are scattered through the 67-page opinion and left without significant elaboration.

What's even odder is the fact that Scalia, drawing on Joseph Story's immensely influential Commentaries, asserts that the "free state" to be defended by the people under arms is not the individual state they inhabit – as the Founders would have understood – but rather the unitary nation created as a result of the Union victory in the War Between the States (pg. 24).

Scalia appears to be saying that while the right to bear arms was associated with the colonial and state militias, that right does not exist exclusively to carry out that function. But he also seems to assert that since the modern "militia" is an institution controlled by the central government and devoted to its protection, there's no longer a legitimate right to armed self-defense against the government.

On this point, Scalia's analysis is difficult to distinguish from that offered by the dissenting judges, who would simply dispense with the right to bear arms entirely, rather than paying lip-service to it while denying its chief purpose and encouraging various encumbrances on it, as Scalia does.

Your friendly neighborhood stormtrooper on patrol in New Orleans: If they were really the Good Guys, would they dress like this?

"Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem," Scalia concludes. "That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct."

Indeed not: Scalia's opinion suggests that the role of the Court is to placate key elements of the Republican coalition while suggesting alternative routes to those who seek the eventual abolition of the right that was once protected by the Second Amendment. While Scalia's ruling reinforces one of the few effective rallying points for the demoralized Republican Party ("This year's election is all about the judges!"), it does nothing of substance to defer the day when some judge or president will be able to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.

This point simply can't be emphasized too often: The innate right of armed self-defense exists whether any government chooses to recognize it. What made the Second Amendment unique was its recognition of the fact that in the constitutional scheme, the government does not have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. Scalia, like many statist jurists before him, insists that the permissible civilian uses of firearms are all defined within that government-exercised monopoly on force; they are temporary concessions that can be redefined by our rulers at whim.

In a genuinely free society, citizens would enjoy the unqualified liberty to acquire weapons of any sort, in any quantity they pleased, for the specific purpose of being able to out-gun the government and its agents when such action would be justified.

Most Americans, as ignorant of our heritage of principled insurrection as they are well-versed in the ephemera of degenerate pop culture, would find such sentiments abhorrent. In that fact we see that – whatever may be the status of our current "right" to keep and bear arms – the intellectual and psychological disarmament of our population is nearly complete.

June 30, 2008

William Norman Grigg [send him mail] writes the Pro Libertate blog.

Copyright © 2008 William Norman Grigg

William Norman Grigg Archives

Back to Home Page

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

conny fogal

from: "Constance Fogal" ,
[Cap_contacts] Major Event in Toronto 14 July 2008 - Please forward widely

Cap_contacts list: For removal send email

Skeptics' Inquiry For Truth and Global Outlook Magazine

The 'war on terror' fraud and the frame-up of the 'Toronto 18'


Retired USAF Lt. Col., Vietnam Veteran,
Former National STAR WARS Chief
Recipient of the President's Award, Veterans For Peace


Professor of English, U. of Guelph, graduate Royal Military College of


"The threat to Canadian society is not a bunch of Muslim boys playing
it's an ideologically driven government willing to curtail our civil

Monday 14 JULY, 2008, at 7:30 pm

Bloor Street United Church, 300 Bloor Street West, Toronto

at Huron, one block west of St. George Street, 2 blocks east of Spadina
(Use St. George or Spadina subway, or park behind the church. Doors
open 6:45
for advance ticket holders)

Tickets $10 in advance, $12 at the door

For information, to purchase tickets, become a local ticket seller,

Terry Burrows, Project Coordinator
Skeptics' Inquiry For Truth [SIFT]
Telephone: 416-784-9114


Telephone Connie Fogal at: 604 872 2128

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.4.1/1518 - Release Date: 6/25/2008 9:46 AM


Helke Ferrie's superb letter to the Prime Minister (much embellished with urls below) is an absolute must read no matter which country you are from. Helke's incredible writing skills and depth of knowledge have articulated what many of us should like to say but simply are not able to. Very educational to say the least. Please remember we need to get informed before we can even attempt to deal with this issue. This type of information is essential to ramp us all up, including the MPs, to see through the smoke and mirrors shenanigans of the government - The PM letter is the intro to her book. More details follow below... Many many thanks to Helke.
For those in Toronto and area a panel discussion with Helke Ferrie, Shawn Buckley and Shiv Chopra is scheduled for June 26, 2008 and is a must attend. Details are here. Others will be able to see the discussion streamed live on or get it as a documentary movie later.
"...on Health Canada’s website regarding the necessity for these bills. The examples given are of a batch of fluoridated toothpaste contaminated with some toxic chemical . A simple, classic contamination event that was cleared up without difficulty under the existing law. Yet, the daily poisoning of people and the environment with fluoridation continues unchecked – despite the scientific evidence . There is nothing in C-52 that could even begin to deal with this problem, nor is fluoride listed among the substances to be banned – as it should, if science was heeded or, at the very least, the precautionary principle was applied."

