This review is the second review concerning this illegal diabetic drivers policy and its consequences. This was sent to Superintendent Burnside of the National Office of the RCMP as he was/is involved in the stolen scientific research that was presented in my third Human Rights Discriminatio Complaint, BCHRT 51, 04 Feb 2009. This was done in an effort to legally justify the diabetic drivers policy and I caught the gov't doing this, which saw them withdraw the stolen research so the policy is still illegal and the killing, maiming, and endangerment to life continues. It is at this time that I came to understand the killing of people in Overcrowded Emerge facilities, caused by the illegal policy, is defined as Genocide, Democide; large number of people killed by gov't policy. Written up on Wikipedia; Genocide.
Dave Jenkins
3107 Tanglewood Way
Nanaimo, B. C., V9T 5A5
dwjenkins @ shaw.ca
May 7, 2010
Francis M. Deng
UN Secretary General's Special Advisor on the Prevention of Genocide
760 United Nations Plaza,
New York, NY, 10017, USA
Others contacted and the “Why” are listed on pages 71 - 73.
Opening
Dear Francis M. Deng;
This letter is my official complaint of Genocide, Democide, against the British Columbia Provincial Government, Canada.
There are too many civil servants involved in this and too many ministries to just name someone. Politicians and the civil service are involved in this Atrocity. Whether or not that includes the private law firms they have hired to fight my discrimination complaint you will need to make that decision.
To practice, cover up, and bury Genocide takes a lot of people, influence, and a lot of paperwork. This will be easy to follow as diabetics are Classified, Labeled, Registered, and Documented, but what has been done to me to cover up the Democide will not be easy for you to attain, as like all Genocide those doing it are in 'denial' and in the 'cover-up' stage.
Yes, you have read that right. What has/is happening to me and other Canadians is not acceptable and the status quo is afraid to engage the civil servants that have constructed and played this Democide. Canada is afraid of what it is doing to itself. One can hear the righteous and naïve, 'Only other countries do this kind of thing and those are not democracies such as us, and we are a Christian influence.' A Liberal Democracy afraid to look at itself.
The senior civil servants doing this to me have all sworn an Oath of Office to Obey the Law, do No Harm, do Not Steal, do Not Lie, do Not Mislead, do Not Misrepresent, etc, etc. You will come to understand the diabetic drivers' policy is Illegal, it Harms not only the diabetic, the naïve bystander, and society, the civil servants just Stole scientific research to justify the policy. They Lied about this when caught. They Lie that the policy is legal, they have falsified legal documents to Mislead that the policy is legal, they broke a Human Rights Tribunal out of court settlement agreement and Misrepresent that it has been renewed, the have misrepresented that the policy is legal in order to shuffle taxes to pay for the Driver's Medical Examination that disabled drivers are forced to endure and doctors forced to give, (this is fraud, breaking the law), etc, etc. These are civil servants doing this, breaking their Oath of Office, so why haven't they been fired? Why haven't the RCMP laid charges against these people?
Francis M. Deng, you and I are involved in Mass Murder. These people know they are doing this and this is why my discrimination complaint has just been buried by the BC Human Rights Tribunal after six years of my trying to resolve the discrimination coming from an illegal gov't policy. I began my inquiry in 2002.
One (1) death by a government policy is an accident. A horrific accident. No different than an accidental death a diabetic driver may be involved in. Or is it? Don't forget the policy is constructed not an accidental action.
The second (2nd) death is what? The policy should have been put on hold and reviewed. It wasn't.
The third (3 rd) death is what? It is Homicide isn't it. Yes. Some kind of Homicide. Death through indifference to human life? Death through reckless endangerment to human life?
The one (100th) hundredth death is what? It is Mass Murder isn't it. How many death are needed for Mass Murder? Three or four?
Reader, the diabetic policy is not legally justified with bona fide documentation but only based upon some civil servants “view” of life. This is Not Good enough in Canada, which has laws to keep corrupt civil servants from practicing their corruption. The killing, maiming, and endangerment to life is the result of a policy contrived by civil servants. This is why Canada's politicians, civil servants, press, the HRT, public entities, and people are afraid to become involved.
*
As our Provinces and Territories have similar driving policies against the disabled, the diabetic in my complaint, and our Universal Health Care System is for all sense and purposes the same in each province or territory, the Consequences of the government policy against the diabetic driver and its impact upon the diabetic, the public, and the naïve bystander, can easily be followed to come to an understanding of the extent of the Harm the illegal gov't policy creates.
The gov't wrote a letter that informed me that the policy is based upon a “view”, that it knows of the Harm, and that it knows of no Science used to justify the policy. It has since adamantly refused to acknowledge these three things. The medical doctor that wrote the letter, a co-authored letter between Solicitor General's office and the Ministry of Health, disappeared from the Ministry of Health soon after, only to resurface as a senior administrator for the Mayor of Vancouver, the mayor of the successful Olympics. It seems the Mayor has an honest and insightful employee not afraid of the Truth and Consequences.
The Consequences of the policy are explained in the accompanying letter titled “Updated Consequences”. Reading this you will come to understand that the numbers killed, from when I became diabetic in 1999 to present, is worse than the killing that happened in Serbia, and that is for British Columbia alone; with a population of 4.3 million of 36 million in Canada. Increase that number by seven or eight times and you now know why the theft, lies, and falsifying of documents.
Reader, you will come to understand that this is why politicians and civil servants do not respond to my inquiry. Why the local gov't has procrastinated and stonewalled about any dialogue about the illegal policy and bona fide change. And it recently benefited as the BC Human Rights Tribunal successfully buried my discrimination complaint. The BC HRT bias for the gov't and prejudice against me is unacceptable. Explained below with the Harm in the 'Updated Consequences'.
You will ask why the Press only interviews the survivors of an Unexpected and Unexplained death in an Overcrowded Hospital Emergency Facility instead of knocking on the door and asking, “Why are all these people here”. As Emerge doctors state 50% of those in Emerge should not be there. They come from somewhere. I not only knocked on the door but worked through the numbers the gov't has made public to discover the 'why' of the Overcrowding, which is the atrocity we are concerned with. Explained below with the Harm in the 'Updated Consequences'.
Why the Press only interviews those waiting for bona fide surgery and not investigating why there is no funding for those waiting for bona fide medical necessary surgeries, such as I needed. This is also explained in the following letter.
There is a long list of Press representatives that have asked these questions but not investigated and when I write them with what you are reading, which explains these events, nothing is acknowledged by the Press.
One must ask of the Press, “Why not confront the gov't?” and “Why not acknowledge what I have discovered?” “Why are these civil servants allowed to run an illegal policy with horrific consequences and break their Oath of Office?”
The Press have not become involved because the Press has a world idea, or big idea of the Wholeness of this policy and its consequences, especially after I have explained it and put it into print for others to work through. They have known for years that this is constructed Harm, Mass Murder, an Atrocity, a Crime Against Humanity, Genocide, where I have not. Not until a few months ago when the civil servants in the Solicitor General's office lied to him about my discrimination complaint and he did not respond to my letter concerning this. I really came to understand how deep the corruption is and looked up Crime Against Humanity, then Genocide, which introduced me to Democide and you; Francis M. Deng, UN Secretary General's Special Advisor on the Prevention of Genocide.
Welcome to the world I live in with type 2 diabetes.
Welcome to the world of all those survivors of the naïve bystander deaths in Emerge and on surgery wait-lists.
Welcome to the world of corrupt civil servants in British Columbia.
Welcome to the world of indifference in Canada.
*
A week or so ago the BC Solicitor General resigned or was told to, as there is an allegation of wrong doing concerning election money management. Just the Risk of an allegation of funny money and he resigned. Just the Risk that his election campaign employees broke his Oath of Office, therefore he resigned. Funny money is not the same as the killing, maiming, and endangerment of life the policy does. The policy is illegal in the first place. He's the third Solicitor General to resign in as many years. The driving policy comes from the Office of the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles, a dept under the umbrella of the S Gs office. In a recent letter to him I asked about the policy, its illegality, and the falsifying of legal documents. He responded that he had been informed by his staff that my complaint had been resolved. They lied to him. I wrote and told him, 'your staff are lying to you.' He resigned before responding. His predecessors did not address the illegality of the policy either, or the consequences, or the breach of Oath of Office by the civil servants.
That is the old excuse politicians use isn't it, all the S Gs would use, those elected to office, “my staff did not inform me.” They should have been fired for breaking their Oath of Office; do Not break the law, do Not deceive, do Not mislead.
So, there is no need to inform the new S G of the thieves, liars, and corrupt senior civil servants, as they seem to be managing the government not the other way around. They need to be confronted by other means; the World.
*
Reader, it is time to contact people that are not afraid of corrupt civil servants, civil service Nazis, cowardly politicians, indifferent Press, and Democide. People that are not afraid to ask Canada, “What are you doing?” and “Why”.
Reader, I have stumbled into a culture of gov't that has become absolutely corrupt. It is a stain upon Canada. Civil servants, as the Gomery Commission stated, need to be held accountable for their actions. Not only is the policy illegal these civil servants stole 185 scientific research documents to justify their policy and its horrific consequences. In doing so they escalated their behaviour to include the world. The world needs to stand up to them. (The number of articles presented is explained in the following letter; most are not relevant to type 2, only 3 or 4 are modern type 2 research and they support my statement that there is no difference between non-diabetic and diabetic drivers, the rest is bullshit and padding.)
Nazis steal science, bastardize, corrupt, and twist it to justify their corruption, and this is what these people have done through the position of 'senior civil servants', with “status, power, trust, and prestige” that comes with that position. Presented through the positions of 'senior civil servant lawyers' and a newly hired “civil servant academic researcher”, all done without fulfilling the legal demands of Copyright, Intellectual Property Right, and Intent of Use. And when I confronted these people and their positions of Status, Trust, Power, and Prestige they lied about what they were doing and I caught them at that too. Their behaviour defines corruption; defending Genocide. Why are they still working as senior civil servants, as government employees? Because the depth of corruption is unchallenged.
These people also use medical conditions that 'may express' to a diabetic only after having diabetes for ten, fifteen, or twenty years; done to justify their policy and consequences today. Kill people today and justify it by believed future events.
This is what Nazis do, penalize the minority, the disabled, the diabetic today for things they say may happen in the future. This is how insane these people are. Twisted with bias, prejudice, hate, ignorance, fear and loathing, disgust, and contempt for the disabled, society, and laws. Their “view”of the world is wrong.
This exemplifies how over the edge they are with greed and lust for power over the disabled and society.
The Seven Deadly Sins; wrath, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy, and gluttony certainly seems to be the forces driving these people.
*
The things that have happened to me over the past eight years are not acceptable in a democratic society such as Canada. This Genocide is explained as Democide, genocide within a democracy, realized through illegal gov't policy.
The United Nations defines Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity, which defines what this policy is doing.
According to R. J. Rummel, a political scientist, Genocide has three different meanings; Democide, the third meaning applies to the consequences of this diabetic policy. Rummel “created the term as an extended concept to include forms of government murder that are not covered by the legal definition of genocide, and it has found currency among other scholars.”
Democide ““is a term coined by political scientist R. J. Rummel for “the murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide, and mass murder”.” (this applies to this policy)
“Democide can also include deaths arising from “intentionally or knowingly reckless and depraved disregard for life””. (this applies to this policy)
“Some examples of democide cited by Rummel include the Great Purges carried out by Joseph Stalin in the Society Union (despite those people were executed), the deaths from the colonial policy of the Congo Free State, Mao Zedong's Great Leap Forward resulting in a famine which killed millions of people. According to Rummel, these were not cases of genocide, because those who were killed were not selected on the basis of their race, but were killed in large numbers as a result of government policies.” (this applies to this policy) (the above is from Wikipedia, Democide, pp 1 – 2, 06/03/2010, which are referenced)
*
The following letter is addressed to the RCMP as it was investigating my complaint against these civil servants and the theft and presentation of stolen research, most protected by Copyright, Intellectual Property Rights, and Intent of Use. It seems that in Canada we do not have the laws to confront the thieves I am dealing with. We can protect our own research from thieves but in this case the foreign owners of the research need to ask the RCMP to investigate for them. An example of this problem is exemplified with the Blackberry use of American research. The American owners needed to instigate the investigation not Canada.
The RCMP has stated that, “there is not enough evidence to support a criminal investigations and there is no reasonable prospect of a successful prosecution under the Copyright Act and/or the Criminal Code.” (Letter from Superintendent Tom Jones, “E” Division Border Integrity Program, April 20, 2010.)
This decision only reinforces criminal activity and corruption within government. It doesn't matter what the cost, financially or socially, these people need to be exposed. The RCMP are really wrong. The public investigation would make life better for the diabetic, the public, the naïve bystander, the non-corrupt civil servant, and the universal health care system. Let these people doing this to the public, the health care system, and me explain themselves in public.
Are we to believe the Attorney General's Supervising lawyer, the lawyer managing the Response to my discrimination complaint, did not know this Catch 22 about Canada's lack of law concerning Copyright, Intellectual Property Rights, and Intent of Use? The gov't web page demands the same as the owners of the research. Are we to believe the private law firm Heenan Blaikie, that the gov't hired for my complaint, did not know of this loophole in Canada's law? Their web page states, “Our Expertise”; “Intellectual Property”.
Reader, do not fall into the trap of saying “To bad but you got screwed and that is life.” That is what these monsters want you to think and say. They play charade after charade to deceive you into believing something that you should not.
Instead, try and realize this as just more depravity on their side, as they have stolen documents to justify their policy and its consequences and they did so in a Human Rights Early Dismissal Application where there are no witnesses; no Press, no witnesses called, and no public witness. Only documents presented, in other words, they did this act behind everyone's back where no one would see them. I did. And now you know. The HRT doesn't mention the theft.
As the gov't and lawyers are experts in this field they knew the RCMP could not legally charge them without the owners of the research instigating a complaint. What is that going to cost the owners? On the other hand, can Canadians really sue the foreign owners of the research if their research is used to justify the policy and harm and the gov't is found negligent of whatever the charge concerning the Harm of Democide? So, the owners are indifferent due to this fact of theft?
Planned and presented in private, in secret. Corrupt people do this. Nazis do this. I didn't get screwed here. Society did. The owners of the research did. The dead did. The survivors of the dead did. You did if you believe what they want you to believe. I can inform the world of this because it really happened. These people are thieves and liars and it was done to hide the Genocide. The HRT condoned the theft and lie by not acknowledging and writing about it in their Decision.
Needless to say I believe these corrupt civil servants need confronting in public. Let them explain themselves to the survivors of the deaths for which the research was stolen in order to justify the deaths.
I completely disagree with the decision of the RCMP as I believe a jury would not need to dot the ' i ' in an academic exercise, as the counsel for the RCMP has done regarding their choice to not expose this criminal activity and the Genocide. A jury would want to see the documentation to justify the use of the research, if not there then the research is stolen.
I will send this letter to the same RCMP office in Ottawa that evaluated my complaint, as they may have a department of Crimes Against Humanity or Genocide, but the web page does not offer anything. In the mean time I would like the UN, Human Rights Watch, and Montreal Institute for Genocide and Human Rights Studies Concordia University to investigated this Genocide complaint. I do not believe the politicians will do anything but they are not allowed to be ostriches. Williams is also a survivor of this Genocide, Democide.
To investigate this will benefit the world as most societies have driver programs for the disabled and if they, like the BC policy and its phoney medical examination, are not legal and cannot do what they are alleged to be able to do, then why are they being done except to fulfill the lust of corrupt civil servants.
Our universal health care system allow us, the world, to understand the horrific consequences of the policy, as when doctors are forced to give a phoney medical examination they are withdrawn from bona fide doctoring. When extrapolated for diabetics as 9% of society and then for all the other medical conditions monitored by gov't one can easily see how many doctors disappear for non-bona fide gov't demands upon the medical system. This allows those countries that have universal health care systems to understand what is happening to their doctors, the 'why' of the Overcrowded Emerge, and the 'why' of surgery wait-lists. It allow countries that do not have universal health care systems to understand the demand upon doctors and health care insurance policies. It allows them to realize all the demands upon their health care services. As to countries such as the USA, that is introducing some part of a universal health care system, it will enlighten them to the false demands of the gov't itself and if not Acknowledged, as in Canada, they will not be properly Funded and Managed.
Lastly, if the civil servants are doing this for diabetic drivers what other illegal or unworthy demands is the gov't making upon the medical system and not acknowledging, therefore not funded, therefore not managed?
As the German Nazis documented their horrors these civil servants have documented their horrors. The charades played need to be connected in order for you, the reader, to make sense of the wholeness of the illegal policy and its horrific consequences. It is our job to make the connections from the charades played and make these people explain themselves. The following letter is for all contacted and works through the charades that have been played out and you critical thinkers can then add whatever you have discovered.
*****
Reader, I do not care what you do for a living or for your personal life but you work through these Five Points if you are successful or want to be. You may change the language or maybe the order. Gov't certainly needs to work through this and most of the time they do, lawyers do, human rights tribunals are supposed to, I do, and so should you.
The Five Points of Engagement
1. Is the 'need' for intervention really there? Modern science says No. Is the policy a real 'need' or just a 'want'. It is a 'want' of unknown senior civil servants. The gov't bases the policy on their “view” that it is ok to do. Sorry, Canadian civil servants' “view” of the world is not good enough as there are Laws to follow and their Oath of Office 'needs' to be fulfilled. So why do it? Why do it knowing the consequences?
2. Can the 'intervention' really do what it is alleged to be able to do? No. The Driver's Medical Examination cannot predict, prevent, and manage hypoglycemia, the very reason for the policy. So why do it? Why do it knowing the consequences?
3. What are the 'consequences of the intervention'? The consequences kill and maim hundreds of naïve bystanders every year. The policy causes the Overcrowding and surgery wait-lists. The policy endangered my life. So why do it? Why do it knowing the consequences? (Read the Updated Consequences)
4. Is there 'any Good'? No. The gov't has stated it has never studied the policy for any Good. How insane is that? However, if there is no documentation to justify the policy in the first instance how can there be any change to prove Good? Secondly, as modern science states there is no problem to begin with how can there be any change to prove Good? Third, if the policy is based up some “view” of the world how can they prove Good? This lack of accountability defines discrimination. It exemplifies bias, prejudice, hate, ignorance, fear and loathing, disgust, and contempt for people and Laws. It defines Corrupt people. So why do it? Why do it knowing the consequences?
5. And 'where are we now'? Reader, for my diabetes care I visit the doctor twenty (20) times compared to the one (1) time I am forced to visit the doctor for the policy and the Driver Medical Examination, DME. This is never acknowledged by the gov't. Why? For my Class 4 license I visit eight (8) times to the one (1) time. Why has the policy continued on knowing this about diabetic care? Why continue knowing the killing, maiming, and negative influence upon those needing bona fide medical demands? Why has this never been acknowledged by the gov't, the Human Rights Tribunal, and the 'civil servant lawyers' attacking me instead of the illegal policy? So, why are doctors and I forced to comply with the demands of an illegal policy? Why do it knowing the above? Hate? Lust for power? Denial of Responsibility and Accountability? Denial of Genocide? They have gone to far over the Edge and they know it, therefore the charades to bury it.
Lastly, you should know that my first human rights complaint saw a change in who pays for the DME. The gov't now pays $75 for most examinations, whereas before August 2006 the diabetic or disabled driver needed to pay whatever the doctor charged for a 'non-necessary medical' examination, usually about $150.00. On the surface this is good thing but the taxes used to pay for this illegal policy and its non-necessary demands on the health care system, which offers No Good, should be used for 'necessary medical' demands, surgeries, which offer Good. So, the shuffling of taxes to pay for the DME is to make the policy look legal, as why would the gov't pay for the demands of an illegal policy. This is just another charade, a false marriage, done to give the policy the look of legitimacy. Why indeed? Isn't the shuffling of taxes to pay for an illegal policy and its demands upon the health care system fraud? This is an example of the charades played out by the gov't and its counsel that you really need to work through as it is all done to present that the policy is legal, therefore the killing is legally justified. The $75 comes from what my doctor charged for the DME. He is forced to give the DME, knows it cannot do what it is alleged to be able to do, and does no Good, therefore he charged only half the going rate. It's called civil disobedience on his behalf. So, you can hear the gov't, 'if that is all this doctor wanted to charge that is all they will get'. The gov't reimbursed my DME fees as part to the breached out of court settlement agreement for the discrimination complaint and that is how they came to know what he charged.
Now, All G Ps administering the DME do not get paid for their time.