"WARNING: May Be Fatal If Swallowed"

The fact that Fluoride is more toxic than lead does not even faze them! What's even worse is that all these toxins are deliberately added to our water in the form of industrial waste called hydrofluorosilicic acid (HFSA) as the cheapest source of fluoride. Drinking HFSA has not been scientifically proven as safe or effective in promoting dental health. It contains arsenic, lead, mercury, radioactive compounds, and other known industrial toxic contaminants.
"The public has been repeatedly told that the government has only good intentions with regard to C-51 and C-52. Now, it seems to me that the contract between a people and its government cannot possibly ever be carried out on the basis of trust. Laws are guarantees. Pronouncements of intent mean literally nothing. “stakeholder” meetings across the country to reassure outraged citizens about C-51; this exercise bordered on the absurd: people were invited to meet with representatives from the largest drug companies, who were cosponsoring most of these events, in order to discuss public concerns about a government bill which is supposed to regulate those very companies. Just how scary can it get?"
Yes Indeed "we are the government and we are here to protect you!" My foot. More like we are here to exploit you!
I have only chosen one item germane to the issue of public safety out of many that simply don't see the light of the day. See Bills C-51 & C-52 Example letters for other items. As usual the government never seems to have any interest in real safety concerns. This is clearly shown above - but spends all its time distracting us or twisting real issues into public relations tacts as in these bills to serve their industry cronies....
Helke's book on bills C-51 and 52, What Part of No! Don't They Understand? Rescuing Food and Medicine from Government Abuse - A Manifesto, will be available at OISE June 26th. It compiles and explains the relevant documents and provides a complete action for effective resistance. The table of content is here. Fifty percent of the proceeds are for legal and public activism efforts., 519-927-1049 (Kos office).
For more see also June 2008 Woodford Files here.

Chris Gupta
See also: Discussion Paper on the Amendments to Bill C-51. The paper is an essential read for all.

June 15, 2008
793rd anniversary of the Magna Carta
The Right Honorable Stephen Harper
Office of the Prime Minister
80 Wellington Street
Ottawa, ON, K1A 0A2
Dear Mr. Prime Minister,
The Globe & Mail has on its masthead the following statement made by an 18th century British political thinker known only by his nom de plume, Junius: “The subject who is truly loyal to the Chief Magistrate will neither advise nor submit to arbitrary measures.” It is in this spirit that I am writing to you about the proposed bills C-51 and C-52. Nobody knows who Junius was; he might have been anybody, as indeed I am – just a Canadian who is exceedingly alarmed and cannot help but feel protective towards this great nation in the face of a public health emergency. These two bills not only dramatically fail to address this crisis in public health, but actually threaten to increase this emergency to unmanageable levels, if passed. I am approaching your government in the spirit of Junius to advise against arbitrary measures and also to express clear resistance to such arbitrariness.
When a government falls into error, only the governed can correct that. It is my view, that in a parliamentary democracy it is the duty of the citizen is to pay careful attention to government and to offer correction to government policy when necessary – but to do so only if able to provide supporting evidence to show that government is in error. In a democracy we neither want government to shoot off their mouths, nor should we be allowed to do so either. This book provides, I hope, that most significant supporting evidence for the contention that C- 51 and C-52 are totally unacceptable, are impossible to amend, and must be withdrawn. I should introduce myself first: For the past twelve years I have been researching medical politics and writing for various venues on a monthly basis. I also occasionally publish books written mostly by medical professionals who are especially concerned about environmental and nutritional medicine. This summer I am releasing Dr. Shiv Chopra’s memoirs. Entitled Corrupt to the Core - Memoirs of a Health Canada Whistleblower . It is introduced by MP Paul Dewar (NDP), lawyer David Yazbeck, and three recipients of the Swedish Right Livelihood Award, namely public health scholar and oncologist Dr. Samuel S. Epstein, physicist Dr. Vandana Shiva, and Maude Barlow of the Council of Canadians. Dr. Chopra’s book covers his four decades as a Health Canada regulator during which he determinedly fought to uphold the Food and Drugs Act and follow its Regulations, in order to protect the Canadian people from unsafe drugs.
As you will recall, he and his colleagues, Drs. Margaret Haydon and Gerard Lambert, managed to have that Act obeyed, against all political odds, so as to prevent bovine growth hormone (rBST – a carcinogen) from being passed in our food supply. For that service to the public, as you will also recall, they were fired in 2004 on grounds of insubordination by your predecessor, then Prime Minister Paul Martin.
At that time, given your campaign promises of transparency and accountability, many of us, myself included, had hoped and actually expected that you would take the necessary steps to reinstate these scientists and support them in their exercise of due diligence on behalf of public health. However, on May 20th this year, the Canadian Association of Journalists listed you as the top nominee for this year’s Code of Silence Award for “having muzzled cabinet ministers, civil servants, and particularly professional scientists.” Then you closed the data base for freedom-of information inquiries, a research tool meant to help Canadians keep their governments accountable and transparent.
Most governments, once elected in sufficient numbers to form a government, only partly fulfill their campaign promises. In general, the electorate is as forgiving of the human inconsistencies in our friends and loved ones as they are of broken government promises. However, when the inconsistencies become too overwhelming, the relationship breaks down, usually irreparably, and the injured party resorts instinctively to self-defense. We may have reached that point.
These glaring inconsistencies between promise and action in your administration make it hard to trust the stated intent of bills C-51 and C-52; they are not difficult to understand. If passed into law, they would pose a threat to public health, the rule of law, and the freedom of scientific research. Both bills, to my mind, display an equally unparalleled disregard for the spirit, and most probably also the letter, of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The public has been repeatedly told that the government has only good intentions with regard to C-51 and C-52. Now, it seems to me that the contract between a people and its government cannot possibly ever be carried out on the basis of trust. Laws are guarantees. Pronouncements of intent mean literally nothing.
The most recent attempt at calming down the tens of thousands of angry Canadians who have made themselves heard since April 8, has been a proposal to amend C-51; this was presented by the Honorable Tony Clement on June 9, 2008. Those amendments appear to be of dubious parliamentary legality, as pointed out by MPs Marlene Jennings in her e-mails, and as was stated in the House by MP Robert Thibault who suggested this was possibly Contempt of Parliament. MP Jennings wrote: “I’ve been an MP eleven years. It is the first time that I see such a thing! Normally, the government does not table amendments at committee stage, only after all the experts and witnesses have been heard.”
Worst of all, Health Canada arranged for so-called “stakeholder” meetings across the country to reassure outraged citizens about C-51; this exercise bordered on the absurd: people were invited to meet with representatives from the largest drug companies, who were cosponsoring most of these events, in order to discuss public concerns about a government bill which is supposed to regulate those very companies. Just how scary can it get?
We are in the midst of a public health crisis caused by food contaminated with health hazards such as pesticides, genetically engineered food plants that we now know promote systemic disease, and pharmaceutical drugs based on fraudulent science and therefore having become the leading cause of death. This assertion is supported by verifiable, non-industry funded science from around the world - I was as amazed and shocked to discover this as everybody else. I myself used to wonder if the “natural health crowd” was just a bunch of treehuggers , but it turns out the are all mainstream scientists, some even Nobel laureates, and many are outraged refugee scientists from the genetic engineering industry itself. Much of the evidence is presented in this book.