Contents
p. 1-5 Opening
Introductory letter to Francis M. Deng, UN Secretary General's Special Advisor on the Prevention of Genocide, NY, NY and other New Contacts; Human Rights Watch, NY, NY; Montreal Institute For Genocide and Human Rights Studies, Concordia University, Quebec, Canada; Rummel @ Hawaii.edc
Previous Contacts; Adrian Dix, MLA Health Critic, BC; Danny Williams, Premier Newfoundland and Labrador; Jack Layton, Leader Federal NDP; John Stackhouse, Editor - in - Chief, Globe and Mail; Vancouver Sun, Letters Editor
p. 5 Five Points of Engagement
p. 6 Contents
p. 7 Introduction
Letter to Superintendent Burnside and all other readers
p. 9 'Confidentiality' and 'Consent' and about the 'Oath of Office'
p. 10 Part 1
Science, Absolutes, Confidentiality, Consent, Social Contract, Trust, Stolen Research, and Lawyers Conduct
p. 11 'Civil servant lawyers' and their Oath of Office and lawyer third party protection.
p. 12 Third Party Protection
p. 13 The Real Consequences of the Policy that no one wants to talk about
p. 16 Absolutes
p. 17 Homolka and Bernardo Murders
p. 18 More on Absolutes
p. 19 Another problem with the Lawyers' Conduct: Divide and Conquer
p. 20 Another problem with the Lawyers Conduct: Breach of Trust
p. 21 Another problem with the Lawyers Conduct: Abuse of Position
Important: Superintendent, you need to investigate this for Fraud and Withdrawal of Response to Complaint
p. 23 Important: HRT Bias and Prejudice; Another problem with the Lawyers Conduct: Bad Advice
p. 25 Another problem with the Lawyers Conduct: another Abuse of Position
p. 29 How many people have been killed by this policy? Everybody knows.
p. 30 Part 2
Oath of Office
p. 33 Evaluate the Conduct through the “Civil Servant Lawyer”
p. 34 More HRT Bias
p. 37 These lawyers are not expressing conduct of incompetency, they are choosing their competency, which is misleading conduct; More HRT Bias and their Blind Eye
p. 39 Liberation Day in the Netherlands
p. 40 Time for a review of why I am here; The new Driver's Medical Examination Form
p. 41 More Absolutes Broken from the point of 'Oath of Office'
p. 43 As my first complaint is mentioned lets revisit it for Absolutes, as seen through the Oath of Office, the Crime Against Humanity, the third definition of Genocide, Democide.
p. 46 Another Absolute Broken; Fraud
p. 48 More HRT bias, prejudice, favouritism, corruption, and the blind eye
p. 50 The DME Fee Change is Real Change
p. 51 Another viewpoint; Important: depth of corruption
p. 53 Why would I have signed an open-ended Timeline for the OSMV to legally justify the horror they are blaming me for? Are you out of your minds?
p. 55 Who wouldn't sign a Settlement Agreement that offered change
p. 56 Just another silly Charade within the Settlement Agreement
p. 58 Breach of the Affidavit, Trust, and now Change
p. 59 Lies
p. 60 “Stages of genocide and efforts to prevent it”
p. 67 Crime Against Humanity
p. 70 Corrupt Science to Justify Democide
p. 71 Previous Contacts and New Contacts and 'why' they are being contacted.
Letter to Superintendent Burnside
Introduction
April 30, 2010
Superintendent Graham Burnside
Director, Federal Enforcement Branch, RCMP
1200 Vanier Parkway, Ottawa, ON,
K1A 0R2
Dear Superintendent Burnside and all other readers;
In my letter to Williams, Layton, the Unknown woman, others, and you, February 15, 2010, I mention Oath of Office. This letter is an addition or expansion of the Oath of Office responsibilities and accountability that no one wants to acknowledge or admit to. That the civil servants and the 'civil servant lawyers' that are involved in this discrimination complaint are bound to fulfilling and yet they have not. All of them have broken their Oath of Office, should be fired, and charged accordingly. The BC Solicitor General has just resigned or been told to, as there is the allegation of wrong doing concerning election money management. Just the Risk of an allegation of funny money forced the resignation. He's the third to retire in as many years. These civil servants are 'knowingly' running an illegal policy that kills, maims, and endangers lives, which is little different than funny money. And just lately presented 185 stolen scientific research articles and when I caught them they lied about it and I caught them again. This is not funny money but an Absolute illegal policy with horrific consequences, theft and lies. All these actions break the Oath of Office little lone laws. Why are they still working for gov't?
This begs the Question, “So, the Office of the Solicitor General is corrupt, which corrupts the Politicians?”
Secondly, this letter is about the consequences of the policy. The United Nations defines Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity. Genocide has three different meanings; Democide, the third meaning applies to the consequences of this policy. Democide is used ;
“to avoid confusion over which meaning is intended”
““The murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide, and mass murder”.” “Democide can also include deaths arising from “intentionally or knowingly reckless and depraved disregard for life””.
“Some examples of democide cited by Rummel include the Great Purges carried out by Joseph Stalin in the Society Union (despite those people were executed), the deaths from the colonial policy of the Congo Free State, Mao Zedong's Great Leap Forward resulting in a famine which killed millions of people. According to Rummel, these were not cases of genocide, because those who were killed were not selected on the basis of their race, but were killed in large numbers as a result of government policies.” (Wikipedia, Democide, pp 1 – 2, 06/03/2010, the web page gives the needed references to UN documents and books,)
Third, it must be remembered that my complaint is not a Constitutional or Charter of Rights and Freedoms challenge, I want to know why the Office of the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles, OSMV, has not fulfilled the Charter demands. The gov't refused to acknowledge this and told me to go to the Human Rights Tribunal if I thought I was being discriminated against. I did. It was accepted. It then falsified the Motor Vehicle Act statutes it presented in order to justify their anti-diabetic policy, therefore the horrific consequences. The lack of any documentation to justify the policy is not acceptable. Running the policy knowing the horrific consequences is not acceptable. The gov't wrote that I am a killer; this is not acceptable. To steal protected scientific research to justify the policy is not acceptable. To lie about this is not acceptable. To endanger my life is not acceptable. To have the BC Human Rights Tribunal change the scope of my complaint without consultation, as previous done for the gov't, is not acceptable. To have the BC HRT give the gov't unlimited Time to legally justify the policy is not acceptable. The BC HRT buried my discrimination complaint for the gov't, this is not acceptable.
Lastly, I lodged a complaint against the lawyers that the OSMV hired to respond to my HRT complaint #5791, May 16, 2009. This was the second complaint concerning these two lawyers. The first one was buried by a blanket closure without attending to my complaint. (About the breached settlement agreement and the charade played to cover it up, and the fact that I was not informed that they had been hired by the OSMV.)
This second complaint was done due to the presentation of the stolen research material that was put forward in complaint #5791, among other things like presenting a lie that the gov't, themselves, did not know the scope of the complaint. It is only one of the things I considered unbecoming of lawyers concerning my inquiry and complaints about how I am treated by gov't and the consequences of their actions.
The paralegal that read this new complaint wrote things that were not acceptable. I did not respond at that time due to my spinal surgery and convalescence. (Her response of June 1, 2009) I wrote the Law Society months after her response, November 13, 2009, and stated I would not accept the “unsound idiotic presentation” she was stating for the reason to not review the lawyers conduct. A lawyer responded, February 16, 2010, to which I have just responded, March 13, 2010. The complaint will not go forward. The position of Oath of Office was not attended to, which is not acceptable, and will be explained below. The complaint has been moved to a commission of some kind for review of process.
My point is, there were things said to the Law Society that need to be said to you because as I have had too many things happen to me concerning this diabetes policy and I imply that people, especially people with legal experience, make the same discoveries I make and more, due to their training and public positions. They make more connections and that is why the people I have contacted, gov't, civil servants, Press, and the RCMP do not acknowledge what is really happening with this illegal policy. People are in denial and some just refuse that Canadians are doing this to each other.
Superintendent, the RCMP employee(s) that returned the material I sent to the RCMP about the theft, in pieces I believe, wrote they do not do these things or wrong dept. They didn't even sign it. We do not know who did this. Are they in denial of the horror, of what is really happening to me and the disabled and the people that suffer the consequences of the policy? What about my complaint concerning those people and their lack of accountability?
It is horrific when you read the “updated consequences” and think about it. Maybe they really are afraid.
Superintendent, I have never been given a reference number so people can refer to this Copyright theft complaint, my complaint as to how I was treated, and my complaint of the OSMV running an illegal policy, falsely using my taxes to pay for the demands of the illegal policy, its fraud, etc, etc.
At least with the HRT I am given a reference number, the Law Society also gives me a number. Why not the RCMP? This has gone on for eight years and as it is continuing what happens when you retire and I have no complaint number to refer to? The HRT just buried my Human Rights complaint and it will be years before a policy may come about to supposedly justify the policy and I will be hear challenging those criminals and Nazis.
Why didn't your lawyers give me a paper citing their reasons for not attacking the OSMV for stealing research, for using science for what it was not intended to be used for, which is falsifying legal documents as it is a breach of the Affidavit she presented. It is bastardizing or corrupting science to mislead, this is what Nazis do with science. This is what that academic researcher did, she falsified science to win her way under the power of an Affidavit that All is legal. She involved a law firm to deceive the reader that she had permission to use the research. I do not need to be tolerant of Nazis or corrupt academic researchers working for the gov't. No one does.
If there is No documentation of my complaint to the RCMP then there is no complaint. Is that what is going on?
I just wrote the Solicitor General about the falsifying of the New DME Form that I needed to complete. He has not responded. Neither has the RCMP about this complaint.
I later wrote him concerning the policy and he wrote that he had been informed my complaint had been resolved. I wrote that nothing of the sort had happened as the policy is still illegal, and his staff just stole scientific research to justify the policy and that I caught them and then they lied about it. He has not returned my inquiry about his staff. He has been a police officer for about thirty years. He knows what corruption is, theft is, lying is, and he knows what Homicide is, and a Crime Against Humanity; that is when the Nazis and monsters kill people, have the opportunity to stop the killing, and they do not, and they falsify documents and scientific documents to get their way, to deny and cover up their actions.
This policy has been running for a long time and the OSMV knows it is killing people, a medical doctor working for the Ministry of Health at that time wrote they and the OSMV acknowledge the harm and yet they continue. Is this what your lawyers saw in the illegal policy and theft of science, done to justify the policy which is described through Democide?
How about that woman last week, in Quebec, that was bedded in the hallway of an Overcrowded Emerge, she died three or four days later, she ended her life on a bed in the hallway? Are you going to investigate that? Where does the Overcrowding come from. The CBC reported the death but did not investigate the why of the Overcrowding, where the people come from, etc. As usual the Press knocks on the door of the Emerge but does not enter, they stay outside and interview the doctors and survivors. I not only knocked on the door but went inside. I am not responsible for those kinds of deaths and the gov't makes it seem the diabetic and disable are. I opened the door and used the numbers the gov't uses to try and justify the illegal policy and its horrific consequences. That is why the gov't wrote that the policy saves lives, a reversal of who is doing the killing. Set the disabled up as the killer and democratic rules can be broken to control the killer, according to the civil servants doing this to me and society.
Don't forget, not all civil servants are monsters. These corrupt ones need to be taken to task, taken away from their positions of power that they have corrupted. And the RCMP is afraid of twenty or thirty corrupt civil servants that have broke their Oath of Office, to Obey the Law, Do no Harm, Do not Lie, and Do not Steal? Abused the Affidavit Absolute? Afraid of a few politicians that are afraid to stand up to corruption, which means they have also broken their Oath of Office.
*
'Confidentiality' and 'Consent' and about the 'Oath of Office'
My point is, I cannot give you a copy of the Law Society's Response of March 13 as it is protected by the “Confidential” p. 1 and “consent of the author” p. 3 of the Law Society's Response.
So, this Section is about 'Confidentiality' and 'Consent' and about the 'Oath of Office' that no one talks about, in other words it is denied. Wrong. The demands of the Charter, the HR Code, MVA, and the Oath of Office have not been fulfilled by those doing this to me.
Additionally, why I believe that the gov't lawyers are not protected by the third party protection lawyers are afforded in our “democratic society”. (Quote from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Section 1) I explain why they are not protected from a lack of accountability or excluded from accountability. Why they are not excluded from responsibility of their actions concerning their help with the things they have done to help the gov't cover up what it is really doing. Example, the refusal to acknowledge the policy is illegal to begin with as there is no policy paper and as civil servant lawyers that sworn an Oath of Office, to protect the democratic society, gov't, which precedes any demands or protection afforded to lawyers by the democratic society. They should have attacked the illegal policy and those running it, not me. The protection of society comes first or lawyers would not have a democratic society that affords lawyers their third party protection, which is really needed. These lawyers should have attacked the civil servants that have broken their Oath of Office by running a policy based upon some civil servants “view” of life and not bona fide science. These lawyers swore an Oath to protect the gov't and they did not. The Law Society is afraid. Cluck cluck.
My point is, what I have found myself embroiled in is an illegal policy run by gov't and they know it is illegal. The gov't and its lawyers or counsel also know of the consequences of the policy, the disruption of the universal medical system, and the harm resulting from that disruption. They know I have been labeled a killer by senior civil servants. They know the policy is not supported by modern science. They know the DME cannot do what it is alleged to be able to do. They know there is no Good coming from the policy. They know I visit a doctor every three months for diabetic care compared to their demand of a visit once every two years or five years. They know the policy is responsible for the Overcrowding in Emergency facilities, therefore the unexpected and unexplained deaths Emerge doctors call Press Conferences about. They know the policy is responsible for the surgery wait-lists that doctors call Press conferences about. They know they are shuffling tax dollars away from health care to pay for the DME fee that is now paid by gov't, resulting from my first Human Rights Complaint, which really is fraud. They know they have just 'Endangered my Life' with this shuffle of tax dollars for an illegal policy that kills people, which forced me to buy my own spinal surgery. And more recently The Honourable Danny Williams' needed to by his own heart surgery, done in the USA to save his life.
The gov't and the lawyers know of this killing and maiming. And so do you. So does everyone that I write. So do the RCMP lawyers.
It is not just the odd death, is it. It is a huge number as Emerge doctors and my 'Updated Consequences letter' informs us. So, the killing that is going on due to the policy is more than just the odd death. One death due to the policy is an accident. Horrific, but an accident. The second death is what? I don't really know. But the policy should have been put on Hold and an Investigation into the policy commenced. The third death is not accidental, is it. It is not just killing, is it; not like civil servants labeling the disabled driver a killer, it is not accidental death, is it? No, the correct term is Homicide isn't it. It is Death through indifference of human life, isn't it. It is Death through reckless endangerment of human life, isn't it.
Is this what your lawyers saw and turned a blind eye to?
Yes, on a Grand scale it is Mass Murder isn't it. It really is a “Crime Against Humanity”, as the civil servants had more than ample opportunity and Time to stop and they haven't.
It really is unbelievable what is really going on with this policy and its cover up, its denial by so many people.
Superintendent, no one has the Right to not bring this forward. The killing is not acceptable by any standard. The civil servants, politicians, Press, Unions, lawyers and the RCMP do not have the Right to not bring this forward. They are not allowed to be the ostrich and be in denial. They reject this Crime in other countries why not their own?
If the RCMP and society can spend years and twenty or so million dollars investigating Mulroney and the five hundred thousand dollars that he accepted from some foreigner, why not this as Mulroney's actions did not kill anyone. He may have broken his Oath of Office, which I think the RCMP used as the instrument for investigation but he didn't kill anyone or endanger anyone's life. If the RCMP will use Oath of Office for a past Prime Minister then we must investigate this Homicide, mass killing, atrocity, crime against humanity, Genocide, or Democide.
Superintendent, the Press only reports the deaths and surgery wait-times but does not walk into the Emerge and ask questions of the people there; “why are you here?” Emerge doctors state at least 50% of those in Emerge should not be there. So, they are there because they cannot visit their G P within a reasonable timeline, because the G P is forced to comply to useless examinations and forms for gov't agencies such as the OSMV. A policy that is not legal in the first place. An examination that cannot do what it is alleged to be able to do and offers no Good.
The Press does not investigate this publicly because they know of the horror, gov't killing people. They also know of the extent of the killing. They are not naïve bystanders. The lawyers, 'civil servant lawyers', are not naïve bystanders.
My point is, no one has the Right to turn a blind eye to this killing, this Crime Against Humanity, this Democide. The Laws of Life, of Right to Life, of Human Rights, supersede any laws, or contrived laws, we fashion for ourselves. We obey these laws in order to write Law and Oaths of Office. This policy not only breaks all of these but kills and endangered my Right to Life.
Lawyers compose Conduct rules to protect their colleagues from the horrific situations they can find themselves in. I have no problem with this. However, there are bigger things than their Code of Conduct, or third party protection, lawyers' Code of Conduct comes after Right to Life. Without life they have no rules. Lawyers' Code of Conduct comes after the Oath of Office of a democratic society, as we need it first in order to have lawyers' protective devices.
To say the least this is a very real mess, they have no right to label me as a killer, take my rights away, endanger my life, and kill hundreds of people for their petty illegal policy, control over the disabled, and their dreams of grandeur. They are killing innocent bystanders and the lawyers know this, the lawyers should have turned into the “whistle blower”. To say they do not need to do this is false, life is more important than contrived protection devices. The democratic society is more important than protecting corrupt civil servants and their policy.
As you will read below, the lawyers are not protected by the third party protection, they only present themselves as being so to do what they want. Just like the misleading stamp of approval the law firm from Alberta gave the research material. The stamp only seemed to be something that it was not, and all were mislead due to the abuse of the position of status, trust, power, and prestige that defines lawyers, senior civil servants, and academic researchers employed by gov't.
These senior civil servants and 'senior civil servants' are 'doing what' when they hide mass murder, an atrocity, homicide, a crime against humanity, genocide, or Democide? The consequences of the policy are not some Correlation, but a direct Consequence of their actions. No wonder the lawyers are trying to play the charade that they are protected by lawyer third party protection. They know they are not, just like they knew the legal stamp was a charade and the lie about not knowing the scope of the complaint. Just like they know they broke the Trust of the Affidavit. Knowing about killing, maiming, homicide, atrocity, crime against humanity, genocide and not reporting it, is different than knowing and playing a charade concerning a breached settlement agreement, stolen research, and lies, isn't it.
*
Part 1
Science, Absolutes, Confidentiality, Consent, Social Contract, Trust, Stolen Research, and Lawyers Conduct
Once again, the stolen research. The science was stolen, there were articles used for purposes that the science was not researched or published for. There were articles used to Pad the presentation of science, to make it seem more weighty than it is, to mislead about the worth, value, and merit of the science's influence, done in order to justify the illegal policy. There were articles that had nothing to do with diabetes, used to increase the number of articles presented, Padding, which were used to falsely increase the Fear/Risk factor; again, science use for things other than it was researched or published for. Research presented that is not “Peer Reviewed”, although the presentation infers this, as so many of the research Journals used really are only Peer Reviewed science. All this is called the bastardization of science, twisting and misleading, corrupting, using science for something other than what it is, or researched for, or published for. If Dobbs presented this presentation to the science community she would have been laughed out of the science community. That should happen anyway. I have informed the National Research Council of Canada and the National Academy of Sciences (USA), about this corruption; these are the organizations that monitor scientists and science presentations for their worth, value, and merit.
Superintendent, this manipulation of science to get ones way is what those to the Left of a democratic society do to falsely get their way; the Socialist and Communist. This is what those to the Right of a democratic society do to falsely get their way; the Fascist and Nazi. This is what these people did with this corruption of science. I experience these people as Nazis as they are trying to solve our societies woes on the backs of the disabled and disenfranchized, as many disabled are disenfranchized. Don't forget, they have labeled me as a killer, the worst classification a person, or group, or culture could be labeled. This is another example of the bastardization of science as readers of the statement, coming from gov't, implies that the statement comes from scientific research. And yet, nothing was offered to justify the statement, but the idea of science was used and abused, science was corrupted by corrupt civil servants who have taken an Oath of Office.
Secondly, my complaint about the theft of research is more than just experiencing Copyright breach, Intellectual Property Rights theft, and Intent of Use breach for the monsters to justify their behaviour. The whole presentation of Science has been assaulted by these corrupt senior civil servants and their 'civil servant lawyers' and those behind the scenes, such as the Nazis that wrote the Draft and those in the Ministry of Health that support the policy. It is not believable that the 'civil servant lawyers' do not know that science has been corrupted by their clients, that the presentation of stolen research and the number of articles used is not corruption. They fought for a change of scope, for damage control, which would lesson the number of articles presented to less ten (10) from (185), which means they know of the corruption, which is more than just the breach of Copyright, Intellectual Property Rights theft, and Intent of Use breach.