With regard to pharmaceutical drugs being the leading cause of death, this has been made public by the premier medical institutions in the world and since 1998 has been the subject of many research projects published in the world’s “big five” medical journals, including the Journal of the Canadian Medical Association. In fact, this line of inquiry was first started, with the cooperation of the United States FDA, by Professor Bruce Pomerance of the University of Toronto. Ten years ago, he concluded that properly prescribed and correctly taken pharmaceutical drugs might be the fourth leading cause of death in North America. More recently, Johns Hopkins Medical School refined this research, largely due to the increasing death statistics which became available in the intervening years, so that now it is the leading cause of death, outpacing cancer and AIDS.
As reported in the CMAJ, in Canada, at least 23,000 people die every year from pharmaceutical drug-related problems; these are only the reported deaths. Both the FDA and Canadian experts believe the rate is much higher. Due to this constantly rising death toll, the CMAJ observed on January 4 and March 15, 2005, that Health Canada is not adequately monitoring the safety of marketed drugs and has “demonstrated a structural inability to do ongoing safety monitoring of new drugs and devices.”
Unfortunately, bill C-51 does nothing to improve this situation because it doesn’t even define safety, while the Food and Drugs Act, which supposedly requires “modernization”, has very clear concepts of safety in its regulations - the very ones that allowed Dr. Chopra and his colleagues to identify those dangerous drugs they persistently opposed. The same is true for C- 52, and both bills share the fact that they import into the regulation of foods, drugs, and hazardous products the wholly inappropriate concept of risk management instead of risk assessment.
The difference between these two concepts is that the first assumes there will be a body count and tolerates some exposure to hazardous substances; the decisions to be made under such management have to do with how many bodies and how much hazardous contamination the government can comfortably get away with. Risk assessment, on the other hand, determines the level at which people are harmed – and then such substances must be banned.
Defining safety in both bills would result in a huge number of drugs and hazardous substances having to have their original marketing approval re-examined for purposes of assessment and potential withdrawal – as the European Union is doing now. Many would have to be recalled because the original approvals were not based on the available science and often granted under political pressure. In medicine, we even know with which ones to start the cleanup. The CMAJ told us so in their June 2, 2008 issue: they include especially the antipsychotics that Truehope so successfully replaced with safe natural products that also are so truly effective. These and many other potent pharmaceuticals also end up in the water and are ingested by people for whom they were not prescribed – something C-52 does not even address. About 14 million emergency room visits take place in Canada annually only due to adverse drug events. Given there are only roughly 30 million Canadians, this number is staggering and suggests that hundreds of thousands of people have more than one such experience per year.
It is my understanding, that government is mandated to manage health care with integrity. Therefore, I was astounded when I read in The National Post on May 6th, 2008, that your former communications director, Geoff Norquay, was directly involved with the lobbying efforts of pharmaceutical companies to restrict the availability of the far cheaper (and far safer because of proven post-marketing experience) generic drugs. I also find it hard to swallow that within a month after one of your close colleagues, Ken Boessenkool, registered as a lobbyist for Merck Frosst, your 2007 budget had $ 300 million allocated for their genital wart vaccine (marketed for cervical cancer) that has the highest rate of deaths and complications reported for any vaccine, namely Gardasil. This is very disturbing optics.
Not a single death is known so far to have been caused by a natural health product. One of the overheads I frequently show at lectures is a chart provided by the World Health Organization showing that the most dangerous thing one can do in an industrialized country is to be admitted to hospital, while the chance of being harmed or killed by a natural health product is the same as being hit by a meteor. What complicates this drug crisis further is the fact that pharmaceutical drugs are the source of enormous wealth and that Canada is one of the governments that has supported the increase of wealth from that source, not the decrease of the damage these products are causing .
Your policies appear are falling into that principal error Junius advised against; these two bills provide the evidence. That error is arbitrariness. It is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as: “Based solely on personal wishes, feelings, or perceptions rather than on objective facts, reasons, or principles.”
Throughout C-51 and C-52, all sorts of enforcement provisions are relegated to Orders in Council – away from public scrutiny, unencumbered by messy parliamentary debate, and certainly free from probing questions from the press. Most surprising, and absolutely unacceptable, are those provisions that have to do with foreign governments and regulatory agencies – in which Canadians had no vote. I doubt this is legal. Unless Canadians read the Canada Gazette regularly, they would not even know that some deal has been struck with a foreign regulatory agency and that those foreign provisions have suddenly become law in Canada.
This is incomprehensible in view of your own publicly stated concern about Codex Alimentarius, for example, in 2003 when you were supporting MP James Lunney’s bill C-420. Yet, as Prime Minister, I found on Health Canada’s website that as of December 7 of last year, a confidential” agreement already exists for such regulatory cross-Atlantic importation with the European Union and the European Medicine Agency. The only thing that seems to be still needed to make this all legal is the passage of C-51.
The Honorable Tony Clement’s attempt at introducing some accountability into C-51 by changing “may” to “shall” in C-51’s section 20.4, so now “the Minister shall establish, committees for seeking advice” on complex issues of science in medicine, insults every Canadians’ intelligence . Unless those committees are independently picked, and unless such exercises are open to the public, and unless the results are debated in Parliament, this proposed amendment does not at all ensure that the same old cherry-picking of suitable “tobacco scientists” won’t continue to happen: in the provisions in C-51 the industry is included among those the Minister may pick from for advisory committees. However, it is the industry that is to be regulated . In any case, who cares if “may” is now “shall”, because none of the Order in Council provisions have been removed, as they should be, if any transparency and accountability is to be guaranteed to the public.