Because so many people are afraid of science I have included a copy of my Deconstruction of Dobbs' so-called presentation of science for the UN and HRW. She absolutely corrupted the Trust of Science and needed to be challenged.
My point is, “Is my Deconstruction of Dobbs' presentation of worth, value, and merit?” What you need to acknowledge is that this deconstruction is so right on target that it lead the gov't and its counsel to lie about not knowing the scope of the complaint, done as damage control. What Dobbs has done to the Science is bastardize it, corrupt the standards of Science, there is intent to mislead through her position of academic researcher, a scientist, that position of status, trust, power, and prestige that is given to scientists for the earned work. She has done this with the position of status, trust, power, and prestige that is given to lawyers and the Affidavit and senior civil servants and their Oath of Office. The presentation of Dobbs breaks all the rules, done where colleagues would not see it, where they could not evaluate it, and let the world know how corrupt it really is. Where the HRT did not challenge it. Nazis did the same thing, made up things about Jews, Gipsy's, Polish people, the poor, people they didn't like, and the Disabled and said Science proved their need for un - legislated control, based upon their “view” of life. I am Disabled.
I am Classified, Labeled, Forced to undergo a useless medical examination, (Not useless to the Nazis as it is used, in their minds, to falsely prove to the uneducated or naïve that the diabetic is such a liability that they not only need licensing control but also forced medical control.) given a Number, and will be Tracked the rest of my life due to some Nazis civil servants “view” of the world. (This is not the same as being licensed or being photographed for a license.) (This is in addition to those rules.)
Dobbs' presentation is False Science. It is used to justify the killing of the policy, where in reality the relevant and modern science informs us there is no difference in driver mishaps between non-diabetic drivers and type 2 drivers. Readers are manipulated through her scientific position, with the addition of her position as a new senior civil servant, with the addition of the position of three different law firms, and the position of Deputy Superintendent of Motor Vehicles, the gov't. This presentation of stolen research is more than some simple misunderstanding of scope, it defines corruption.
Give this deconstruction of Dobbs presentation to your lawyers so they will never again be afraid of “Science” and those that present 'science' under the guise of “Science”.
Don't forget, my questions about the policy and my “Updated Consequences” changed policy without going to court. Can you and your counsel say the same for changes in Law you deem necessary? You know the work involved. So, what does this say about the quality of questions I asked? What does this say about the quality of the Deconstruction of the so called academic researcher's scientific presentation?
There is too much denial of what is really taking place with this policy. If you can take-on the Prime Minister's Office, Oaths of Office, you can certainly take-on the Office of the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles and its lawyers, Oaths of Office, and all those that are behind the scenes supporting the illegal policy and its Homicide, Maiming, and the Endangerment of my life and just recently Williams, Layton, and the Unknown woman MLA NDP Dix interviewed.
The Homicide is real, the Democide is a reality and I did not kill anyone. I'm involved in this and so are you, whether you like it not. Whether Canada likes it or not.
*
'Civil servant lawyers' and their Oath of Office and lawyer third party protection.
Superintendent, I may have affected some kind of change concerning this policy, as to who now pays for the DME fee, which is a good and bad thing, but that does not mean I need to stop there. The policy is illegal to begin with and modern science does not support the differential treatment and then we need to look at the consequences of the differential treatment by those civil servants and how to explain the killing they do with their policy.
By the way, diabetics do not pay more for their car insurance or house insurance. They are not treated differently and if there was a problem Insurance companies would charge accordingly. They don't. There is no problem with type 2 diabetic drivers and maybe type 1s. And if there is a problem with type 1s and driving, is the difference in driver mishaps really significant? Is it significant to the consequences?
So, the policy is really based upon the bias, prejudice, hate, ignorance, fear and loathing, disgust, and contempt of people of difference by civil servants. This negativism impacts all concerned, presentations, and how things are interpreted. You could say I'm the accidental whistle blower and everyone else is in denial. Who wants to get involved in a “Canadian Crime Against Humanity” or “Democide”? I can guarantee you that I did not believe this policy had never been justified in the first instance and that the civil servants are this corrupt about it. The wholeness of this policy, its consequences, and its defense is complicated and I did not make it so. It has been done because the policy and the consequences are so horrific.
I have done nothing to anyone and as a Democrat with Rights that Canadians afford everyone in the world that come here I do not need to be in denial of the Crime Against Humanity just because civil servants are doing it and of how horrific it really is. Cowards, bullies, and Nazis do things behind others backs and slink away and deny when confronted.
My point is, read the Updated Consequences and remember the civil servants knew they were doing harm when I began my inquiry in 2002 - 2004. I took the time to work through their numbers as the policy and the DME did not make sense. They knew then and know today and yet still continue on with the Harm. What does this make them?
Again, one death from their actions is an accident. The second death is what? The policy should have been put on Hold. A Review of the Consequences done immediately. The third death is what? To continue on when one knows one's behaviour kills people, is what? It's Homicide, isn't it. To continue on after I made this public to them, through my inquiry, is what? You, the Law Society, the Press, and now the UN and HRW and me are involved in this whether we like it or not.
Additionally, the policy just endangered my life because they shuffle tax dollars to pay for the illegal DME. They know they are endangering the lives of people needing surgery and yet they use tax dollars to pay for an illegal demand upon the health care system that does no Good. What does this make them? The OSMV and its supporters had no right to do that. How many have died in a similar situation? How many crippled? How many addicted to the medical drugs they use for pain relief waiting for surgery? Addicted to drugs, which now becomes a societal problem. Which now becomes a law enforcement problem. Superintendent, the Wholeness of the policy needs to be acknowledged as you are deeply involved in this illegal policy and all the consequences.
What did the OSMV and its supporters do when I made inquiries about the policy? They did not send one civil servant to say, Jenkins, this is why we do this, here are the documents to support our policy. These are the consequences, there is Good. No, they did nothing of the sort. They hired the Attorney General's office, of 100 or so lawyers, and then Heenan Blaikie with 700 or so lawyers, and recently Armstrong Law from Alberta.
800 plus lawyers to deal with my inquiry and questions about;
1. Why the OSMV did not fulfill the demands of the Charter, not that the gov't does not have the Right to come into my life, but they need to prove a need with documents not just run policy based upon a “view” of the world.
2. Why they did not fulfill the Human Rights Code. (The gov't condescendingly suggested I lodge a complaint.)
3. Why they did not fulfill the demands of the Motor Vehicle Act; its their Law, so to get around the demands of the statutes they changed the meaning of the statutes by the old trick of paraphrasing. This is just like bastardizing science, because the real science does not support the policy. The demands of the real MVA statutes demand documentation as the Charter does, therefore the OSMV had its Attorney General's counsel change the wording, therefore the meaning of the statutes. This action is falsifying legal documents. Fraud. Corruption. What does this make these people?
4. Why they have not acknowledged the consequences of the policy; publicly at least, and label me a killer? Homicidal behaviour is not usually disclosed is it?
5. Why didn't they study the policy for Good. That is insane. Because they know there is no Good.
6. Why going to the doctor every three months for diabetic care was/is not acknowledged by the OSMV?
So, these lawyers fight me, all the while the killing and maiming continues. The gov't and its supporters should have put the policy on Hold the first instance someone acknowledged they were harming people.
They should have put the policy on Hold or Canceled it the first instances someone like me brought forward the harm. They didn't. They have fought any accountability and responsibility since 2002. They have tried to bury the illegality of the policy and the slaughter through stonewalling, breached contract, corrupted science, etc and through 'civil servant lawyers' turning a blind eye to a Crime Against Humanity, which leads to Genocide, defined by Democide.
They knew the policy was illegal and mislead the public about its legitimacy. They then discovered the harm?
No they did not. They actually knew of the harm before implementation of the policy, as they knew they would be forcing doctors to fulfill the demands of the DME and Form; doctors are forced to comply and complete the DME and its Form, just like the diabetic is forced to comply under the threat of loosing one's license.
Secondly, are we to believe that those that invented the policy did not work through the needs to implement a gov't policy concerning the public? That they believed there was a problem with diabetic drivers, dreamed up an intervention to remedy the problem, and did not review the consequences of a policy that needs to fulfill legal demands of the Charter, the HR Code, the MVA, and their Oath of Office?
No. We do not need to be that naïve. We are not allowed to be the ostrich. These people knew what they were doing and implemented the policy anyway.
'Civil servant lawyers' and their Oath of Office and lawyer third party protection.
They then made a conscious decision to continue on with the policy no matter what the harm. If caught they would stonewall and deny. As they have done the past eight years. And the Law Society does not acknowledge or realize the defense of this Constructed Harm as unbecoming, indecent, unacceptable conduct befitting a lawyer? The senior 'civil servant lawyer' is defending govt corruption and homicide and the 'civil servant lawyers' pretend they are not involved? Pretend they are covered by the third party protection that our democratic society affords them? That the lawyers cannot confront those running this policy because the gov't lawyer, the civil servant lawyer, is third party to all this?
That the 'civil servant lawyer's' primary Allegiance and Obligation is to the Law Society and not the Country that affords them the protection in the first place? That their allegiance is to the Law Society first, then their Oath of Office? The lawyers are wrong in their presentation of the allegiance and obligation. The country comes first.
No one is allowed to be an ostrich when it comes to Homicide or a Crime Against Humanity or Democide. We all defend the country from the monsters.
The fault with the presentation of the idea about third party protection is that without the Democratic Society we live in there would not be the opportunity for lawyers to demand the third party status and be given it. The laws of the country come first, then any protection a Society, such as the Law Society, wants to invent for protection come next. The Law Society's rules and regulations are subordinate to the Crown or Democratic society and/or the Oath of Office.
The OSMV, gov't, chose to continue with the policy against the diabetic because of their bias, prejudice, hate, ignorance, fear and loathing, disgust, contempt, and the fear of loosing power over the disabled. Loosing power would lessen their management portfolio, lessen their departmental funding, lessen their status in the community of politics, which is everything for those in the car industry. Big boys and their toys loosing power. They kill for it. They are maiming for it. They have endangered my life for it.
Secondly, the lawyers, 'civil servant lawyers', are really just more gov't workers, representing themselves, not independent or individual lawyers protected by the third party protection. These gov't lawyers are responsible for what they do, write, and are involved in, as they really are just more civil servants. Their protection comes by complying with the Oath of Office and complying with the Laws of the country. If they do not comply with the Oath of Office they forfeit their protection offered by the Oath of Office. They cannot then pretend they are independent or private lawyers with the third party protection.
The gov't designation comes first, they are gov't employees and bound by that designation, in reality they are really just defending themselves, bound to the Oath of Office. This takes them out of the classification of individual, independent, or private lawyer defending someone, which in turns affords them the third party protection. They are therefore open to accountability as they are defending themselves just as an individual or private lawyer would be if she or he defended herself or himself.
My point is, if the gov't has not defined this duality then it is not my fault. This must be played out as it is now, as it is today. Played out as I am playing by the rules today. They have had years to define this double classification of lawyers, the 'independent or private lawyer' and the 'civil servant lawyer'.
It is not acceptable the Law Society does not acknowledge this fact.
The 'private lawyer' is not bound by the Oath of Office where the 'civil servant lawyer' is. The civil servant lawyer is gov't, thinks for gov't, writes for gov't, acts for gov't, speaks for gov't, therefore is gov't and when representing gov't is gov't itself and not covered by the protection the private lawyer is; that protection of turning the blind eye to evaluating actions, behaviour, or illegal acts of their client. That protection that is needed due to the situations they may find themselves within. That protection that is Afforded to them from a democratic society that is functioning at all levels.
The 'civil servant lawyer' is his or her own client, herself or himself and lawyers are not protected by the third party position or status if they defend themselves. Therefore, the 'civil servant lawyers'' conduct concerning this case and all that has happened is open for review for accountability to the Law Society. It is open for accountability to society. The fraud, theft, lies, homicide includes the lawyers just as it would in a bank robbery where one robber kills someone, the other robbers would also be held accountable. These 'civil servant lawyers' did not fulfill their Oath of Office, therefore they are not protected by the Oath.
The presentation of the 'civil servant lawyers' as 'private lawyers' is just another charade they are playing. The failure of the Law Society to address the Oath of Office is just another charade played out to defend their colleagues.
*
The Real Consequences of the Policy that No one wants to talk about
Superintendent, this behaviour or conduct exemplifies and establishes the mind-set or group-think that is associated with atrocity and atrocity denial.
I don't think this is Mass Murder such as happens in the Mexican drug wars, as this is gov't initiated and funded.
I don't think this can be classified as Genocide such as happened to First Nations People, Jews, Armenians and just recently in old Yugoslavia (Bosnia and Serbia), and Rwanda. The diabetic is not being slaughter here or the gene pool extinguished, that may come later. The policy is here to control the diabetic, a person these civil servants and their supporters are afraid of, and now there are hundreds being killed and maimed in Emerge and who knows how many on surgery wait-lists, while the gov't has diverted tax dollars to pay for the demands of an illegal policy, its illegal DME, that has never even been proved to be able to do what it is alleged to be able to do. It really defines Democide.
Again, the funding for the DME is just another charade to falsely marry the DME to the Policy in order to give a false legality to both. And the lawyers are allowed to be an ostrich to this? When do lawyers fight for the democratic society that affords lawyers the opportunities they enjoy today?
Do we really need to believe the diverting of taxes to pay for an illegal demand upon the health care system happened without those knowing what they were really doing? To do this the gov't needed to change the DME from a non-necessary medical demand to a necessary medical demand in order for taxes to be used for this. And lawyers were not involved in this change. It was an arbitrary change, not legally or medically justified, contrived to defend the policy, which offers no Good. If used for bona fide necessary medical demands upon the medical system it would resolve all those waiting for surgery, which has proven Good.
Isn't diverting taxes to pay for an illegal gov't policy fraud? What kind of fraud when they know the taxes could be used to solve bona fide medical demands? What kind of fraud for the endangerment of my life as I should not have needed to buy the necessary MRI, the spinal surgery, and post operation care? All this because they know the consequences of the policy harm, and when put on a society scale from the individual scale, they know we are involved in an atrocity.
What kind of atrocity is the question?
A troubling consequence realized by this contrived false good of the policy is I needed justified, bona fide, a very real medical necessity, surgery on my spine and discovered there is no funding available.
This consequence is not a correlation but a direct consequence of corruption.
Your/my taxes were and are used to pay for the illegal, non-bona fide, non-justified, and in reality the non-necessary medical demand, the Driver's Medical Examination. I was told I needed to wait two years for surgery. In that time I would loose the function of my lower bowels. This shortens your life. An illegal use of taxes that has the consequence of endangering my life is acceptable by the lawyers protecting the civil servants doing this to me and hundreds of other people in need of surgery?
The 'civil servant lawyers' did not have the right to not inform on these people, because if it continues there will not be a society that protects society from corruption and affords lawyers what they have today.
The 'civil servant lawyers' have turned a blind eye to their civil servant colleagues while they have labeled me a killer, a pariah, run an illegal policy, broke a settlement agreement, falsely lead people to believe they renewed that settlement agreement, forced a useless medical examination upon me, steal research, lie when caught, illegally change the settlement agreement Scope and Timeline, and now Endangered my life. And the Law Society buried my first complaint against these lawyers. Deviant behaviour begs more deviant behaviour.
Interesting stuff, eh. And in Canada, not Mexico, Africa, or Serbia.
Genocide is not just something related to war anymore and I haven't been murdered yet. So how do we label this atrocity?
Isn't this policy and its consequences a Crime Against Humanity? The Harms are a direct consequence of illegal behaviour that is a known wrong and yet continues on without bona fide or justified reason. The killing continues on even thought the gov't has had the opportunity to Stop the killing and have chosen not to cancel the policy.
Even if done with good intentions an Accidental killing cannot be balanced off with a Constructed killing. Even with good intentions the civil servants have never studied the policy for Good. How is that for denial of responsibility, turning your back on your illegal activity, your atrocity, your crime against humanity and blame the killing on the diabetic in order to justify the gov't killing. A tooth for a tooth; except the killing has been reversed, the gov't kills and blames the diabetic. The trouble with the gov't presentation is the diabetic killing is imagined, whereas the gov't killing is recorded in Overcrowded Emerge, surgery wait-lists, Coroner's reports, and by the survivors.
If gov't intervenes into the public's life it is mandatory, an Absolute, that they monitor the intervention for Good and Harm. They did enough to realize Harm and turned their backs. The dead and maimed are just naïve bystanders to a known illegal social policy. The dead are just Roadkill to those in the auto industry, and that is what the OSMV is.
Superintendent, your lawyers are trained critical thinkers, so are you. How do you define the killing and maiming? How do you define the conduct of lawyers in a Democratic Society, that have a first commitment to not only at least keep, preserve, retain, maintain, but grow that Democratic Society, that turn they backs on the breaches of law that define that society?
It is not acceptable conduct as lives are being lost, naïve bystanders are loosing their Right to Life for an illegal policy? Naïve bystanders are being killed and lawyers play games of protection? What about the protection of Life? That is more important than any composed rule of protection afforded a self interest group or Society. What about the endangerment of my life due to this policy and its demands?
My point is, the above is not some worn out cliche. Not after Bosnia, Burundi, Rwanda, and Serbia. No one person, or no Society, or Law Society can state they have the Right to be quiet concerning this atrocity or crime against humanity. The crime against humanity does not need to be proved before anyone dares to confront what is going on. That is the ostrich syndrome of defense, isn't it. Not happening, not happening. Can't be happening in Canada. Can't be happening in Canada.
Is this a form of Stockholm Syndrome, where everyone is in denial of the act mass murder, of illegal policy, of a crime against humanity because they are defending their idea of Canada and their idea cannot be harmful?
That they must deny the crimes as they believe those that are supposed to be managing their idea of Canada must only be doing their best to defend the idea of 'the Canada that does no harm' and if a few harms are needed then that should be accepted? Is this why non-government people I have contacted about this do not respond? Denial of the harm? Afraid to get involved?
To not confront Genocide, mass murder, atrocity, crime against humanity, or Democide because the society that the lawyers exist in affords lawyers protection in a 'non-harm time' is not acceptable. A 'non-harm time', or 'Good time', is when gov't is obeying the law, the demands of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Human Rights Law, and the Motor Vehicle Act, are fulfilled. Oaths of Office are taken seriously and conformed to. Gov't explains why they are involved in the public's life.
'Good time' is the time when the Social Contract of Trust was afforded to lawyers and when the third party protection was afforded to lawyers.
'Bad times' are when a crime against humanity is taking place, when the gov't does not follow law, does not fulfill the demands of the Charter, the HR Code, the MVA and Oaths of Office. 'Bad times' are when it breaks settlement agreements it has initiated, when the gov't changes the wording of law to get its way, when the gov't steals scientific research to get its way, lies to get its way, practices fraudulent activities to get its way. The result is the 'affordabilities' of third party protection change in order for the society to challenge those that have run amuck, as the 'Good times' have been corrupted.
The third party protection for these lawyers is invalid, as the above 'bad times' apply to this situation, so they falsely present to others that they are protected by the third party protection, in order to present lies and fraud for government, to defend homicide and the endangerment to life, when they should be attacking it. These 'civil servant lawyers' are not naïve bystanders here. They have chosen their positions and need to be held accountable.
They again become part of the corrupt gov't just representing themselves, which again forfeits the third party protection, which I do not imagine lawyers want to be in the position of representing themselves and Absolutely responsible for the corruption of gov't and its atrocities. If they followed their Oath of Office they would not be in this position.
Isn't this the position that the so-called 'private lawyer' hired by the gov't has found herself in? Conveying she is a 'private lawyer' but actually a temporary gov't employee bound by the Oath of Office she has not complied with. Just another charade. Just another reversal of what is really happening.
Is this another reason, 'bad times', 'Why' the Law Society buried my first complaint against these same two lawyers? The Law Society knows these lawyers are not protected by the third party protection instrument, as they are gov't lawyers and in every sense of the station of gov't lawyer, with an Oath of Office to abide by first, that by not fulfilling the Oath of Office they are only defending themselves as gov't employees and open to liability?
There is no excuse to not confront harm when things run amuck, when gov't breaks human rights contracts, runs charades to cover-up the breach, pay themselves for supposedly making an amendment to the breach but in reality not doing so, which is fraud, runs illegal policy, runs illegal and meaningless medical exams, presents fraud to justify its behaviour, presents fraud to cover the theft and corruption of scientific research, presents fraud by using tax dollars for illegal acts, mails the fraudulently stamped science to another province then to me, which is mail fraud isn't it, etc, etc. That social contract of Trust and third party protection is only valid in the non-harm time, it is a tentative affordability from society in Good Times only; when the democratic society is really functioning. Mass murder by gov't changes everything and everyone.