The assurance that the government wishes to introduce a separate definition for natural health products, reported in the national press for the past few days, amounts to nothing at all in practice: natural health products are still part of the overall regulatory intent of bill C-51; the Natural Health Products Directorate of Health Canada did not incorporate the 53 Recommendations given by the Standing Committee on Health a decade ago, and C-51 is not correcting that blatant disregard of its own government advisers; all natural health products are still regulated as a “subcategory” of drugs and assessed within the drug model of approval, as the Minister himself has written in his many e-mails to Canadians; and Schedule A still stands prohibiting most diseases from being treated by natural health products (contrary to the mass of mainstream scientific evidence showing that they can); and the (sadly) most lucrative of all disease groups (depression, acute anxiety, including bi-polar disorder) was deliberately moved out of the category of diseases which may be treated with natural health products – even though none of them are Prozac-deficiencies and the Truehope clinical trials have proven that even the most severe mental health conditions are ultimately disorders of nutrient absorption and nutrient metabolization. Telling Canadians natural health products will be recognized as a special category of its own means nothing unless that category is on par with the pharmaceutical drug categories and entered into law as a choice patients can make – which is what about 70% of us want.
The entire damage-control exercise undertaken in the past couple of weeks leaves a very bad taste in the mouth and will inevitably cause the public anger to increase, once everybody has figured out that they have once again been had.
That brings me to the reasons provided both by the Honorable Tony Clement and the information found on Health Canada’s website regarding the necessity for these bills. The examples given are of a batch of fluoridated toothpaste contaminated with some toxic chemical . A simple, classic contamination event that was cleared up without difficulty under the existing law. Yet, the daily poisoning of people and the environment with fluoridation continues unchecked – despite the scientific evidence . There is nothing in C-52 that could even begin to deal with this problem, nor is fluoride listed among the substances to be banned – as it should, if science was heeded or, at the very least, the precautionary principle was applied.
Also mentioned were cases of alleged liver toxicity caused by a botanical remedy derived from black cohosh, and the contamination of some herbal product with the active ingredient in drugs that treat erectile dysfunction. Canadians are supposed to believe that this immense legislative exercise is justified and prompted by these tempests in a teapot. Given the ongoing disaster of hundreds of deaths per day from Health Canada-approved pharmaceutical drugs, and given the fact that almost every drug listed in the CPS has some level of liver toxicity associated with it, these examples are like having an emergency room full of people bleeding to death while the government attends to a nosebleed, as a doctor recently said at a rally in Toronto organized to protest C-51.
You may be interested to know that the information your Health Minister used to defend C-51 is problematic. He was apparently relying on reports now about 4 years old, still posted on Health Canada’s website (the links provided for verification purposes are no longer accessible), and still not updated or substantiated. So, I went to the National Institutes of Health, whose entry on black cohosh was updated on January 16 of this year and therefore is somewhat definitive. It turns out, that the NIH is currently funding a double-blind placebo-controlled cross-over study on this botanical for treatment of menopausal symptoms. Furthermore, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends it as helpful and safe in their most recent consensus opinion, cited by the NIH. It is so safe, that it is considered a food and unregulated in the US. The alleged liver damage occurred in people who were on all sorts of drugs, including teenagers experimenting with hard drugs at the time of sustaining liver damage; five died in Canada and one in Canada, but the information on the circumstances can no longer be accessed. In light of this information, it will be difficult to convince menopausal female Canadians, who are well aware of the risk of cancer and heart attack from standard hormone replacement therapy with synthetic drugs, that C-51 is needed to protect us from black cohosh. As for yohimbine, it has indeed many properties in common with the active ingredient of Viagra (sildenafil), but the fact is that it was first nature that created aphrodisiacs, then drug companies made the synthetic analogs. Consequently, it is not surprising that the more likely story behind this otherwise unimportant contamination event is a potentially embarrassing federal case brought by Strauss Herbal Co. against Health Canada.
As for the references to toxic heavy metals, the current Food and Drugs Act is perfectly able to handle those types of emergencies and has done so in the past; heavy metals are known to be toxic since before even that act was written and have been one of the reasons public health legislation began in the 19th century.
Finally, the explanation given that we must protect people against contaminated foreign foods, from China for example, is really a good case of the mote in Chinese eyes and the beam making vision impossible in Canadian eyes: if the government was truly guided by published science of verifiable integrity, it would be our food supply that should be cleaned up from pesticides, genetic and prion contamination and the like, so we could sell it to Europe, where they don’t want our food products; they have even defied World Trade Organization court rulings, when ordered to import Canadian foods because they know much of our food products carry the risk of cancer, the potential of Mad Cow Disease, and may increase antibiotic resistance.
Thus, neither the Health Canada website, nor the communications that have so far come from the Honorable Tony Clement, have given Canadians any reasonable justification as to why we need our Food and Drugs Act urgently modernized. In contrast to the non-information coming from the Health Canada website and the Honorable Tony Clement’s pronouncements, one of your own caucus’ MPs, Dr. James Lunney, whom you strongly and publicly supported in 2003 when he brought forward bill C-420 – a bill which was informed by a radically different spirit and completely unlike C-51 – made some real sense when he spoke in the House on June 9. He read into the record the statement made by the members of the 39th International Congress on Nutritional Medicine which was then winding up in Vancouver. It was a resounding critique of the intent and purpose of C-51, all of which still applies after the attempts at damage control by the Ministry of Health. It would so much more reassuring if bill C-420 were brought back to life and you, too, would return to the principles that you stated in your letter of support at that time. This now defunct bill was one of the main reasons Canadians gave you a hesitant chance at running this country. Much of what you said before you were elected had the full support of the public; most of what you have done since, has not.
Bill C-51 also shows a remarkable disregard for the independence of scientific inquiry. Even clinical trials would be subject to the Minister’s arbitrary powers, both in agriculture and medicine. Possibly this is the most appalling part of both bills: the cavalier readiness to manage even science as if it was a commodity. This lack of respect for the necessary independence of science is coupled with an equally cavalier attitude to the courts, as best illustrated in the Truehope case.
In December 2007, almost two years after you took office, Health Canada proceeded to raise accusations against Truehope Nutritional Support Ltd as if no court order had been given by Justice G. M. Maegher of the Alberta Provincial Court. The order required Health Canada to back off totally and for Truehope to continue its clinical trials involving the treatment of extreme bi-polar disorder in some 3,000 patients, and this order was given under the Criminal Code of Canada; Health Canada failed to appeal it because there were no grounds for appeal. What should have happened, following the July 28, 2006, judgment, is that Health Canada should have immediately cleared the requisite natural health products used in this trial, especially in view of the fact that the astonishingly successful results of this trial had already been, and are continuing to be, reported in the leading mainstream psychiatric journals. Your government may go down in medical history as having stood in the way of one of the greatest medical discoveries – how to treat successfully one of the most expensive and difficult mental health condition that affects about 18 million North Americans and costs $ 4 billion in direct medical costs annually.
The sense I get is that there is a misunderstanding with regard to what – for the want of a better term – one calls “job description”. A Prime Minister is not a CEO. Members of Parliament are not shareholders. Citizens and the scientific enterprise are not stake-holders. Canada is not a terrain for prospectors seeking a fortune. Most importantly, whatever happens in our national home is established by the courts, not by a Cabinet that misunderstands itself as being a board of directors. If Canadians agreed with such changes to the very essence of government, changes to the Constitutions will have to be made first – by public consultation.
Canada is first and foremost the home of some 30 million people who do not wish to be used as means towards ends that their elected government decides upon and then merely announce these decisions as Orders in Council in the Canada Gazette. It is not the job of government to redefine citizens into customers for enterprises chosen by government.
Some 97% of us do not want to eat genetically engineered food. The Royal College stated in 2004 that on no issue in the history of public polling has there been such overwhelming consensus as on the public’s rejection of genetically engineered foods. Therefore, why does your government not immediately proceed to pass bill C-510 and C-448?
More than 70% of us prefer medical therapies that have been developed by mainstream medicine from substances that cannot be patented and which do not carry the demonstrated risk of organ and systemic injury or death. So, why does the government not implement the 53 Recommendations of its own Standing Committee on Health?
Some 83% of us do not want to have our regulatory systems harmonized with those of the US and Mexico (or any other country or regulatory agency such as Codex) as proposed by the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP). By what legal right or mandate do you support the harmonization of health care and health regulation with other countries and large corporations? Parliament makes laws, not corporations. We did not elect those corporations and we are not even partners in this Security and Prosperity Partnership; in fact, we are deliberately excluded. Following the February 23, 2007, SPP meeting in Ottawa, one of its members, Ron Covais of Lockheed Martin (the world’s largest weapons manufacturer whose products are hardly good for anybody’s health) told a reporter: “The guidance from the [government’s] ministers was: ‘Tell us what we need to do and we will make it happen.’… [explaining that] rather than going through the legislative process in any country, the Security and Prosperity Partnership must be implemented in incremental changes by executive agencies, bureaucrats and regulators. ‘We’ve decided not to recommend any things that require legislative changes, because we won’t get anywhere.’”
I certainly hope they won’t! Before corporations make our parliament buildings into a five-star hotel, the Charter will have to disappear, doctors have to be stopped from free and independent scientific inquiry, and some 30 million of us will have to become zombies through enforced intake of antidepressant drugs. I certainly don’t think that will happen either. Since bill C-51 does nothing for medicine and C-52 does nothing for the environment and neither protects us against known health hazards, it is difficult not to conclude that bills C-51 and C-52 are instruments for those “incremental changes” corporations want for their own purposes. However, there is that major difficulty that stands in the way like a mountain: the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is the contract the people of Canada have with you. It spells out the terms of a civilized relationship.
Yours respectfully,
Helke Ferrie
KOS Publishing Inc.
See also: Consumer Alert: Opposition Grows to Bill C-51
To unsubscribe:
To subscribe:
List information is at:
Share The Wealth:
Communication Agents:
Council Member: Friends of Freedom International & the Canadian Coalition for Health Freedom -