Lawyers are not bound by the criminality of gov't and are aloud to challenge the gov't behaviour. They need to challenge or they will not have a society that affords them the Trust and third party protection. These lawyers did not even stand up for their colleagues by confronting corruption that diminishes our Democratic Society and its affordabilities.
My point is, be patient with me here, one death by a gov't policy is an accident, horrific, but an accident. But what is it when the gov't knows the policy is illegal in the first place?
The second death by an illegal gov't policy is what? I really do not know. But the policy should have been put on hold or canceled. An investigation done. They didn't do this.
The third death, because they know the cause and have refused to change is Homicide isn't it. And when considered on a mass scale it is a Crime Against Humanity because those doing it, the gov't and its counsel, have had ample opportunities and Time to stop and they have not.
What is the 100th death, the 1000th death? One unexpected, unexplained, unnecessary death a week in Emerge is 52 a year. That's 416 deaths in 8 years, from my initial inquiry of 2002. Multiply this number by the 10 busiest hospitals, that is 4 160 deaths for BC alone. Now include Canada. Now look at the statistics for Burundi, 1993 - 4, Serbia, 1998 - 9. (go to wikipedia, crime against humanity, Democide, pp. 5 – 6.)
Superintendent, do you really believe Emerge surgeons call Press Conferences for one unexpected death a week?
What about the maiming? Those are not recorded by the hospital or the coroner.
What about all those that have had their lives endangered as happened to me. To Danny Williams, Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, and Jack Layton, Federal leader of the NDP, and the unknown woman Adrian Dix, Provincial NDP health care critic interviewed on TV. These are devastating things to experience.
What is going on with this policy is a horror show to say the least. And everyone I write is quiet about it. They are all afraid of the monster that has come into their house. They have closed the door and locked the monster inside with them.
*
Absolutes
Superintendent, lawyers introduce the idea or fact of Absolutes, that lawyers are under no obligation to advance a case against their client if the opposition, me, or themselves feel the conduct is illegal. An Absolute that they are only representing their client, protection of the third party. That they are not responsible for their words or writing.
My point is, the Law Society's letter to me states their communication is “Confidential”. That is an Absolute. (My highlight.)
Secondly, “Please note that this letter and other documents relating to this complaint are not admissible as evidence in any proceedings without the “consent” of the author of the material ....” This is another Absolute. (My quote marks, underlining, and highlight on consent.)
So, the Law Society begins their contact with me with a Threat and conclude with a Threat and introduce Absolutes.
There is no misunderstanding that I cannot forward their letter with my mailings, without consent. I cannot write about their letter and mail it out without their consent. I cannot sent it to the RCMP, Danny Williams, Jack Layton, or the Press, etc, without their consent. I cannot send my response to their letter as it talks about their letter, without consent. If I sent their letter to you what would your lawyers say? Societies needs are greater than a provincial Law Society's wants, so you will read it?
What would the Law Society's lawyers say if I did? What would Williams, Layton, or the Press' lawyers say in the defense of the receipt or use of the Law Society's letter? Would they say there is a greater Good to humanity than the Law Society's privacy, which is only afforded in good times and by Democrats such as me? That there is a greater Good to our democratic society than the Law Society's privacy. It would be interesting to see how far you would really go. Life verses Law Society privacy, which is afforded only in good times by the functioning democratic society.
What would the Law Society really do to me if I sent their letter to you? Put me in jail? Phone my mom? When they are not acknowledging this Democide? And all the other things that have happened to me by their colleagues?
What would they do to the RCMP? Would they defend their position? Would they charge the RCMP? Would the Law Society really charge the RCMP under the circumstances? Would they phone your mom?
The Law Society would need to make a decision wouldn't they. A charge against the RCMP or me would make the Law Society's protection of a crime against humanity public; public, as the charge against would be heard in court. Would they charge the Press? And not Williams and Layton? If the Law Society charged me they would need to charge everyone. The Law Society would not be allowed to select who to charge.
The Law Society cannot select who to charge and who not to charge as they deal in Absolutes. To not charge Hunt and Iyer with breach of Trust or whatever adjectives they use to describe a complete indifference to legal demands concerning the 'confidentiality of the research material' and its demand for 'consent of use' is not acceptable.
Hunt and Iyer did not have “consent” to use the “Confidential” scientific research material, the research is stamped “For internal distribution only”; this is an Absolute, no different than the Law Society's Absolutes. The use is more than a breach of Copyright, Intellectual Property Rights theft, and an Intent of Use abuse. It is also a breach of Trust that has taken place. It is expected that Trust will be acknowledged; the Social Contract of Trust that is agreed upon to make our democratic society work. As peoples backs are turned and that is all the owners of the research material can really rely upon, just as the Law Society expects me to get permission and acknowledge the Trust that they also use and rely upon.
It is the unwritten Social Contract isn't it, Trust; so we can all sleep at night. The scientific material is stamped or labeled with a footnote for protection and trusts it will not be broken. Except the lawyers refused to acknowledge the Absolutes of a democratic society when it is to their advantage and even break the Absolutes that their Society has established. And these lawyers present themselves as third party protected. Bullshit. Just another lie presented in charade.
So, that unwritten Trust or Social Contract is not accepted by the lawyers involved and yet the Law Society establishes the Absolute or Trust within their letter, the Law Societies rules of an unwritten trust, trust because it is difficult to manage things such as Copyright etc unless the Absolutes are acknowledged by All, especially those that establish Absolutes such as the Law Society. The Law Society establishes the Absolutes and then say Absolutes do not apply to them. Reader, and you wonder why the Law Society buried my complaints.
Superintendent, how would the Law Society know if I did send their letter across this country. They wouldn't. Just like the owners of the research material. They protect and trust, as it is difficult to manage things as this. They trust I will not use their material behind their backs, as their lawyers did with the science, to live up to the Social Contract or we will have Chaos, the Bad Times. They trust I will not be like the OSMV and use the Law Society's protected material without consent, that your lawyers will not accept little lone present without consent.
Secondly, Hunt and Iyer are playing with the Law Society's Absolutes and the Social Contract of Trust the Law Society establishes but only afforded by the democratic society in the first place. They are naïve of this?
Third, do you really expect the public and myself to believe the lawyers are Not Conscious of the fact that you will be in a public argument if you use protect Law Society material? Is the public supposed to believe these Human Rights Lawyers do not know about Copyright Protection, Intellectual Property Rights, and Intent of Use protection instruments, or terms such as, 'For internal use only' or “for internal distribution only”? Court will solve any misgivings about theft.
This deliberate mischief making is described by what adjectives, as mischief making does not describe the severity of the act or charade played out by these two 'civil servant lawyers' and the OMSV civil servants and other unknowns? It is deviant behaviour not becoming of a lawyer. They play games with established standards of society and Law. They are not above them. They are simply lawyers abusing the Trust and protection a democratic society affords them in Good Times and refuse to acknowledge that Bad Times are here, therefore canceling their power of protection from the Law Society, little lone their breach of their Oath of Office.
They are not allowed to have it both ways, either they support the democratic society or join the gov't and its civil servants that have run amuck and are running a crime against humanity, Democide, in an effort to control a minority of that society. They are just as accountable as anyone pulling the trigger in a bank job. They made their choice by not attending to their Oath of Office.
My point is, what the Law Society demands of me they do not give to anyone else in the world or me. The research comes from Canada and all over world. And yet the Law Society will attack me if I break the Absolutes they establish. Their double standard is not acceptable. This is why the HRT accepted my complaint in the first place, before they really understood what it really is all about. The OSMV bases the policy upon the consequences of diabetes but when I asked about the consequences of the policy they refused to answer. Who wants to publicly admit to killing, maiming, and endangering lives defined as Democide.
So, the Law Society's conduct concerning this breach of Confidentiality and Consent on their colleagues behalf is discriminatory to say the least.
The Law Society demands confidentiality, consent, and the social contract of Trust and yet they do not demand it of their colleagues. Their colleagues, Hunt and Iyer, are not naïve bystanders. They know Social Contracts may not be valid in court. They know Social Contracts are not valid in Bad Times, in times when Laws are being broken by law makers and those that manage a democratic society are running amuck. Their privilege to practice law in BC should be revoked.
*
Homolka and Bernardo Murders
My point is, this is not the same situation as the lawyer for Homolka and Bernardo found himself in when he did not turn the video tapes over to the prosecutors concerning the murder and torture of the two girls;
“Justice Patrick Gravely pointed out the guidelines for lawyers who come into evidence aren't clear.”
“ “In my opinion, it does not follow that because concealment of incriminating evidence is forbidden, there is a corresponding positive obligation to disclose,” ” (cbc.ca/canada/story/2000/06/13/ken_murray)
Although the court cases are different, one a criminal court the other a human rights court, this is not the point. The point is that as horrific as the murders were, it was a man and woman doing the acts, in a Good Time.
This is gov't doing the killing and maiming defining a Bad Time; a time when gov't is not obeying the law itself. The gov't is running amuck, breaking laws and breaking more law to conceal what it is doing, breaking contracts, stealing, lying and the standards of the Good society do not apply, as the gov't has also broken the Trust.
The idea of “it does not follow that because concealment of incriminating evidence is forbidden, there is a corresponding positive obligation to disclose” is mandatory if we are to have the Good Times, where lawyer third party protection and the social contract of Trust is relevant.
These lawyers should have reported the corruption of gov't in order to bring the Good Times back, in order to have the “. . . it does not follow . . . obligation to disclose” option. The Law Society really needs to have a disciplinary hearing to resolve this complaint, as the Good/Bad Times are not the same as when Justice Gravely made his decision.
My point is, this option to disclose has not been addressed by lawyers on purpose. It is that third party protection that is afforded to lawyers by a democratic society, in Good Times.
*
More on Absolutes
What would the Law Society do to a lawyer, if he or she, for whatever reason, decided to bring all this forward to the Press, or courts, or to someone that has had someone die in an Overcrowded Emerge or waiting for surgery?
Would the Law Society do anything, as the complaint would be heard in court and the illegal policy, the killing and maiming, the theft of research, the phoney HRT decision concerning #5791, the shuffling of taxes to pay for an illegal policy, etc, etc would all come out and their protection of the horror. I don't think the Law Society would be allowed to do anything to me if I passed their letter on. They are not going to do anything to their colleagues, so how could they justify an attack on me and done in public space?
So, the Law Society uses these two demands as a threat, to keep confidentiality and consent, and they are Absolutes. Done to keep those with malice in their hearts at bay. It's interesting isn't it, that the policy is illegal and the consequences really are responsible for the Overcrowding and surgery wait-lists, and deaths, maiming, and endangerment of lives as happened to me, etc, etc, which means there must be malice in the civil servants hearts to do what they are doing as they never even put the policy on hold knowing of the killing, knowing their personal “view”of life is doing this, and yet they continue. Absolutes are here to protect people, to protect our democratic society, to protect Life, and these people had exemplified they care nothing for Law, the Oath of Office, Life, and now Confidentiality or Consent tools their own society depends on.
Again, Dobbs' presentation of the scientific research has a stamp on the bottom of each page, done for Protection, as does the Law Society's letter.
So, Dobbs and the Law Society's letter demands the same legal respect and trust or legal action will be taken. Done to defend themselves from liability. As was Dobbs' intention when she typed the protective instrument on each page; probably a 'footnote insert' for each page.
Dobbs' stamp is an Absolute; “For internal distribution only”. This means for private use only, an in-house use only demand, not for public use; it is protected material never to be used in public, it is privileged material. Just as some material that has been sent to me by counsel for the OSMV, it is stamped or written as private, or in-house, or protected, or privileged, never to be used in public, or for justification of a social policy or to justify a crime against humanity. It is there for protection just like the demands of the Law Society's letter.
There is no difference. Both are tools or instruments of Absolute protection. Unless the Law Society is saying that lawyers protection is more important than non-lawyers. Is that what the Law Society is really saying to me, to the public, to Canada, to the world? That lawyer protection is more important than the protection of the diabetic, the public, the researcher, the publisher of that research? That the protection is to be used to protect lawyers from not disclosing or confronting the illegal policy and its horrific consequences? Not confronting gov't criminal behaviour concerning laws?
What the Law Society demands of the public or whomever, I can demand of lawyers. Consent was not given and these lawyers turned their back on Consent and Confidentiality, they very things the Law Society bases its Societal Law upon.
My point is, as the Law Society would charge the RCMP, a lawyer, or me for making their letter public or maybe have a court case dismissed due to Confidential letters used , the Law Society must do the same to its colleagues for using protected or privileged research material. The presentation of defense of my discrimination complaint should have been dismissed due to the breach of Confidential materials. Why wasn't it? Why did the HRT not mention the stolen science?
My point is, the Law Society is doing exactly what the lawyers want; the conundrum the Law Society has constructed itself, the conundrum Justice Gravely was confronted with; the constructed undefined, vague, unclear, or obscure law or statute concerning disclosure. Lawyers made this conundrum and haven't addressed it for some reason. However, there should be no doubt that the obscurity is for Good Times not Bad Times.
Also, the lawyers Absolutely Know they are not naïve bystanders, which will impact how the Law Society evaluates them, how society will evaluate them. They Know their Position in law will impact how the Law Society, the RCMP, and society will evaluate them, or they hope so. They know the Law Society is afraid to confront them; the high positions of Law breaking the Law. What does this say about the senior positions of Law? Is the Law Society afraid and embarrassed due to the lawyers Absolute disregard for such an everyday worldwide legal standards?
Their criminal conduct allows me to Absolutely not acknowledge the Law Society's request for Confidentiality and Consent. It seems the Law Society will not do anything to them, therefore they cannot do anything to anyone else or me. If the Law Society will not defend itself in Bad Times, then what good are they anyway?
It is not as if the lawyers would be going to go to jail or loose their privilege to practice law if the Law Society disciplined them. It is the Public Embarrassment of “corruption of standards” and “breach of trust” by those lawyers in high positions in the legal community that explains the Law Society's reluctance to stand up to these people. Cluck. Cluck.
My point is, so, why did they do it? Why would they knowing put themselves in harms way? They know I will not understand all or most of the charades, or hope I do not. They know the Law Society will not act. They know the RCMP will not respond. They know politicians will hide the movement of our democratic society down the slippery slope. They know they will not define the Times as Bad, as they are afraid of the chaos and corruption of a government and its civil servants fallen from grace.
Superintendent, you need to ask how many are dead? You need to ask how many senior civil servants and politicians are involved? How many people are afraid to become involved? Then you need to ask why are they doing this and why are they not firing those involved? Why the policy is still running?
My point is, last night, April 09, 2010, on local TV, CTV, it was announced that the Solicitor General had resigned due to allegations of inappropriate funding practices during election time. Now he does not need to respond to my questions concerning the illegal policy, the illegal DME form, fraud, theft, lies, killing, maiming, and the endangerment of my life by his staff. This is “the third B.C. solicitor-general to resign in the last two years”. (Province newspaper, April 11, 2010, p. A9.) I believe this is the sixth Solicitor General since my initial inquiry of 2002-2004.
This begs the question, “With the breach of Oath of Office, the illegal policy, fraud, theft, lies, Homicide, and endangerment to Life, the Corruption that I have encountered with in the civil service, does this corrupt the politician?” Or did this thirty year police man resign because he read about this policy, after my letter to him?
So, now I need to start over again as his staff will lie to him as they have lied to everyone else concerning this policy and its consequences and my discrimination complaints.
Maybe letters from Universities will be responded to. I don't think so.
Maybe letters from the Press will be responded to this letter. I don't think so. (The Press has not expanded upon their dismal exploration of Overcrowd Emerge deaths or surgery wait - lists.)
Maybe this letter of complaint will have the RCMP respond for Canadians.
Maybe letters to the United Nations Secretary General's Special Advisor on the Prevention of Genocide will responded to.
Maybe letters to Human Rights Watch will be responded to.
*
Another problem with the Lawyers' Conduct: Divide and Conquer
The lawyers work together and their conduct is tied together, and one pays the other, one lawyer does not to anything until the other acts or gives orders; a context is needed to evaluate everything, the context of two. The Law Society needs to change the “individual” protective device they evaluate lawyers through or by. The Law Society stated that the lawyers were to be evaluated individually but the way I had written the complaint forced them to let the other know that they were both involved. The apologetic attitude or bias for their colleagues is not very well hidden. If two lawyers are working together, such as these two are, then they need to be evaluated together. To separate them is breaking the context, it is being an ostrich again. It is like the obscurity of the 'discloser' conundrum, done to protect their colleagues in the first instance.
They used protected material for their own gain; that is the conduct that needs to be assessed in this situation.
The conduct is that they made a decision not to see the privileged stamp knowing they demand this of others. They know 'their' Law Society also demands this. This is not misguided or accidental conduct, there is Intent to mislead.
Conduct has consequences. The intent is to use the stolen documents to mislead the HRT, the public, and me to believe the Policy in question is justified, therefore to supposedly justify all the unnecessary killing and maiming of the Policy.
Hold it. Hold it. The policy was supposed to be justified years before. These lawyers know this. Their conduct is to intentionally mislead that the policy is legal, and the presented science only adds to material already present, that it solidifies the OSMV position of a justified policy. Nothing could be more wrong than that presentation.
The lawyers need to be evaluated together, not as individual lawyers doing things independent of each other, context must be kept for understanding.
The lie about not knowing the scope of the complaint must also be addressed with the two lawyers as they wrote the Response to Complaint together, presented it together, and then lied for the gov't together.
It must be remember that if any of the research had Permission of Use all the research after 2002, when I began my inquiry, is not allowed as the policy was supposed to be legally justified before that date.
Superintendent, don't forget this about the stolen science; these lawyers are using todays science to justify previous policy and its horrific consequences. What kind of conduct is that? What kind of people do this? In fact, the new science does not justify the policy nor its killing and maiming and discrimination. Fascist and Nazi States or Fascists and Nazis do this with science. These monsters label those they do not like and say future science will justify the label or their behaviour today. This is what is going on here. And these lawyers know this, as does the academic researcher, and the gov't, and the Law Society. They have turned their backs to Nazis behaviour. Or, is it that they have really disclosed themselves, come out of the closet so to speak. And now all readers of this letter know it.
Another problem with the Lawyers' Conduct: Breach of Trust
The stamp of approval from the Alberta law firm does not say the research is legal to use in public. It only says the law firm agrees that the material is ok to use in private; that is what they will say. However, one does not need a legal stamp for internal use. So, why get the stamp in the first place? How much was the Alberta law firm paid for this? Were there promises? Future favours?
The use of the stamp was done in order to manipulated you, the reader, and me into believing the stamp of approval means the research is for legal use, in the public space. That Consent or Permission from the owners has been given. That is what the stamp means, at first glance, to the everyday lawyer and everyday citizen. There is a Social Contract Trust and a Social Position Trust of lawyers that is given to situations such as this.
A Trust is given, the social contract of the guard for survival is dropped, and the social position of status, trust, power, and prestige that lawyers have earned, which is something very real that is freely given by the public, has been manipulated. The lawyers know that the readers will comply with these two Trusts.
It is what non-lawyers and lawyers will do, because they have been lead to believe in the Trust from lawyers. You just Trust and move on. These lawyers relied upon this and got caught. Then they played their contrived responses for damage control; the lie and need for Scope change.
These lawyers know of the Trust a democratic society affords lawyers and that the public Absolutely believes the Trust will be reciprocal, that the public can Absolutely Trust that what they see, in the context of the situation is valid, and not question it. That is what it means to those that do not understand ownership of research and internal and external use. To those that do not see “Confidential”or “consent” but read “For internal distribution only” it means something legal has happened to make the internal change to external, for public use, that Consent was given. All a big lie. Just another charade done to protect the OSMV and its anti-diabetic supporters and the consequences. Another Absolute acknowledged but played with the intent to deceive; to have Absolutes for lawyers but not for the diabetic or disabled. The lawyers played another charade and got caught again, then lied about their conduct.
The presentation from Dobbs is an affidavit. This means all is Right and the Law Firm guarantees this. An Absolute so that the material can be presented in court as if the person presenting it, Dobbs, was there in person. The Law Firms stamp of Approval means the document is to be presented in public. There is nothing written to demand Confidentiality or Consent or Privilege. The stamp upon Dobbs' protective device of 'for internal distribution only' is canceled as the Law Firms stamp is on top of it, which really means the material can be use for external use. Just a big fat lie.