Saturday, June 21, 2008

usa and canada cival rights are be taken away

in canada we must fight gordon cambell regieme and the health minister as well as others or we are in a mess Many may have been lulled into relaxing given that Bill C-51 did not pass the second reading. Following note from Helke Ferrie is very important as it clearly shows the nefarious nature of these Bills - Please support her efforts to launch court action as, not surprisingly, the government has sold us out.

For those in Toronto and area a panel discussion with Helke Ferrie, Shawn Buckley and Shiv Chopra is scheduled for June 26, 2008 and is a must attend. Details are here. Others will be able to see live streamed on

See: Summaries of Bills C-51 & C-52 - Freedoms At Risk! for background

Chris Gupta


I just got this information about a motion passed on Friday June 20 which would allow the government to put C-52 (which did go through Second Reading, as you know) through the Committee stage and bring it in for Third Reading in September while we are all basking in the success of having stopped C-51, at least for now.

Below are also some comments I sent to Common Ground. Those are on C-52, the more pernicious of the two bills. read Shawn Buckley's analysis of it on (Draft Discussion Paper on Bill C-52 is here)

My opinion is that we need to take legal action at once: C-52 should be challenged in court so the Committee cannot proceed over the summer. It is stacked in any case, so their hearings are unlikely to be comprehensive, and how does one get enough people to Ottawa for hearings and briefs in June and July?

If we don't act on this now, we have probably had it.

Helke 519-927-1049

Committees of the House

[Table of Contents]

Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton?Leduc, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations with all parties and I believe if you were to seek it, you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That, at any time the House stands adjourned during June or July, the Standing Committee on Health or the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development has ready a report, when that report is deposited with the Clerk, it shall be deemed to have been duly presented to the House.

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:
Does the hon. member for Edmonton?Leduc have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?


I just received from a friend the item below. It was a motion tabled and PASSED on Friday. Parliament did not debate C-51. As you know, C-52 has gone to Committee. If they feel like doing the Committee hearings on C-52 (the more pernicious of the two bills), they can do so and pass it, so parliament can take it into Third Reading as soon as they get back in September.

Blow the parliamentary debate provided here I have attached some comments I sent to Common Ground earlier today about C-52 and its relationship to C-51.

In my opinion something should be done immediately to tie up C-52 in court and challenge its legality so they cannot have committee hearings until the court has ruled. Should you have any doubts about this, I suggest you go to and read Shawn Buckley's analysis of C-52 which explains how it could turn Canada into a police state.

Kind regards, Helke

Friday, June 20th, 2008
Committees of the House

[Table of Contents]
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton?Leduc, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations with all parties and I believe if you were to seek it, you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That, at any time the House stands adjourned during June or July, the Standing Committee on Health or the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development has ready a report, when that report is deposited with the Clerk, it shall be deemed to have been duly presented to the House.

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:
Does the hon. member for Edmonton?Leduc have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

Bill C-51 is now dead. The house closed on Friday and they did not bring it up for second reading, even though it was on the order papers every day of last week for that purpose. So, we have been heard and they are regrouping. The Liberals, in the last minute, decided not to support this bill after all. The bill will now have to be 1) re-introduced with Tony Clement's proposed amendments when they get back to work in September, and 2) they will have to start it from scratch at first reading. It is, therefore, vitally important that they don't even think about bringing it back, in any shape or form, with no matter how many amendments, because this bill is pernicious from start to finish and nothing will improve it.