*
Another problem with the Lawyers Conduct: Abuse of Position
Additionally, there is an absolute abuse of lawyer's power of position within society. We need to add the lawyers position in society to really acknowledge the power of the set-up, of manipulation and deceit, that abuse of status, trust, power, and prestige. This position was played so the reader would believe the research was legal. One glance at that stamp upon the Absolute restriction for internal use and one believes the research is now legal to use. It isn't. The lawyers chose to not acknowledge the Absolute, it is no different than the Law Society's stamps of “Confidential” and “consent”. This charade really means they contrived a falsity with their position in society. Their position as well as the other law firm was supposed to hoodwink the reader to believe something that it is not. If caught they could deny the above and say the stamp was only to justify the internal use and everyone misinterpreted the power of the stamp.
Not so, as 'No Stamp' is needed for internal use or students' papers and the academic researcher knows this, just as the lawyers do. (I have been introduced to and received privileged material, protected material, and it is not for public use.) This material was not stamped by another law firm to legalize this material for internal use. These lawyers are not naïve bystanders. They contrived a really nasty nasty charade and have got caught. They have broken a lot of Rules and law and stolen, bastardized, corrupted, and misused science for their own gain. This is Fascist and Nazis conduct. Just another charade using the power of position that a democratic society freely gives lawyers, that the democratic society affords lawyers in Good Times. But as in a charade, what is initially seen is not what is really happening. They have broken their Oath of Office and are not protected from presenting stolen documents and then lying about it.
Would anyone believe this lie now that the charade and lie have been exposed.? No they wouldn't. That is why the OSMV and its counsel did not address this stamp and the contrivance they played out after I caught them. The OSMV and its counsel presented that they misunderstood the scope of the complaint when they presented 174 articles on diabetes and other stuff (the stuff is just padding to make the bundle of research presented seem to have more weight than there is) and 15 on Thyroid (this is just more padding to increase the Fear/Risk Factor). They did not attend to the stamp the Alberta firm used for whatever reason. Nor that this was done as an Affidavit. It is like these two misleading acts didn't exist. Done with hope that what ever research that was left, after the new scope was defined by the HRT, the remaining research concerning type 2 and Class 4 driving, (about 10 articles with most being very old research from the 1960s – 1990s, the modern research supporting my complaint) would be accepted. (Yes, that is right, there is very little modern research on type 2 driver mishaps as it has been proved not to be a problem.)
After the change of scope the OSMV did not say anything concerning what research was left. The HRT did not inquire about what the OSMV wanted to present after the change. It is like the change of scope did not exist. The remaining research was not acknowledged. It was not used to justify the OSMV Response to Complaint. The HRT pretended nothing had happened, that the OSMV did not withdraw the remaining science to justify the policy, and gave the OSMV an unsolicited second change of Scope and a non-defined Timeline in which to justify the policy. All the while the illegal policy and the killing and maiming continues.
This avoidance of acknowledging the lawyers stamp of approval and its implied power is a conscious effort to hide what they had played out. If the remaining research had Permission to Use the lawyers would have been Extremely Aggressive in their position concerning this. They chose to not acknowledge the remaining research believing they were protecting themselves by not acknowledging their charade, their abuse of position, the abuse of the stamp, where one just expects to trust a lawyer's stamp especially being used by the Supervising lawyer for the Attorney General's office and a Human Rights lawyer from a very prestigious law firm in Canada, Heenan Blaikie.
*
Important
Superintendent, you need to investigate this for fraud and Withdrawal of Response to Complaint
My point is, the lawyers chose to not justify the policy after the demand for a change of Scope, which the HRT and I gave them, which left them with only type 2 scientific documentation to justify the policy. Why didn't they use this science to prove the policy as justified? Why quit in the middle of their presentation? They had their legally stamped research?
My point is, when do you acknowledge the lawyers conduct as a conspiracy. A conspiracy is when those that are doing so work through the positives and negatives, the when to act and when not to act, when to offer material and when not to offer material, and when to offer selected advice to justify their position, and when to back of and when to proceed. A conspiracy is when those that are doing so do so through misinformation, misleading conduct, and misdirection and if caught have an alternative already at hand to try and protect themselves? The above was all thought through. (Remember the charade concerning the breach of the settlement agreement; Hunt had a phoney response at the ready if I ever discovered they had played the charade. It is also defined as lawyers playing chess with their accounts, just planning moves ahead of time.)
If the remaining research had legal use Hunt and Iyer would have Insisted that the material be used to justify the policy and they did not. They have an obligation to do the best they can do for their client, the gov't, which is actually themselves as Hunt is a senior civil servant and Iyer a hired lawyer whom takes on civil servant obligations.
If the OSMV had legal use of the research material the lawyers would have demanded the HRT review the remaining research in order that my discrimination complaint be resolved, allowing the lawyers do what they were hired to do; justify the policy with their presentations. They didn't do this, did they. Why? Why did the lawyers Stop right there?
The lawyers were hired to justify the policy, so why didn't they? They presented the research material in the first instance. The Class 4 type 2 research would not have been discarded with the “Change of Scope” they fought so hard to get. The policy would have gained legal status if they had insisted the HRT review the research as it was put forward to justify the policy.
However, only about 10 articles were left after the lawyers demanded a Change of Scope. If the 10 research articles is all that is available from the whole world of research concerning Class 4 type 2 driving then that is all they can offer. They chose not to because they did not have Permission. They chose not to because the modern research proves there is no difference in driving mishaps between non-diabetic and type 2 drivers. They chose not to because the research that I use to justify my complaint was within their research offered to justify the need for the policy. (You think about that and wonder what the heck is going on.)(174 articles is padding, add the 15 articles on Thyroid and what is really played out here? Enough science to bury the reader as one only has 30 days to responded to the OSMV presentation. Bury the reader with what ever is available with “Diabetes” in the Articles Title. In other words the OSMV had no science on hand that was legally there to justify the policy. So, the new employee called an academic researcher, who has never studied diabetes or hypoglycemia, the reason for the policy, puts together a presentation that is padded, padded to impress, padded to Baffle the reader with Bullshit; Bullshit Baffles Brains is the correct term.)
It is a really nasty charade and really defines the corruption of gov't and their counsel. These people are Fascists and Nazis and care nothing for the laws of Canada, their Oath of Office, Social Contracts, science, scientific standards, nor the consequences of their actions, they need to be in front of a jury.
My point is, why did the lawyers give advice to not present the remaining research to justify the policy after they had presented the government lie, that the gov't did not know the scope of the complaint? Don't forget, Iyer wrote the Response to Complaint, wrote numerous times that the gov't knew the scope of the complaint. So, now she presents that the gov't did not know the scope. Someone is falsifying documents. The change of scope is a legal process.
The lawyers asked to re-define the scope and then decided to give legal advice to not proceed with justifying the policy with the research they had remaining from the change of scope? Why? Why? Why?
My point is, it is not good enough to say the gov't has the option to not proceed with justifying policy with the research they have remaining. They withdrew from demanding the HRT accept the remaining research as the tools or instruments that would justify the policy. Why?
The lack of any documentation or lack of their presentation of the research material means they do not have documentation to justify the policy. This means the policy is still illegal. The HRT does not attend to this fact. Why?
My point is, this means the HRT should have found favour with me, that the policy is discriminatory because the OSMV did not present any documents to justify the policy when they had the opportunity to do so, in an environment that they fought so hard to obtain; an environment that in their viewpoint favoured them other wise why would they have asked for the Early Dismiss Application and then the change of scope.
They chose to not offer any evidence to justify the policy, they withdrew the available research after they fought hard to save it with the change to scope, because they know the science does not justify the policy. They know the science does not justify the Homicide coming from the consequences of the policy. What does?
My point is, they knew they had no science to justify the illegal policy, so the knew the policy is illegal. They knew the science would not justify the policy in the first instance, as that is why they padded the science presentation. They knew if caught they would play another charade about misunderstanding the presentation, which would some how protect them from the harm of the abuse of Copyright breach, Intellectual Property Theft, and Intent of Use abuse, down to only a few scientific journal articles from the 185. They knew they could not present the remaining articles as the theft is public and the research would not justify the policy, little lone the consequences. And what about the use of the Affidavit as the instrument that guarantees legality and everything in the Affidavit is legal, real, trustworthy, and honest?
So, the 'civil servant lawyers' took on a case that they knew was illegal, stole documents to justify the policy, had an excuse ready if they got caught, would not present the remaining research if in the position to do so, and would leave the illegal policy illegal, as they knew the remaining research would not be allowed or could justify the policy.
Lastly, they got paid for this. Isn't this fraud. Taking my taxes for work they knew could not legally do what they were hired to do. Something they knew was illegal in the first instance, stole and lied to falsely justify the illegal policy, change the scope to protect themselves, and then to leave it illegal after they got caught and demanded change to the scope. And then they took the money, all done under false pretenses. Additionally, no one acknowledges that 'the OSMV asked that the remaining research would be withdrawn, that it would not be presented'. Why? So, the lawyers just stopped what they were doing without an official withdraw of their Response to Complaint. So, they got paid for not doing what they were hired to do.
Superintendent, this is fraud. Add this to the list of criminal charges.
*
Important; HRT Bias and Prejudice
My point is, the HRT chose to turn a blind eye to this action of the OSMV and its counsel. The HRT showed bias, prejudice, and discriminatory criminal conduct toward me and society and all those being killed, maimed, and those waiting for surgery. If a Respondent or Complainant withdraws their presentation they loose. If the Respondent presents research, and it is challenged, and then they demand to work through the Absolute process of legally changing the scope of the complaint, and then they do not present what is remaining of the research, they forfeit their Response to Complaint. This is standard protocol, if you do not show up the Complaint or Response is void, or in my case if the Respondent does not defend their action, it means my complaint is not contested. If you are challenged about your presentation of materials offered to justify your action and you then you do not present the remaining research you have so diligently worked for in order to have to address the True Scope of the Complaint, there is nothing to justify the discrimination, therefore the OSMV Response is void. In other words the complaint is not challenged and the discrimination complaint is accepted, as it is not contested. This process was not done for me. Why? When I complained about the lie concerning the scope misunderstanding I was told to get a lawyer.
Secondly, the Scope of the complaint was changed a second time by the HRT without my involvement? Without consultation as was done in the first scope change?
Third, the Timeline of when the OSMV needs to provide a justified policy was put as indefinite, again without consultation. Who gave them the Right to do this? The HRT told me they could not intervene with the broken settlement agreement, so why do they intervene now? The HRT was not involved in the settlement agreement that set a Timeline for the Draft of the policy, with inference of a Policy to come, that means within a reasonable timeline. The HRT has a Timeline of six months. The Law Society also has Timelines. I imagine the RCMP has Timelines. The OSMV is supposed to be “just tweaking an existing policy”, so the presentation of a Policy should have been done years ago. The settlement agreement was 4 years ago, so why is it that the HRT just intrudes after not evaluating the stolen research, after not dealing with the OSMV and its counsel lying about not knowing the scope of the complaint, and not questioning the OSMV for not offering the remaining research to justify the policy?
Fourth, the Absolutes of withdrawal of complaint were not followed by the lawyers nor the HRT. Why?
This is just more of the corruption surrounding this attack upon the disabled, even the third party has not followed its own Absolutes showing bias toward the OSMV and its counsel and prejudice against the disabled and society. As the HRT is cognizant of the policy and its illegal status, exemplified through its decision to change the Scope and Timeline, it is cognizant of the consequences, the killing and maiming and fraud concerning the funding for the illegal policy, therefore the surgery wait-lists. It has deliberately turned a blind eye to illegality of the policy and the Democide.
It has lawyers too. But they would be 'private lawyers'. But what about their Q. C. lawyer, what is her commitment or obligation to the democratic society? As a Human Rights Tribunal it has a lot to explain as well as their support of the Nazis.
*
Another problem with the Lawyers Conduct: Bad Advice
My point is, if the 'civil servant lawyers' demand the Absolute of the process for the Change in Scope, as Good Advice, why give such poor advice when it came to not presenting the remaining research, as the Absolute need of gov't to justify their Policy and consequences or actions would not be realized? They collected and presented the research once, why not again after their demand for a scope change?
My point is, did the 'civil servant lawyers' give this advice to not proceed? Advice that would not see the gov't justify the policy, the very thing they were hired to do. How can they do something that is counter to what they were hired to do? If the research is to justify the policy, this means the policy is illegal in the first instance, and their advice is to not present research to justify the policy? What kind of advice is this? This means the policy is still illegal and everything they do after that declaration is advice to do what? Keep the illegal policy going, keep adding to the killing and maiming, keep adding to the slaughter? This is what this means, don't justify the policy, don't put it on hold or cancel it, knowing the slaughter.
Help gov't cover up the illegal policy and its consequences is not obeying their Oath of Office.
My point is, advice to not proceed means they have evaluated the research and its legality. This means they knowing are evaluating gov't criminal behaviour and supporting it. It means they are saying the research is illegal, so don't use it,which leaves the policy still illegal.
Secondly, they know the research does not support the differential treatment of the type 2.
Third, by not presenting the research material, after the scope change, they are making a public declaration that they knew previous to presentation that the research was illegal to use and that it could not do what it was stolen for. Just another charade played out and if not confronted they would have gotten away with it. Remind you of the charade concerning the phoney amendment to the breached settlement agreement; something that wasn't what it was presented as.
So, the lawyers have evaluated the criminality of this policy and the stolen research and have decided not to challenge the illegal policy and not to have their behaviour exposed through the challenge of the remaining research. (This is good advice for themselves because they know they are not protected by the 'private lawyer' third party protection but bad advice for gov't.) By doing this they do not give bona fide good advice for gov't, which is the democratic society, but support some corrupt civil servants and their “view” of life, by not confronting the illegal policy and the stolen research. This bad advice for the democratic society, which is more important that civil servants, does not fulfill their Oath of Office nor their lawyers obligation to give good advice. So, they made a decision to continue on with the killing and maiming.
So, the OSMV gets advice to be protected from harm, from accountability, from responsibility. That on the surface seems ok, but this advice is to protect knowing the harm is constructed, not protection from an accidental harm, which gov't intervention is supposed to be all about. They just withdrew from the opportunity of making the policy legal.
Good advice would have been to intervene and Stop the Harm; fulfill their Oath of Office even it the OSMV civil servants have not.
My point is, if the lawyers did not give advice they are in breach of the Absolute of lawyer giving advice. Giving advice to change the scope means they knew the research was problematic, illegal. But, they knew the gov't knew the correct scope in the first instance, as Iyer's Response to Complaint informs us. Bad advice. The advice to not present the research means they new the research was stolen in the first place. Bad advice as now the policy is not justified. This is all bad advice as it does not fulfill the demands of the Laws that make the democratic society or stop the killing and slaughter. Advice is pro and con, 'pro' to continue on with the presentation of the remaining research to legally justify the policy or 'con' to not present the research which means they withdraw the Response to complaint, which means they are not contesting my complaint and the policy is found discriminatory as they withdrew the needed science to justify the policy. So, what happened?
The Good Advice is to stand up and cancel the policy. To stop the aged social policy based upon some civil servants point of “view”, because the lawyers know a “view” does not fulfill the need for science. They offered Bad advice to the democratic society but good advice to the corrupt civil servants and themselves. Interesting stuff, eh.
My point is, why is there advice to not present the research again? Why is the advice to not proceed with proving the policy legal with science that they instigated in an Early Dismiss Application? Why is there no Good Advice given?
Why is there no evidence of advice to put the policy on Hold, as both the lawyers and OSMV know of the Harm and they know the policy is illegal, as they have just presented research which would have legalized the policy, and in withdrawing the research means they know the policy is illegal and the consequences are illegal?
Why is there no evidence of advice to Cancel the policy as they both know the research does not justify the policy and its consequences.
Why is there advice that is very selective in nature. Lawyers have an Absolute to present All advice concerning a case? The pros and cons. If they have then they have chose bad advice to follow and they have chosen to condone Homicide and not fulfill their Oath of Office, then Law Society's Rules of Conduct.
So, the options of advice are to not present the research. To not go forward and justify the policy, knowing it will still be illegal and killing hundreds. This is sound advice for the survivors of Emerge deaths? For wait-lists deaths?
But the options of putting the policy on Hold or Canceling the Policy are not attended to. These are very good options as the research does not justify the policy, we know this as the OSMV did not demand the HRT to evaluate the research for its legality, worth, and value. This means it is not just me making this show of interest for legality, worth, and value of the stolen research. The lawyers also worked through this with the conclusion that presenting the policy has two negatives, that of being illegal and that the research does not justify the policy.
Superintendent, these are very good advice options as the OSMV knows the policy kills and maims. And they also know they have no research that diabetic drivers are killing and maiming in order to try and balance off their killing.
A policy on Hold would saves lives. A policy Canceled would save lives. It would also decrease the greed and power of civil servants, which has turned out to be not an option for them.
My point is, with this limited and selective advice does this mean the lawyers knew before hand that the HRT would not decide to Hold or Cancel the policy, and that is why they did not put forward the science after the scope change?
That they knew the non-presentation of the remaining research would mean the HRT would not find in my favour, as it would with any other respondent that withdrew their documentation needed to respond to the complaint, if the respondent wanted to continue on to justify their behaviour after a scope change?
So, the presentation of advice is very selective, limited, biased, prejudicial, and discriminatory, all the while knowing the HRT would not acknowledge their withdrawal of material needed to justify the policy and its consequences?
And the Law Society says they only assess conduct. Selective advice is not sound advice and not acceptable conduct befitting lawyers.
As of today the policy is still not legal. They failed in their conspiracy to justify the policy. To not advance their position to justify the policy was wrong, unless they knew the documents could not be used to do what they were stolen for, no Permission means no presentation, no presentation means no argument, no argument means they loose by default. So did they know the HRT would not acknowledge this?
My point is, why wasn't this advice given to the OSMV? Did they, Hunt, the Supervising Counsel for the Attorney General's office, former supervising HR counsel for the A Gs office, and Iyer, HR counsel from Heenan Blaikie, 'The' Federal Liberal Law firm of Canada, and a former HRT member, and the OSMV know of the HRT decision before hand? That the policy would not be evaluated so they did not need to advise on Hold and Cancel? That the HRT would not put the policy on Hold or Cancel it due to the lack of any documentation to support it? That the HRT would not address the fact that the research had no Permission Forms for Copyright, Intellectual Property Rights, and Intent of Use and were used in a public place in an effort to justify the illegal policy? That if I caught the theft the HRT would not acknowledge the theft?
What would have happened if the OSMV had Permission as they feign to have and the research did justify the policy?
The policy would have been legally justified and we would not be here. The horrific consequences may have been justified. However, I don't see how anyone can justify constructed killing unless you are a Fascist, Nazis, or a monster.
So, due to Bad Advice the policy was not justified when the OSMV had the opportunity to do so? Why not they had an Alberta Law firm sign an Affidavit that the science presentation was truthful, legal, bona fide, and justified; that is what an Affidavit means. So, the Affidavit is a fraudulent legal document done to mislead, with the intention to justify an illegal policy. Then sent through the mail, which means mail fraud.
My point is, once again we have the lawyers taking payment for something they were hired to do and for some unknown reason they turned down the opportunity to do it. (The charade of the phoney renewal of the breached settlement agreement is another instance when they were paid for not doing what they were contracted to do.) So, they took payment for not doing something they were hired to do?
If they take my taxes shouldn't they have done what they were hired to do? And if the OSMV decided to not challenge the Discrimination complaint shouldn't there have been a declaration of this? Shouldn't there have been a withdrawal of complaint as they asked me to do with the first discrimination complaint when they promised to change the policy or legally prove the need for the policy?
Again, this conduct does not fulfill the Oath of Office that Absolutely demands 'civil servant lawyers' and 'civil servants' to Obey the Law, Do No Harm, Do Not Steal, Do Not Lie, Do not Deceive, etc, etc?
Another problem with the Lawyers Conduct: another Abuse of Position
Superintendent, we initially infer that the research is new research or updated research, which would again justify the policy, as why else would counsel present research to justify a social policy, if it wasn't justified in the first place? In other words, the gov't and its counsel is misleading the public and me into believing the policy is legal and the research presentation is the old research previously used to justify the policy. Plus new research presented through a specialist, an 'academic researcher', that the gov't has just hired to write the New Policy, is indeed bona fide and trustworthy to accept.
If the policy was legal in the place, the research would be the research presented in the first instance, it would have the Permission Forms for Copyright, Intellectual Property Rights, and Intent of Use. Nothing of the sort was presented so we know the policy is illegal and the new research has been stolen as no Permission Forms were offered.
The presentation of the research comes with the inference that the research could do what is was intended to do and that the research has legal Permission of use, and that it is to be added to the research that has already been used to justify the policy, that this is modern research just updating and again proving the need for the policy. And to justify the consequences.
This is just another charade as is the presentation that there is a policy paper and the Draft is just a tweaking of the policy. Of course we now know that there never was a policy paper, never was any research to justify the policy, no research to justify the Draft, nothing to justify the consequences, and no Policy to date.
So, we have counsel deliberately presenting research in a fashion that they knew was not true. They knew that the research was not to be added to existing research or existing legal research. They made the presentation based upon the knowledge that the public would Trust lawyers and their Affidavit, as to the legitimacy of the research, as the public Trusts gov't and its lawyers, that the policy must have been justified in the first place, especially with the OSMV publicly writing they know of the harm their policy does to society.
They did nothing to avoid this contrived misrepresentation of understanding and used it to their benefit.
Once again the position of Trust is broken. Once again the position of status, trust, power, and prestige is used to deceive.
Why did they deliberately decide to not justify the policy after all the work they went into gathering research and with an academic researcher to present it? Because I caught them presenting stolen research documents and let everyone know about it? Let everyone know that the academic researcher is not an untouchable, only another corrupt civil servant? I foiled their conspiracy by confronting their position of Trust and the position of status, power, trust, and prestige, which forced them to play the charade of change of scope as damage control? They did not continue because I was demanding they acknowledge the rules as I have, standing up to standards, to those social contract standards of Trust and legal standards that include Laws, Oaths, and Advice?
So, the lawyers deliberately made the decision to use their position of Trust to present the policy as legal, justified with the appropriate research and the academic researcher's research only adds to that established research. Just another charade played out and deconstructed for you reader. Additionally, a problem with the new research is that it comes from the 1950s - 1990s, it is not new, but old and outdated to say the least. This charade with the research is another breach of Trust. Another breach of their Oath of Office. All this is appropriate conduct for lawyers?
My point is, I believe the Law Society states it cannot evaluate whether or not the policy is legal. That is acceptable. I have not asked them to do so. However, they can evaluate the lawyers conduct concerning illegal behaviour concerning the illegal conduct of the gov't. The above allows us to understand the lawyers know the policy is illegal and stolen research is to be used to justify the policy. They know what Permission is, they work to legally justify the policy through a conspiracy, that strategy fails, they ask for a change in scope as damage control and a diversion concerning the research material, under the lie that the OSMV did not know the scope, they get the change, I complain and point out the OSMV and its counsel did know the scope, this means the HRT was manipulated and signed documents to change the scope but the documents really were falsely obtained through a lie; isn't this falsifying legal documents? I ask the HRT why they have not confronted counsel and the OSMV for lying, they tell me to get a lawyer. The HRT does not confront the OSMV and counsel about the research not having Permission of use.
So for all sense and purpose the HRT accepted the research as that was what the change of scope was about, defining what research should be allowed. Although the numbers have dwindled to about 10 from 180, they still have research to present and they chose not to. They now know they have not got away with their conspiracy.
So, what counsel and the OSMV are falsely suggesting is that they 'Only Now Know' the use of the research is illegal due to my questions about Permission and are not putting that research forward? That it is 'only now' that they know the research does not justify the policy? So, with this new information they are not presenting the remaining research.
We are supposed to believe this? Is this why they chose to not present the research after the Scope change? Are we to believe the OSMV only came to believe they are learning the research did not have Permission to use? That they are only now understanding the research does not support the policy? And that they are now not going to present the research that was compiled by their newly hired professional academic researcher? To feign that they are only now aware of Permission forms, therefore they will not present the remaining research? The above is just another charade played out and now deconstructed for the reader.
So, they used the power of a democratic gov't, the Attorney General's office, 100 or so lawyers, the power of a private law firm with 700 lawyers riding around on the laurels of a past Prime Minister and one living, and other high Liberals that brought the Maple Leaf Flag and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to Canada, and an Alberta Law Firm to Absolutely establish that the Reader of the research document and myself could Trust and should accept the research as Permission has been attained and legal to use.
This is a breach of Trust these people laid out for all to see. It is also a social contract, the Trust that keeps us for falling down the slippery slope of corruption and Nazis. The Law Society also puts forward Trust, Trust with no strings attached, or so they lead the public to believe. All broken by the lawyers and their contrived strategy of corruption. The corrupt senior civil servants are not smart enough to do this, but smart enough to understand they have an illegal policy that kills and maims hundreds and endangers lives. They are just brutes that hide from the demands of their Oath of Office, responsibility, and accountability. They hired lawyers to do this conspiracy believing the 'civil servant lawyers' are protected by the Law Society's third party protection. And yet, the lawyers are civil servants themselves and have broken their Oath of Office that would have protected them if they had fulfilled its demands.
To not understand this is to believe you are an ostrich. The use of this Power was intentional, knowing they were abusing their position, and that they would gamble that their position would rule the day. They tried to falsely justify the illegal policy by misleading the Reader, the HRT, and me. They did not get by me. But can we say the same for the HRT? Maybe they did mislead the HRT; however, I do not believe this. The HRT turned its blind eye to this illegal policy, the theft, the lie, the withdrawal of the remaining research, and then did not work through the withdrawal of material to justify the policy, which the lawyers and the OSMV just presented to justify the policy. And all within the demand for the Early Dismiss Application where the public, hearing witnesses, the Press, would not know of the above. Where even the Reader of the online write-up of the Decision would not know of the above. Do you really believe the HRT was mislead about the illegal policy and the conduct of the lawyers, a past employee? Naïve to the charades, the contrivances, the conspiracy that saw the withdrawal of the remaining research that would have justified the policy? If they are this naïve then they should have forward the complaint to the RCMP when I pointed out the gov't and its counsel lied about not knowing the scope of the complaint. Which was used to gain a change of scope through this fraudulent behaviour. It's called falsifying legal documents, just the Affidavit was falsified in order for ill got gain. The HRT should not have told me to get a lawyer, they should have used their Q. C. to investigate or pass the complaint to the RCMP.
All this defines corruption of standards that a democratic society “freely gives” lawyers, Trust and Protection. Protection through their Oath of Office and Trust that is for the most part not contested.
When they do not hold up their part of the Social Contract the affordabilities are void and they are not protected by the third party position, as the democratic society is under attack.
The third party protection lawyers have is due to people like me fighting for democracy and confronting the corrupt senior civil servants that they have been protecting. The illegal policy means the lawyers, the 'civil servant lawyers', are not bound by any commitment to these criminals, as their primary obligation is to the democratic society and their Oath of Office, before the corrupt civil servants that they are protecting.
Superintendent, the Law Society can play all the games they want to defend their colleagues with all the laws they can pass to protect themselves but without the democratic society that we live in and our willingness to “give” them these laws they would have nothing such as Trust and Protection. Lawyers and I would only have laws given and enforced on the whim of the Authoritarians, the Fascists, or Nazis. The lawyers have abused and corrupted their position of status, trust, power, and prestige and their position of 'civil servant lawyer' with protection is only valid if and only if they follow their Oath of Office.
You only have to look at what some civil servants have done to the Judges and Court systems to see how easy it is for lawyers to loose this power they have been entrusted with or afforded by the democratic society.
Superintendent, your staff are supposed to be the critical thinkers, the Philosopher Kings, make them compose a list of the adjectives that describe this conspiracy to hide the illegal policy and the consequences of Homicide. The charades, manipulation of expectations of fair play, misleading information, misleading legal stamp, deceit, lies, absolute refusal to acknowledge their use of the Affidavit stamp as the Permission of Use instrument, fraud of the DME fee payment, fraud of using the Mail to send their false documents to each other and to me, and the abuse of their position in society, and then translate it into legalize. That is their job.
Secondly, what is really meant concerning the Alberta lawyer's stamp of approval? The research material is for internal use only to begin with, so the stamp of approval from the law firm only acknowledges that statement. That is all. Interpretation is not allowed. Since there are no Permission forms to accompany the stamp in order to move it into the public space we must agree. The lawyers will play this charade that the stamp was done to make the internal use legal. Again, nothing is needed is for internal use and they know this, as Dobbs' stamp directs readers to know the material is protected only in privacy, but was used in public. The law firm's stamp is done to mislead, to move the research into the public space through the instruments of lawyers Trust and Position.
What does the stamp really mean? Or is supposed to mean? It doesn't matter as the charade is acknowledged and deconstructed. To fight over this is what they want you to do and they get their way again.
Instead, understand it is a charade, as things not as they are being presented as. If the research is only for private use then they broke the legal meaning of the Affidavit stating the material is only for private use and yet using it in public. The Affidavit is the underpinning of law and lawyers, Trust. It was broken and all concerned should be charged accordingly.
On the other hand, if the stamp was used to move the research from private to public use where are the thousands of pages of Permission Forms that prove the escalation is legal. There are none. The lawyers used their position to manipulate, to present that Permission had been given. This means the legal meaning of the Affidavit that all is true and factual is not True or Factual. They have broken the meaning of Affidavit again and all concerned should be charged accordingly. This charade really defines Nazis behaviour, absolute corruption of Law's basic tenants.
So, why did the lawyers use the material when there is no consent? When the Alberta stamp of approval is supposed to inform readers that the stamp legalizes the use of the research and yet there should have been a few thousand pages of Permission Forms accompanying Dobbs research. How could the BC 'civil servant lawyers' miss that volume of paper? How could the HRT miss that volume of paper?
They did it because they are corrupt and were right that the HRT would not challenge them. That I do not have $100 000 to challenge them in criminal court. That the RCMP would balk at this.
It doesn't mean the world should not know about this. It only exemplifies the definition of Genocide and Democide, and the corruption surrounding my complaint and what I have discovered about the Nazis doing this to the disabled. I am not afforded the very things law is based upon, the Affidavit that is based upon Trust. This is what a democratic society freely gives lawyers and yet it is not reciprocated. It is manipulated and twisted by these lawyers and the civil servants and my basic legal Right in a democratic society has been withdrawn from me.
The HRT is not allowed to turn a blind eye to the charade and yet it did. They are not allowed to pretend they did not understand what the stamp of approval meant. Their conduct is not acceptable as it breaks the Trust that is given to them to read the stamp, understand it, turn it into knowledge and act accordingly. They knew what the internal use meant, knew what the law firms stamp meant, and they allowed the lawyers to use the material anyway. The HRT consciously made the decision to flaunt the law. The lawyers consciously made the decision to flaunt the law. They are experienced in this deception of standards and absolutely know of the paper trail and/or funding that would be needed for me or anyone else to challenge their conduct. We do not need to be naïve about this part of the conspiracy to misinform, a few thousand pages of missing Permission Forms is conspicuous in its absence.
My point is, is the stamp of approval legal in British Columbia? Or is that just another charade? Is it stamped for approval in Alberta but used in BC as part of the charade? It probably is legal and that exemplifies the power of the Affidavit as it crosses all provincial boundaries. Superintendent, these lawyers falsified that document. That action breaches their Oath of Office little lone law. Don't forget, for internal use no documentation or Permission is needed and the so called 'academic researcher' knows this. So, why did she not present the Permission Forms? She is also part of this fraud concerning legal documents, the Affidavit.
My point is, the use of this material is fraud, isn't it. Done with fraudulent intentions? Sent through the mail, therefore mail fraud?
Don't forget, I was sent the stolen research to be used in the early dismiss, there were no Permission forms, only the position of the lawyers and the Trust that all is well with the presentation. The lawyers knew there were no Permission Forms and yet they mailed it anyway. Mailed it with the intent to mislead, which is using the mail system for fraudulent activities. This is not allowed.
My point is, 174 articles on diabetes and stuff and 15 articles on Thyroid is 189 articles that need to have paper work done for Permission of Use for Copyright, Intellectual Property Rights, and Intent of Use and this is for the Journals the articles appeared in; just as the OSMV demands. These protection tools or instruments also apply to the web site owners as they publish the articles; just like the OSMV demands.
So, at ten pages per article that is about 2000 pages of Permission Forms. Ten pages of Permission forms seems extremely low as how is the OSMV going to explain the consequences of the policy, the killing, maiming, and endangerment of life in only a few pages for each protections instrument?
So, where are the 2000-3000 pages of Permission Forms. Not something someone like an 'academic researcher' can forget to do or forget to present.
*
No one needs to dismiss their conduct when it comes to this. They played a charade that is undignified for a lawyer to be involved in and we do not need to accept that these experienced lawyers did not know what they were doing and the consequences of that conduct. Their actions were not some naïve bystanders actions. Their non-actions were not from some naïve bystanders.
They used their position of power in society, they need to be disciplined as the Law Society would discipline your lawyers or me that used their letter in public without consent. Discipline with greater zeal, as lawyers at this level of power should be squeaky clean. There should have never been any instance of question here. Absolutely Nothing that would cause questions about Ownership and Permission of Use, or Trust, or the charade of what you really see compared to what you see and expect. There is a breach of Trust here with the wholeness of the Response.
The Alberta Law Firms stamp is read as an instrument that legalizes the use of the material, as it is on top of a 'privacy notice' which needs to be escalated to the public space if the research is to be used in public. That is what the stamp is supposed to do.
Superintendent, if I do send the Law Society's letter and my response to it to the RCMP, Williams, Layton, Press, etc, that action would turn me in the corruption the 'civil servant lawyers' and the civil servants exemplify, wouldn't it.
So, we get back to consequences. Consequences of actions for all concerned.
But if Law Society dose not discipline them why discipline me? I will not have done anything different than their colleagues. Well that is not true exactly, as I would be honest about it. I have not done anything to anyone, neither have those dead and maimed due to the illegal policy and its consequences and yet I am to be disciplined by people trying to cover up what is really happening. My legal rights attached to the Affidavit have been disregarded as I am the pariah, the Other, the Other that has no Rights like the non-diabetic. The Nazis give themselves more rights than me; the diabetic democrat that affords lawyers the Trust and Protection in the first place. Interesting Catch 22.
Why did the lawyers do this? If science really proved a need for the policy and its consequences were Good, then we wouldn't be here would we? Eight years after my initial inquiry. Eleven years since my discovery that I have diabetes. No science means the demand is made up based upon civil servants Fear and Greed and the lawyers are corrupt.
So, corruption runs this policy. Corruption attracts just as light does for a moth. Why did they go so far?
Why did they turn against our democratic society, their Law Society,and world legal standards? Turn against Life?
Because they also know the policy is an atrocity? Because they also know the policy is a Crime Against Humanity? They may even know the Democide explains their behaviour. They do it for the lust of power over the Law Society, our democratic society, the RCMP, the disabled, and me?
Not everyone gets to be involved in Genocide or Democide and tries to hide it. Is this what drives these people?
No one is forcing these two lawyers and the Alberta lawyer and the civil servants to do this. If a lawyer or the Law Society exposed the corruption what would happen? Loose their privilege to practice law? I don't think so.
So what if they did. Most people have two or three careers in their lives. Or is it that they are so far into this atrocity that they believe anything goes? That there is no return, no escape from their involvement in this atrocity?
If the Law Society exposed this atrocity and Crime Against Humanity wouldn't that be interesting enough to just do that in ones career? To challenge old statutes of the Law Society's Code of Conduct. To preserve the democratic society that guarantees their place within that society.
What a way to go, stand up for Charter Rights, Human Rights, Motor Vehicle Rights and what ever else your critical thinkers could list. To be fired for standing up for all these things? Now that is something to be fired for.
Just think, these lawyers would be involved in the biggest case in their lives, maybe in Canada's life time, but on the Right side, not breaking their Oath of Office and becoming part of the Democide.
*
How many people have been killed by this policy? Everybody knows.
One is an accident.
Two is something very scary. (It should have never happened. They policy should have been put on Hold.)
Three is Homicide.
Four is what? How many is mass murder?
One thousand is. An atrocity. A Crime Against Humanity because they could have stopped it. Genocide, Democide.
One (1) unexpected and unexplained death in the Emerge a week is fifty two (52) a year, times the eleven years (11) since my discovery of my diabetes and the policy, is 572. This is for one (1) of the ten busiest hospitals of the one hundred or so hospitals in BC, that means 5 720 deaths due to Overcrowding only. Are Emerge doctors really calling Press conferences about one (1) unexpected and unexplained death a week, explained only by Overcrowding? Two deaths brings the death to 11 440. This is more than the Genocide in Serbia. And the OSMV and its supporters say the consequences of the policy are acceptable, acceptable enough that they will break their Oath of Office, misrepresent, mislead, steal and lie for it; kill for it. All based upon some civil servant's point of “view”. This 'intentional or knowingly reckless and depraved disregard for life' defines Democide. (Wikipedia, Democide, p 2 of 8)
Superintendent, the deaths are not just some correlation but a direct concrete consequence of the policy and that is why the above has been done and continues being done all the while the killing, maiming, and endangerment to life continues. Ask Williams, Layton, and the unknown woman how they feel. Ask the survivors of the woman that died in the Emerge hallways of a Quebec hospital about three weeks ago. Ask them how they feel, about only some “view” of civil servants running the policy, about the consequences, about all this being covered up by 'civil servant lawyers'.
*
Part 2
Oath of Office
The following must be worked through as no civil servant, organization like the RCMP, politician, the BCHRT, Unions, or Press wants to acknowledge this about the civil servants doing this to me and society.
The people doing this to me are not private citizens but Civil Servants that have sworn an Oath of Office to Obey the Law, do No Harm, do Not Steal, do Not Lie, do Not Deceive, do Not Misrepresent, do Not Mislead, etc, etc?
This will again explain why the Illegal Policy and its Consequences fulfill the definition of Democide and why these things have been done to me.
I must warn you that much of Part 1 is repeated but now seen through the breach of Oath of Office, where all those concerned do not have immunity from their actions, as they have broke their Oath of Office.
The United Nations defines Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity. Genocide has three different meanings; Democide, the third meaning applies to the consequences of this illegal anti-diabetic policy.
Democide is used ;
“to avoid confusion over which meaning is intended”
““The murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide, and mass murder”.” “Democide can also include deaths arising from “intentionally or knowingly reckless and depraved disregard for life””.
“Some examples of democide cited by Rummel include the Great Purges carried out by Joseph Stalin in the Society Union (despite those people were executed), the deaths from the colonial policy of the Congo Free State, Mao Zedong's Great Leap Forward resulting in a famine which killed millions of people. According to Rummel, these were not cases of genocide, because those who were killed were not selected on the basis of their race, but were killed in large numbers as a result of government policies.” (Wikipedia, Democide, pp 1 – 2, 06/03/2010)
*
Who are these lawyers? Hunt is a senior civil servant and sworn an Oath of Office. Iyer is not.
What does that demand of them?
A question for you Superintendent. Why haven't you brought this forward? That is the real question. Are you playing the naïve bystander like the lawyers are trying to be, pretending they are ignorant of the illegal policy, the stolen material, the lie, and no acknowledgment of Confidentiality and Consent? That they are above these demands that they as lawyers demand themselves.
My point is, Hunt is a senior civil servant where Iyer is not. Hunt has sworn an Oath of Office to this country. Iyer is in private practice so I do not imagine she has sworn an Oath of Office. However, in this instance she was on contract to the government, the OSMV, she is paid by gov't, so she has responsibilities through default of working for gov 't. For this instance or case she is a government employee and bound by their Oath, it's obligations, commitments, responsibilities, liabilities, and accountabilities.
My point is, the Oath comes first, then anything our country affords lawyers comes next or later. The Oath demands those people Obey the Law, Do No Harm, Do Not Steal, Do Not Lie, Do not Deceive, etc, etc. The Oath comes first because without our “democratic society”, Section 1 of the Charter, you and I would not have a legal system, such as we have now, where lawyers are protected within the position of third party. However, this does not mean they can do what they want, no matter what their position.
Superintendent, lawyers do not come first in the pecking order of things. The democratic society comes first, we need it first to have our Law and then the Law Society can ask for protection, which is then afforded by the democratic society.
Some so-called democratic societies give no protection and do the most horrific things to female lawyers and people like me, that challenge contrived social places for women, corruption, atrocities, crimes against humanity and Democide. Pakistan is supposed to be a democratic society. You want to turn into them? How about Central and South America? They would torture a female lawyer to death, gang bang her to death, and people like me just disappear to have prods stuck up my anus, which are plugged into 220 volts, all the while the corrupt civil servants and their politicians are having tea in the halls of democracy. And these lawyers do not want to fight for democracy? For my Charter Rights, Human Rights, and Rights under the MVA? Their first obligation is to fight for the democratic society that affords them their Rights.
Haven't you read about the democratic states of Syria, Iraq, and Iran that treat Canadians so well? These lawyers and your decision not to confront them, as to their involvement in this complaint, have taken us over the slippery slope. They care nothing for their Oath of Office, little lone the laws of the Law Society, or Law, or the Charter, or Human Rights or the Motor Vehicle Act they changed to manipulate the reader of their presentation. They broke the Oath of Office because the policy is not legal and they know it. They broke their Oath of Office because the illegal policy harms people and they know it. The consequences of the policy endangered life and they know it. I needed to buy surgery to save my life.