What most people have not yet grasped is that bill C-52 has gone through second reading and will go to committee in September. If C-51 was pernicious, C-52 is outright diabolical. Furthermore, C-51 can be tagged onto C-52 by an Order in Council (cabinet decision without parliamentary debate, media inquiry, public input via our respective MP's office etc. - passed into law without discussion!) if they feel like it and want to avoid another public uproar as they got themselves now.

The reason they can do this is anchored in C-52's provisions to allow any amendments or importations of other laws as they see fit, even from foreign governments, exactly as C-51 also stipulated.

Secondly, C-52 has an omnibus definition of "hazardous products" like C-51 did with "therapeutic products", and their definition of a "hazardous product" includes the media. My letter to you could be defined as such a product. Due to this omnibus definition as the basis of the entire bill, they can import any other hazard, as they see fit. The current act governing hazardous products overlaps in many of its provisions explicitly with the current Food and Drugs Act, so they are within their rights to assume that the areas of responsibility in both C-51 and C-52 may also overlap, should either become law.

My book (out Tuesday) What Part of No! Don't They Understand? covers both bills. My view is that we need to take the government to court and do a Charter challenge on C-52 as soon as parliament resumes, so the committee cannot discuss it until the court has ruled. If we allow the committee process to start, the expert witnesses will be brought forward that the government wants, and the committee is stacked - mostly Liberals and Conservatives who both support this bill.

Why do they support this bill? Both bills are strictly intended to serve the purposes of NAFTA and now the SPP which require that regulation is not only relaxed, but harmonized so that all countries involved are the same - industry-friendly, which means lacking in third-party oversight and with reduced liability. (The US just brought in a law that takes liability away from the consumer of implants.) This was the main reason Ireland voted no to the EU Constitution on June 12th. Read the SPP documents and you will see what I mean. Health and hazardous products are explicitly mentioned in this and the other treaties.

I am selling my book at $ 20 and for every copy sold $ 10 go towards a fund to do this Charter challenge.

The September or October article in Vitality will be about this C-52 issue. Meanwhile, below is my letter to the Prime Minister which is the intro to my book. It already includes comments on Tony Clement's proposed amendments and deals with both bills. You may spread this far and wide.


I am attaching an item from the UK news which you should read. The EU Constitution was refused by the Irish on June 12th. Food and natural health products were the main reasons, i.e. genetically engineered stuff, the certain demise of their own agriculture, and the mess with natural health products. Had they voted yes to the EU, no less than 110,000 amendments to their regulatory systems for all EU countries would have kicked in. These are C-51 and C-52 writ large and our two proposed bills even take their wording from this treaty! Saying No has given the other 7 countries still about to vote the courage to speak up. Checkoslovakia stated last week at the EU summit they would probably vote no, as the Irish did.

The globalization guys are so anxious to get their regulatory harmonization in place, the UK went ahead and ratified the EU Lisbon Treaty, which got their Supreme Court mad and this article indicates why. The court is about to hear a case which demands that the UK government have their public referendum (which the PM there refused, shortly after he came into power - having won nd ousted Tony Blair because he promised this very referendum; he obviously is a Stephen Harper clone) and the second is an injunction against the EU ratification until such a referendum has been heard. I have followed this for a while. Should a referendum be heard, the government there knows that they will lose. More than 80% of Brits are against the EU treaty.

We need to go to court. Fast.

To unsubscribe:
To subscribe:
List information is at:
Share The Wealth:
Communication Agents:
Council Member: Friends of Freedom International & the Canadian Coalition for Health Freedom -

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.4.1/1511 - Release Date: 6/20/2008 1The jackass in the middle is Gordon Campell, premier of British Columbia. At the time the photo was taken, around 1990, he was mayor of Vancouver. He wanted to be a much, much bigger jackass so he became premier of the whole damn province. Sorry . . . calling him jackass is being too kind. Anyway . . . to his right is Blaine Culling who parlayed a successful restaurant into owning most of the clubs on Granville Street and on the far right is Leonard Schein who parlayed half-ownership in a funky old movie house where his opening night show was Casablanca into a string of semi-artsy movie theatres around town. When I asked him to help me show Jazz on a Summers Day back around 1979 he said it was too much trouble. Yawn. The guy at the other end of the shot . . . I have no idea who that is.

I was riding my bike down Granville Street one morning, on my way to my postal gig, when I spotted these clowns standing around with brooms. Some kind of "let's clean up Granville Street" publicity stunt, I guess. Hauling Campbell outta there would have made it clean enough for me.