The OSMV and the Ministry of Health have written that they are aware of the harm of the policy and yet they have continued on with their policy knowing it is illegal and knowing the harmful consequences. This exemplifies the meaning Homicide,of Democide;
“intentionally or knowingly reckless and depraved disregard for life”. (Wikipedia, Democide, pp 1-2 of 8)
Secondly, taxes were shuffled to pay for the demands of the illegal policy, which offers no Good, whereas the taxes should have been used for legal and bona fide demands upon the medical system, medical necessities that actually do Good.
*
Hunt's Oath of Office forces her to address the illegal policy and the harm it causes to society. She is not allowed to turn her back on it. How conveniently people forget the Oath of Office and its demands and only refer to it when the Oath is needed to protect themselves. If the Oath of Office means nothing why have it? It does mean something. It is there to keep people in line, people surrounded by the influence of power and greed, people that need help to keep these instruments of corruption at bay. To protect the Deputy Superintendent of MV from the anti-diabetic lobby and her own prejudices. (The Deputy manages this policy, it runs because of her.)
My point is, a third BC Solicitor General has been forced to resign due to an alleged breach of his Oath of Office, the third in two years. Why haven't these civil servants; Hunt, Howie, the Deputy Superintendent responsible for the policy, the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles, and Dobbs, the academic researcher who stole the research been fired or been suspended for running an illegal policy knowing it is illegal and knowing the harm? Why haven't those Nazis that wrote the Draft been fired? Why haven't the supporters of the illegal policy been fired, those the Superintendent calls internals and externals?
The Solicitor General's concern is about election funding concerns not that he knows the policy is illegal and harms people; at least not public anyways. (At least I do not know if he knows the policy is illegal as he has not had enough time since my letters to reply to me. Do you think that Deputy Superintendent or the Superintendent have informed him their policy is illegal and kills hundreds of people and also endangers life through the surgery wait-lists? Now he's gone.)
If lawyers' demands were first, then they would set Policy and run Canada. They don't. Politicians make policy and lawyers write it up, as laws for the country, and then write laws or rules for themselves, after the democratic society is entrenched. However, their laws are not Absolutes for all situations, they apply to only some situations. The two situations are 'private lawyers' and 'civil servant lawyers'. There are gov't lawyers and their Oath, and temporary employees such as Iyer, as within this situation, whom take on the Oath , which come first. They break the Oath of Office and they are not protect by it, they are liable or non-immune to charges or wrongdoing.
Civil servant lawyers have an Oath to fulfill before relying upon the lawyer Code of Conduct to protect them. Don't forget, the Oath of Office also protects them if they follow its demands. They haven't, therefore they are not given any protection. They made the choice to be gov't lawyers. They made the choice to not fulfill the Oath, they are not naïve bystanders.
Hunt is bound by the Oath and must manage her behaviour according to its demands, then the Law Society's.
The Oath of Office is an Absolute, just as lawyers state they have Absolutes protecting them. Theirs are second or we do not have a democratic society and as far as I know we still have one. Sick and twisted by these civil servants but still a working democratic society.
So, not only have these civil servants broke the Law by using protected research in an effort to justify this illegal policy and its consequences, etc, etc, but have broken their Oath of Office by not challenging the illegal policy and living up to those Absolutes or standards demanded by the Oath of Office.
They are 'gov't lawyers', 'civil servant lawyers' not just 'lawyers' as the Law Society and others would like everyone to believe. There is a very real difference. There are very real Absolutes, Oath of Office Absolutes, that preempt the Law Society's rules. (They really are just rules aren't they, not Law like the Oath of Office.)
These two lawyers are not working for themselves, they are not private or public lawyers. They are gov't employees. The Oath of Office makes them different with different responsibilities that preempt private lawyers and the Law Society's rules. Both are gov't employees, independent or individual or private lawyers only if and only they quit the gov't. They are not the third party, as the independent or individual or private lawyer is.
(As with the universal health care system, in reality there are only two user groups, the Public and the Government. The gov't does not want to admit to this, as it lets them make false demands upon the system, which are not acknowledged, therefore not funded and managed, therefore blame for health care problems are laid upon the public.)(The diabetic policy is an excellent example of this dualism and corruption.)
There are only two lawyer groups, the Private lawyer and the Government lawyer. We are dealing with gov't lawyers with responsibilities, accountability, and conduct that are to be realized differently than the private lawyer hired as the third party, the lawyer that the Law Society is evaluating. How conveniently that they forget the Oath of Office and its demands upon the gov't lawyers and the protection the Oath of Office affords gov't lawyers, which comes before the Law Society's rules. Just another charade exposed.
This situation, the policy and its consequences and my complaint, involves gov't, gov't lawyers, and lawyers, which brings us to the lawyer being in the civil service with an Oath of Office becoming the 'civil servant lawyer'. This binds them together as one entity, not a third party with the protections offered to third party 'lawyers', the private practice lawyer. They chose this option, to become a 'civil servant lawyer' where they must Obey the Oath as it gives them direction, protects them, as well as prosecutes them if they decide to break the Oath and Law.
What they say, write, and do are married to the Oath of Office, they are gov't representing gov't, therefore they are defending themselves, as they are gov't. What they say, write, and do belongs to them not someone else. What they say, write, and do are their own actions, one and the same, not a third party doing something for someone else, a hands off affair. These government lawyers are responsible for the things they do, the things they pretend are not there, the illegal policy, the knowledge the policy causes harm, the presentation of stolen documents, the misleading Alberta stamp, the lie about not knowing the scope as Iyer had written she knew the scope, the breach of the Affidavit, etc etc, because they are bound by the Oath of Office to Do No Harm, Obey the Law, etc etc and they have not done what is an Absolute demand upon them.
What they write is them and they are personally responsible for it, as they are not the private practice 'lawyer', with the third party protection.
This is why I would hire a lawyer if needed, she or he is not part of me and can know, write, say, and do things I may not want to write, say, or do. They are protected.
This is why lawyers are told to get a lawyer if they find they need one. Not because they are not smart enough, or cannot control their emotions, or are not trained in that aspect of law, but that they would not be protected by the third party position, the liability for all actions comes into play.
So, what Hunt and Iyer are connected to, know about, write about, and/or say, are tied to them as individuals not the third party. They are responsible and accountable for their actions, as they are the gov't first, and as gov't they are representing themselves, therefore accountable for what the know, say, write, and do. They are protected by the Oath of Office if they live by it. But as they have broken it the have no protection and should be held accountable.
Superintendent, I did not invent these groups of public and gov't, they are there. The Oath is there and it is real. The demands of the Oath of Office are real and have not been attended to by the lawyers. They had no choice but to obey the law and they didn't. If this is looked upon or realized as “whistle blowing” then that is what it is called. It doesn't matter what it is called, they turned their backs upon Absolutes that are demanded by gov't. All the civil servants that support the policy are corrupt. They know the policy is only based upon some civil servants “view” of the world and that is not good enough. None of them have lived up to their Oath of Office, so the Law Society cannot protect them. This is why I have written a similar statement to the Law Society;
The lawyers should have attacked the illegal policy and its consequences not my inquiry into the illegal policy, as the Attorney General's office is supposed to attack illegal activity, whether in gov't or not.
The Law Society and 'lawyers' are at least second to the democratic society. If the lawyers would not swear an Oath of Office they would not work for gov't. The gov't logos on stationary and buildings present Honor and Trust, they are almost sacred or maybe they are. These lawyers and other civil servants have much to explain.
They are in protective mode, damage control, the lie about not understanding the scope exemplifies this, who wouldn't be in protective mode when the extent of the theft of research is realized, with the addition of the killing, the maiming, the endangerment of life; and when understood in the Wholeness, the Policy is understood as Democide.
Superintendent, you nor I have anything to hide, we are having a discussion that is demanded in a democratic society, this cannot be said about the OSMV, the Min of Health , the Attorney General's office, the 'civil servant lawyers' and their unknown supporters, those the OSMV calls internals and externals as they are hiding what they are really doing. They are doing everything possible to bury the things they are doing. Who wouldn't be if someone like me came to understand what they were/are doing and are responsible for and has made it public. Made it public but until recently not knowing about Democide.
Can we really say this for the OSMV, the civil servants involved in this, the 'civil servant lawyers', the HRT staff involved, the Press, politicians that have been contacted, the RCMP, etc etc. Can we really say they did not know the policy is a Crime Against Humanity, Genocide or Democide?
Now that I understand this policy is Democide one comes to understand there are people that understood this long ago.
These lawyers really have broke their Oath of Office, which means by default broken the Law Society's Rules of Conduct, as if they break the rules that manage the democratic society they surely have broken the Law Society's rules, as it also has standards that support the democratic society that supports them and affords them protection when needed.
What has happened to me and is still happening to me is another Absolute, an Absolute wrong and gov't is in denial of it. They are so corrupt the policy has not even been put on Hold, knowing that it kills and maims. One death is too many. One death is too much, as it is not an accident. This has been openly recognized for eight years since my initial inquiry 2002-04.
Superintendent, there will be no help from gov't with this, as they are doing the killing and have gone to far. They will bury you in lies, misinformation, and stonewalling, as they have done with me. The HRT just protected the gov't by burying my complaint when it didn't confront the gov't about the illegal policy, stealing science, the lie of not knowing the scope, changing the scope of my complaint, and changing the Timeline in which the gov't would need to legally justify the policy. The HRT has freely given the gov't the power to run an illegal policy that kills and maims hundreds of people a year.
Why did the HRT support the gov't in its Democide? Hunt is from the Attorney General's office, Howie and Dobbs from the Solicitor General's office, Iyer from Heenan Blaikie, and the Alberta Law firm breaching the Affidavit for the BC Solicitor General's office. Does this mean the RCMP will also be compromised?
*
Evaluate the Conduct through the “Civil Servant Lawyer”
Superintendent, have your lawyers brought the above forward? Has the Law Society brought this forward? Surely you have not forgotten Hunt is the Supervising lawyer in the Attorney General's office and has sworn an Oath to Do No Wrong, Obey the Law, and tell No Lies? Her first, or Primary, or Only obligation is to the gov't, not to the Law Society or other civil servants. She represents gov't, she is gov't, and she has broken the rules.
Iyer is in a different position, as she is not a civil servant. Although, not all the time. As a lawyer temporarily employed by gov't does she swear an Oath? I don't know. As a temporary employee for gov't she is automatically bound by the/a gov't Oath of Office due to the business contract, association, or ties that come with working for gov't? Don't forget, she is paid by gov't, which is our taxes, which means she is a gov't employee, on loan from Heenan Blaikie, Absolutely working for the gov't and all its Absolute demands, including the demands covered under the Oath of Office. She is duty-bound to the Oath to the Office to Do No Wrong, Obey the Law, and tell No Lies? She represents gov't, she is gov't, and she has broken the rules.
Superintendent, I have really been wrong by inferring that you would make this connection, that others would, that the Law Society would. We are dealing with gov't and it is the Law that civil servants as well as Politicians swear an Oath of Office. The Law Society refers to Absolutes lawyers are bound by, the gov't lawyers are bound by Absolutes also. There are Laws, or Absolutes, which are greater than lawyers demands and yet no one acknowledges this. This Oath influences Hunt as a lawyer and she is not divorced by the two hats she wears, one hat of the 'civil servant', the other hat of 'lawyer'. They are married into the 'civil servant lawyer' due to the Oath of Office.
There are two lawyers that can be evaluated, firstly there is the individual or private 'lawyer', the other, because of the Oath of Office is the 'civil servant lawyer'. Your lawyers are what? I do not know if you swear an Oath of Office. I imagine you do. These 'civil servant lawyers' presented stolen documents, lied about the scope, which lead to falsifying the document that changed the scope of the complaint. They are civil servant lawyers that have obligations from the Oath of Office to challenge policy such as this diabetic policy because it is illegal and those that are running it know this and know the policy harms people. That obligation or absolute comes before the defense of an illegal policy and its harm.
My point is, civil servants use the Oath of Office to protect themselves if needed. As the Law Society and the OSMV demand Confidentiality and Consent for protection, so do others. So, if they are allowed to use the Oath for protection, it is an Absolute, it is returnable or reversed to hold them accountable. So, why haven't those involved in my complaint brought this forward? How can so many people forget the Oath of Office and its demands? We don't forget it when it comes to politicians such as the past Solicitor General and his predecessors.
Hunt is a full-time gov't employee with obligations that have not been attended to, which impact her conduct within this complaint and her involvement in the policy. Iyer through employment and payment.
My point is, Superintendent, as a third party, why haven't you mentioned this, if, as a third party, you are to weight everything?
Why haven't the Politicians that I have contacted brought this forward? Why are they protecting the civil servants breaking the law and Oath of Office? Does everyone believe someone else has brought these breaches of Oath of Office forward and some invisible person has said it is ok for the civil servants to run an illegal policy and break their Oath of Office? I haven't been given any documents justifying the breaches. Just like I have not been given any documents to justify the policy, the lack of Good resulting from the policy, or the killing or Homicide.
The age old belief, 'the other guy did it so I will not intervene' is not acceptable. This should have been brought forward in my first complaint against these lawyers and the civil servants involved in my inquiry and human rights complaints? Why wasn't it brought forward by the Law Society, if the Law Society really is a third party reviewing and evaluating. Why wasn't it brought forward by the HRT if it really is a third party reviewing and evaluating?
What we have is an illegal policy labeling me as a killer, causing havoc with the medical system, causing death and maiming, has recently endangered my life, etc, etc, and somehow everyone has forgotten about the Oath of Office?
I do not need to believe this was/is accidental. No one needs to. Your office needs to evaluate this. All 'civil servant lawyers' need to be held accountable to their Oath, as well as Laws, and then the Law Society's rules of conduct and third party protection if that even applies as the lawyers have broken their Oath protection.
*
More HRT Bias
The HRT gives another example of this blind eye to the breaches of Oath of Office. In their summaries or decisions, they mention 'influences' such as 'good will', past and future and the use of 'common sense', done to keep a balance. They are not a naïve bystander, they are the third party evaluating more than presented by the Complainant and Respondent. They look to the future and past. They chose to not mention that the policy is illegal, the theft and presentation of research material, the lie to change the scope, and the Oath of Office. They should have presented these facts and the Oath of Office in their decision. Why didn't they? They broke with the 'good will' and 'common sense'. With my complaint they have intervened at their will and not kept the balance. They have chosen to not acknowledge laws, theft, lies, Oath of Office, which has shown bias to the gov't and prejudice against me, the disabled, society, those needing surgery, and those that have died because of the policy and their survivors, and the Laws of Canada.
In #5791 the HRT decision has allowed the OSMV to legalize the diabetic policy at their own leisure, not within a reasonable Timeline relevant to my complaint and yet they have reasonable Timelines themselves.
The HRT knows the policy is illegal and have turned their back on that fact. They know civil servants have an Oath of Office and have turned their back on that fact.
Secondly, they have joined the New Diabetic Policy, there wasn't one previous, to the Review of All medical conditions monitored by the OSMV, something called a Guide to Drive Project, that the OSMV is supposed to be writing with the help of the academic researcher that stole and presented the research in discrimination complaint #5791. If there really is such a thing. The Guide may never come due to the HRT open-ended Timeline Decision. This could take years. Why should the HRT give the OSMV a non-defined Timeline to justify the Policy after I caught them stealing research and then lying about the theft? This in itself proved the policy had not been legally justified before, therefore the policy is discriminatory and the HRT has turned their back on this fact. Common sense is not needed here as the conclusion comes from facts.
As these lawyers have protected the OSMV, their civil servant colleagues, and not society, the HRT has now protected the OSMV from Human Rights Complaints and society. The Policy is in limbo now, as there is no Timeline in which the OSMV needs to legally justify the Policy. The HRT has sanctioned an illegal policy and its harm. Why? And the 'civil servant lawyers' said nothing. Why? They didn't ask for the intervention as they did with the first scope change.
The HRT's obligation to society comes first, not to an illegal policy and corrupt civil servants. Not showing bias for the Respondent and prejudice against me.
The 'civil servant lawyers'' obligation to society comes first not to bias coming from the HRT, which has now allowed the policy and its killing, maiming, and endangerment to life to continue on indefinitely.
Secondly, the #5791 decision has the HRT changing the Scope of the complaint for the OSMV and its 'civil servant lawyers'. I was not involved in this change. Why?
Superintendent, I was asked for my input when the 'civil servant lawyers' asked to change the scope of the complaint from “diabetic” to “type 2 diabetic” after I caught them presenting stolen research. I agreed at that time, as I could not at that time, during a Conference Call about Hearing scheduling and witnesses, prove the lawyer was presenting a lie. I did so later.
The HRT should have stayed with the new boundaries of the complaint, the new “'type 2 diabetic” Scope, and not escalated it beyond what the complaint had just been rewritten to be. The HRT had no right to change the scope of my complaint back to the original scope of all diabetics, to not only include All types of diabetes, but All medical conditions monitored by the OSMV just after the OSMV and its lawyers asked for the All types of diabetes to be reduced to type 2 only. And the 'civil servant lawyers' said nothing. Their obligation to society comes first not to an illegal policy and corrupt civil servants with bias towards them with prejudice against me. This has allowed the policy and its killing, maiming, and endangerment to life to continue on indefinitely, as the OSMV will need to steal hundreds more research articles to justify all the medical conditions it supposedly manages or make them up.
So, the policy is still illegal, and the killing and maiming continue, and the OSMV does not need to produce a Guide as the HRT has given them all the time needed for me to die if necessary. There is a Q. C. working for the HRT. Why didn't she bring this forward? I complained about what was happening and stated that she is the accidental whistle blower. Nothing happened. She has greater ties than to her colleagues or to the Law Society. Or to the HRT whom she works for, or to Iyer if she owes her favours as Iyer is a past employee of the HRT. She has greater ties to the Law and Society. Doesn't Q. C. bind her to an Oath of Office?
Again, when I caught the gov't presenting the stolen research they lied and said they misunderstood the scope of the complaint. Counsel asked for a change in the scope of the complaint, which involved asking me for the change as well as asking the manager of the HRT to make the change. She agreed to change the scope to type 2 from just diabetic. So, the gov't, its counsel, and the HRT manager followed the law, an Absolute, when a change of scope is needed. I believe I signed documents to do this.
The OSMV and its counsel and the HRT followed an absolute when the gov't needed change in an effort to protect itself from the theft and lies. However, the HRT did not follow the same absolute when it made the decision to change the scope of the complaint and involve All medical conditions that are supposed to be in Review for a New Policy on Disabled Drivers, “Guide to Drive Project”. I was not asked about this change of scope, done in order to protect the OSMV, it was just done.
The Absolute of involving me in a change of scope was broken. Why didn't the lawyers ask me to participate in this new change of scope? Why wasn't I informed about this change of scope; only to discover it in the Decision?
Secondly, I was not involved in the making of an 'Open-ended' Timeline, as to when the New Policy should be available. I should have had the opportunity to evaluate the New Policy concerning diabetics before the Guide to Drive Project is complete, as that is what my complaint is about. Not about All medical conditions monitored by the OSMV.
My point is, the lawyers have followed Absolutes when they needed to change the scope as damage control but they do not follow Absolutes when they want change and know the request will be contested; this new change of Scope and Timeline to protect the OSMV and its corrupt civil servants would not have been approved by me, as I am still presented as a killer by gov't, discriminated against for no good reason, wrongly Classified, Labeled, Given a Number, and forced to take a humiliating phoney medical examination. Why would I give these monsters, non-democrats, corrupt civil servants, their anti-diabetic supporters , and the Nazis any extra time to continually denigrate my character? And all the while they are the killers.
My point is, the resolution of that portion of the Guide, type 2 diabetic drivers, could have been resolved with an early Review by me, as I had already reviewed a Draft, a New Policy, and second Draft, so they really know what is needed to legally justify the policy from a democratic diabetic, from the absolute failure of the stolen science and breached Affidavit.
Superintendent, even if legally justified the Homicide is not acceptable, so how would they justify the policy?
Or, the OSMV could have come to terms with the Fact that the policy is not needed and it could have been canceled. Canceled with documents to prove to the anti-diabetic lobby that it is not needed. But how are they going to present the killing, maiming, and endangerment to life as to why the policy cannot be justified. Are they really going to tell the anti-diabetic lobby that the policy kills and maims thousands of people a year, tell them in a written statement?
My point is, why is this Fact never recognized by anyone. Why did the HRT not mention that the policy may not be needed? It evaluated the complaint well enough to change the Scope and give an open Timeline so it knows the policy is illegal. It knew the science was not there to justify the policy; therefore it knows the policy is illegal, and was illegal as the OSMV was only now trying to justify it through stolen documentation. Then most of it was withdrawn, 174 + 15 = 185 articles. About 10 were left, 10/185 = 5.4% remaining or 94.6% of the articles were withdrawn as they had no relevance to diabetes or type 2 diabetes and because I caught them stealing . Then the rest were withdrawn, as the HRT did not evaluate them or mention them, so we are to understand the OSMV did not put them forward to justify the policy. Therefore, the OSMV did not challenge my discrimination complaint. Therefore, through the bias action of the HRT the policy is still illegal and running.
Why did the HRT present the policy as bona fide and worthwhile? That is what it did by intervening and changing the Scope and Timeline, and not addressing the stolen science, my response to it, and the lie, and not acknowledging that the remaining science was not offered to justify the policy.
Showing Absolute bias, differential treatment, and favouritism, which defines discrimination, for the OSMV and its counsel, as counsel did not ask for another change of scope or an open-ended Timeline for the delivery of the Guide; at least not publicly.
Why didn't the HRT demand the policy be put on hold as no documentation was offered by the OSMV to justify the policy, before the complaint and during the complaint the documentation that was put forward was suddenly withdrawn?
There would have been no harm in canceling the policy as the OSMV has not proved the diabetic driver does harm, or the policy does Good. Furthermore, the OSMV has written that it acknowledges the Harm of the policy and the HRT turned a blind eye to these facts. The HRT bias is unacceptable. It has not played the autonomous, nonpartisan, unattached, freestanding, or independent voice of the third party. The cancellation of the policy would have saved harm, lives, as the OSMV has admitted it knows the policy causes harm and has not proved the diabetic does.
My point is, if the New Diabetic Policy really justifies the policy and its consequences this would have allowed the OSMV and its anti-diabetic lobby to have a bona fide template to follow in justifying other medical conditions they have not legally justified and they say they manage.
Of coarse that does not justify the Homicide and maiming, does it? Or the Endangerment of my life, does it?
But it never happened did it as the OSMV withdrew the stolen science, which means they did not defend the complaint after they had defended it once, which means the HRT should have found the policy discriminatory and canceled the policy. The OSMV cannot offer science to defend the policy, have the HRT involved, change the scope to clarify the science, then withdraw the science and pretend they did not challenge the complaint with documentation and then withdraw it.
So, why didn't the lawyers involve me in this change to the new Scope of the complaint and Timeline change? Why didn't the Q. C. that is employed by the HRT confront what was done concerning this?
All this was done to cover up the Homicide and maiming coming from the illegal policy. The third death really is one too many, isn't it. The fourth is mass murder? The one hundredth death is a crime against humanity and Genocide, isn't it. The thousandth is what? The ten thousandth is what?
My point is, don't forget, 10 000 deaths / 10 years is only 1000 deaths a year. Divided by the 10 busiest hospitals in BC, which has one hundred or so hospitals, is only 100 deaths per hospital per year. Divided by 12 months is only 8 Human deaths a month or 2 a week. Do you think Emerge doctors call Press conferences concerning the Emerge Overcrowding for 1 unexpected and unexplained death a week, only explained through Overcrowding? It may not even happened on their shift. Do they call Press Conferences for 2 unexpected and unexplained deaths a week in Overcrowded Emergency Facilities that run 24/7? That is 24 hours x 7 days = 168 hrs a week. The Emerge doctors are only there for (56 hrs) a third of a week or (42 hrs)a quarter of the week? So, they may not even know of or be involved in the real tally of unexpected deaths due to Overcrowding in a week.
What happens if it is, on average, 1death a day due to Overcrowding? That would make Emerge doctors call Press conferences wouldn't it? That's 365 a year, times 10 years = 3 650 deaths for one hospital since I became diabetic in 1999. Times the ten busiest hospitals = 36 500 deaths due to Overcrowding. That is three times the Genocide in Serbia.
*
These lawyers are not expressing conduct of incompetency, they are choosing their competency, which is misleading conduct.
Again, don't forget, the OSMV never had a Policy to begin with. I was never sent any thing justifying or proving the need to monitor any medical conditions that are considered a liability therefore supposedly managed by the OSMV. So, Hunt and Iyer should have confronted the illegality of the policy, not turned a blind eye to it, and worked to defend those civil servants breaking the law and their Oath of Office. They should have defended the public, the disabled, the honest civil servants, and the democratic society.
Aren't the people hearing or reading HRT Complaints lawyers? Aren't they overseen by a Q. C. attached to the HRT? How was this Absolute of both parties, lawyers and the HRT, being involved in Scope change, not acknowledged by the lawyers working for the HRT?
This conduct is bias, prejudice, and contempt for the law, complied with only when it suits their favour. Or is it conduct of bias, prejudice, hate, ignorance, fear and loathing, disgust, and contempt for the diabetic that allows lawyers to disregard standards they set and work through themselves, but only when it pleases them?
Don't forget, the implementation of the Guide to Drive Project or New Policy, in reality is a Policy Paper concerning medical conditions that are supposedly a liability impacting driving. In reality it really is something New, not a New Policy, which implies that there is something that already exists. I was never given a policy in the first place to prove a need for the OSMV to intervene in my life, therefore the policy is illegal and all those defending it corrupt. The 'New' misleads as an 'Old' Policy is something non-existent and only presented as existing, the presentation of policy as existing is misleading conduct.
Superintendent, this deception of Absolutes and standards are exemplified in the Law Society's statement of Confidentiality and Consent. These are Absolutes they threaten the reader with, they mislead the reader, as lawyers do not attend to these absolutes, at best only some of the time when it pleases them; they did not have permission to break the 'confidentiality' of the research and did not have 'consent' to use the research.
These lawyers are not expressing conduct of incompetency, they are choosing their competency, which is misleading conduct.
This in itself is misconduct on the lawyers behalf. This conduct is misleading, deceptive, and dishonest. And the Homicide and discrimination continues and the civil servants reverse who is doing the killing.
*
More HRT Bias and their Blind Eye
The Guide to Drive Project or New Policy was promised for September 2008, after numerous delays. It is now March/April 2010. Is it late because I caught them stealing research? Is it late because the science I provided proves there is no difference in driver mishaps between non-diabetic and diabetic drivers? Is it late because I have forced the OSMV acknowledge the consequences of its policy?
None of the above? Or all of the above? It is late as the HRT was involved in the second change of the Scope to the complaint and changed the Timeline, which they had no Right to be involved in, or change, or force upon me, or do any change without my consent, which delays the presentation of the so called Guide to Drive Project indefinitely.
My point is, the HRT had no right to change the promises of the OSMV coming from the Out of Hearing Settlement Agreement. They were not involved in the Settlement Agreement. They did not evaluate the original complaint, #1954. They informed me they could not intervene in the breached settlement agreement and now they do. They are corrupt.
So, why is it that they can change the Timeline and Scope of my discrimination complaint?
Superintendent, you do not think that this policy is corrupt and worthwhile investigating? That those involved are not corrupt and worth firing from gov't? Worth taking these lawyers privilege away to practice law? To practice law in Canada is a privilege and these lawyers have screwed Canada and unearned the privilege to practice law.
My point is, Question; there is so much corruption, Homicide, maiming, lying, stealing, etc, etc within this policy it must be asked, “Did the 'civil servant lawyers' intervene and have the HRT make these unsolicited changes to benefit the gov't?” This needs to be asked about those involved, in front of a judge and jury. This is problematic as they have already lied and corrupted the Affidavit, etc, etc.
My point is, when the OSMV needed to defend itself when caught stealing and lying there was a process they needed to fulfill in order to change the Scope of the complaint, done as damage control, they did so, fulfilling an Absolute. For all those people involved it was an Absolute that needed to be fulfilled by lawyers. Lawyers were involved in this, not only counsel for the OSMV but for the HRT as well. Wouldn't the in-house lawyer, the Q. C., oversee this, and the lawyers representing the HRT as Tribunal Members? This change was done in public space, all were contacted and documents signed.
However, soon after this change of scope, within the Decision concerning complaint #5791, the HRT changed the scope of the complaint from the new scope of Class 4 type 2 to include All medical conditions and All Classes of licenses. This was done without my permission. The absence of working through the Absolute of involving the parties and lawyers to change scope again exemplifies the double standard these lawyers have. The conduct of not fulfilling the Absolute, of lawyers refusing to commit to the Absolute has dire consequences for me, all in Emerge, surgery wait-lists, and the Laws of Canada and British Columbia.
This move of the HRT does not allow me to lodge a new complaint until the 'Whole' Guide to Drive Project is made public. I am not involved in those medical conditions so why was my complaint, my scope, escalated to include them?
This second change to scope change came about not in the public space as before, but 'private space'. It was not public until the Decision was published. Doesn't this remind you of the OSMV asking for the early dismissal application, where my complaint would be evaluated out of public space, where there are no witnesses, no Press, no public, where the OSMV presented stolen documents, and the HRT did not acknowledge this crime. Or the lie.
To challenge this I am instructed to get legal help for a criminal or civil legal complaint if I want to challenge the lie and unauthorized change of Scope and Timeline. All the lawyers involved turned their backs on this action. They and I participated in one scope change and 'I' not in the other. That conduct exemplifies bias and prejudice, a lack of fair play or “good faith”. (Good faith is mentioned in the #5791 Decision, so where did it go for my Equality and Rights?)
So, once again we have an Absolute worked through when lawyers decide it is needed and when they need change but know the change will be contested they do it behind everyone's back; the Absolute is not acknowledged. This conduct is called Contempt for the law. This is just another example of the conduct experienced with the theft of the research material, presented away from the public's eye in the early Dismiss Application because there are Absolutes when using protected research documents and they were not adhered to, so they were slipped in through the 'back door' but I caught them, which changed their strategy.
So, just after that we have HRT 'back door' trick or disregard for its own Absolute, changing the Scope and Timeline, which gives protection to the OSMV, which when caught I could not change this time, only if I went to court, at a cost of a $100 000 or more.
My point is, if the HRT was to intervene at all it should have demanded the OSMV produce the policy on diabetes as the OSMV has stated it was written and only waiting for it to come out with the Guide, which is being reviewed by something the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles calls externals and internals. It is also or supposed to be reviewed by the BC Medical Association.
However, it the BCMA never confronted the OSMV about the illegal policy and its negative impact on the health care system and the Homicide, maiming, and surgery wait-lists, it begs the question as to their credibility of 'Reviewer'. Whoever the BCMA really is they must know the policy is illegal and know of the Homicide and maiming. So, why hasn't it made this horror public. Why haven't they defended the medical system from the illegal demands upon it? Why haven't they confronted the OSMV about this policy, years ago or present?
If New Policy was ready why didn't the OSMV present it to me so we did not need to go to the HRT the second time? What a bunch of lies from the OSMV and corrupt behaviour from the HRT.
My point is, why didn't the HRT ask this question in the Decision? Why didn't the 'civil servant lawyers' present the New Policy to me, under Privilege if necessary? And this isn't corruption?
The BCMA and myself could have reviewed the New Policy within a month, as I had done with the Draft, a New Policy, and then the Second Draft. So, here we are with a policy that is still illegal and killing people and the HRT has shown bias and prejudice by intervening when it should not have. It has broken its own legal processes. It has brought changes to a settlement agreement that it had no right to intervene in. When the Settlement Agreement's promise of a Draft of the policy was to be delivered by a certain date and wasn't, the HRT informed me that as I had withdrawn the complaint it could not intervene for me. It could not demand the OSMV to produce the Draft, to enforce the settlement agreement as it had nothing to do with the settlement agreement or evaluating the complaint. But within this complaint we discover the Policy is supposedly written, so why not demand it be given to me to resolve the discrimination complaint.
So, here they are intervening and making changes to the settlement agreement and telling me to get a lawyer if I don't like what they did. And this isn't corruption?
My point is, it must be remembered that Hunt's label when I began my complaint was Supervising counsel for Human Rights for the Attorney General's office and Iyer was a past employee of the Human Rights Tribunal.
So, how well do these people really know each other? This whole presentation of the OSMV and its counsel and the HRT failure to follow its own Absolutes, not acknowledge stolen research, not acknowledge the lie of not knowing the Scope, and not acknowledging the research was given and then withdrawn, which means the OSMV has withdrawn its defense against the complaint, forces one to ask if there was outside interference.
This complaint has brought to light the policy is illegal, that it kills and maims people, by the hundreds, so why wouldn't there be more corruption concerning the policy and those involved?
And all the lawyers involved in this said nothing. They chose to not acknowledge the consequences of their conduct. Isn't this dereliction of duty? Isn't this fraud? Isn't this falsifying legal documents? Isn't this lying about not knowing the scope, done to falsely change HRT legal documents with the intent to justify an illegal policy? Isn't this why the HRT did not address the lie about the scope and told me to get a lawyer. All the while knowing with the withdrawal of research to justify the policy would see the policy remain in the same status, that of being illegal as it is not justified by any research which is demanded by the Charter, the HR Code, and the MVA.
*
When I questioned the HRT as to why they did not confront the lawyers and the OSMV, about the lie concerning the OSMV not understanding the scope I was told to get a lawyer. The gov't lied about not knowing the scope of the complaint as they wrote they did know, or Iyer did know as she wrote the Response to Complaint. With a response such as this from the HRT one knows there is something wrong when this happens, especially when it costs a hundred grand or so to go to court and everyone involved knows this. None of these people are doing this to me and society on their own dollar.
If the HRT is embarrassed that they were suckered by a past employee that is their problem. Actually, it is everyone's problem. Instead of not acknowledging Iyer presented stolen research and the lie she presented, the HRT should have attacked the corruption, instead they have bowed to the corruptions. And that is the problem here, they have turned their back on corruption. So, what does that make them? If it wasn't for people like me, demanding a HRT they would not be here. Have they bowed to gov't intervention? The killing is horrific.
Secondly, the indifference of those that I have contacted is simply amazing. Even Williams and Layton, who's lives have been endangered by this policy and the behavior of the civil servants have done nothing, or at least they have not responded to me. Why not? It is only their life and other Canadian lives they will save.
I do care if the HRT is embarrassed if they got suckered by the OSMV, its counsel, and a past employee. Everyone should be worried. Embarrassment can lead to deviant behaviour, willful harm, actions with intent to harm, a blind eye. Embarrassment leads people astray and down the slippery slope away from our democratic society.
*
Liberation Day in the Netherlands
Superintendent, I didn't do anything wrong. I didn't steal. I didn't lie. I didn't lie with the intent to falsify legal documents for gain. I only had the guts to confront the lie and demand fair play. I demanded the HRT have the guts to review what had taken place and they refused. I should not have been penalized. And the RCMP needs to investigate this in the public space. Today, May 2, 2010, is Liberation Day in the Netherlands, celebrating Canadians liberating their country from the Nazis. My father was there. His brother is a Hong Kong prisoner of war survivor. And these civil servants are doing this to me today. These people are Nazis and you, the RCMP, see no worth in confronting these monsters.
My point is, isn't this another reversal of reality. Doesn't this remind you of the senior civil servant that wrote that the policy saves lives. Reversed who is doing the killing, turned me into the killer. Here the HRT penalizes me as if I had lied and they were correcting something.
My point is, the HRT needs to be questioned about why they did the above and have shown favouritism to their past employee, the Supervising lawyer for the Attorney General's office, the OSMV, and all its supporters.
Superintendent, society and the Law Society can not evaluate the lawyers conduct without acknowledging their position of 'senior civil servant lawyer' and 'temporary gov't employee lawyer' both bound by the Oath of Office, which proceeds all other commitments or obligations to anyone else or some Society.
My point is, as civil servants they have broken their Oath of Office and are responsible for all their actions. Why hasn't anyone brought this forward? Why haven't they been fired, or up on charges, or forced to resign as the past three Solicitor Generals have been? It is something else that has been buried isn't it?
*
Time for a review of why I am here
Superintendent, there are problems beyond what I ever thought I would be confronted with, they are bona fide problems, and I must challenge them because I am not a liability to society. I am not a killer. I have not stolen anything, I have not lied. Canada's Charter is being broken by civil servants and they know this. The HR Code is being broken and they know this. The Motor Vehicle Act has been bastardized or corrupted by 'civil servant lawyers' and they know this. Research has been stolen and they know this. Science has been bastardized or corrupted by these people and they know this. Our medical system has been compromised by this policy and those supporting the policy. And just lately, the Consequences of the policy Endangered my life; I needed to buy spinal surgery. If I didn't do this I would have lost control of lower bowels. That means a bag for my urine and another one for my stool. It means my intestines would not function properly, it means my prostate would become problematic, it means my sex life would be non-functionable, Viagra would not work, it means the nerves may have been permanently damaged putting me in a wheel chair, etc, etc. It means my life span would have been shortened, I'm sixty now. These corrupt civil servants have no Right to endanger my life with an illegal social policy based upon their “view” of life.
All done by their bias, prejudice, hate, ignorance, fear and loathing, disgust, and contempt of the diabetic. Done for the lust and greed of power over the public, the disabled, and the diabetic.
I live in Canada and do not need to kiss the ass of these monsters. I have Rights and they have taken them away from me. And they will do it to you too, as exemplified by what has happened to Danny Williams and Jack Layton.
Superintendent, it's time to go back to page 5 and review the “Five Points of Engagement” to remember why I am here and why the gov't is stealing, lying, and misleading about what is demanded of gov't and what they have not done.
*
The new Driver's Medical Examination Form
A few months ago I needed to complete the Drivers Medical Examination again. I wrote the Solicitor General and asked why I needed to do it as the policy is illegal and his staff have just presented stolen research material in an effort to justify the policy, and then when caught they lied about that. No response to this.
I informed him and the RCMP that the new DME Form is based upon false statements, that the OSMV has falsified legal documents to mislead the public, the reader, into believing the policy is legal, therefore one complies under the threat of loosing one's license. I completed the original DME under the false pretenses from the OSMV that the policy was legal.
Secondly, the MVA statute listed on the Form, used to justify the demand for the DME and policy, does not give the OSMV carte blanche to do what it wants. It is the same statute that a lawyer from the gov't paraphrased, therefore changing the meaning of the statute, to get their way in my first HRT discrimination complaint. Lawyers are not allowed to do this, one mistake paraphrasing a statute is not acceptable from a lawyer, three times for three statutes is falsifying documents.
One would completed the DME under the false pretenses that the policy was legal as the statute demands had been fulfilled, which of course they have not been. This is another 'civil servant lawyer' breaking her Oath of Office.
The Solicitor General did not respond. He was a policeman for thirty years. I wonder if he really has the courage to stand up to the corruption I have found myself embroiled within. The people surrounding him swore an Oath of Office to do no harm and to obey the law and yet they lied to him informing him my complaint had been resolved. The policy has not been legally justified, so how can a human rights complaint be resolved. It goes on. He understands what an illegal policy is and what is not. He understands Homicide when he sees it. He understands mass murder, and atrocity, and crimes against humanity.
He seems to be afraid of the monster I have found myself in front of. And yet, in Parliament he shouted at someone in the Opposition he would defend someone's Human Rights. I asked him why not mine. No answer. He has spent thirty years as a policeman becoming a policy chief; he knows about Oaths and human rights, he swore an Oath of Office himself, he knows about procrastination, and being selective when it comes to fulfilling Absolutes. Last night, May 5, 2010, on the local TV NEWS, it was reported he was reinstated as Solicitor General. Then twelve hours later he resigned again or was asked to, as it seems the Special Prosecutor hired to look into the 'funny money' concerning his election campaign had made contributions to his election campaign. Now that Law Firm is under investigation.
So, the Solicitor General has just fired himself or been fired due to the Risk of a conflict of interest and the Risk of a breach of Oath of Office, about money not Homicide. About the Risk of corrupting the democratic society's laws concerning the election of Representatives of the Democratic Society. The civil servants have broken the Rules of the Democratic Society. There is No Risk here, they are really doing this. The civil servants are running an illegal policy. The have written that they know it Harms. It kills, maims, and endangers lives. They have stolen, lied, misled, etc, etc, and still have their jobs. Why? And the killing and maiming goes on.
One completes the DME because the OSMV will have their license canceled and one will need to start all over again with exams and driving tests, etc. Don't forget the Diabetic Examination is in addition to the Private license and the Commercial license requirements. Would you do that? I complied because I am not going to let these people in the OSMV turn me into a criminal. They are the criminals. No one wants to admit or acknowledge the policy is illegal, little lone admit the new DME Form misleads the public and changes the meaning of the MVA statute to mislead the public into complying with the illegal demand of the illegal policy. And who wrote the new DME Form. Lawyers usually write Law, or statutes, or amendments to Laws do they not? Was this done under the umbrella of Hunt, the managing lawyer for what I have found myself embroiled in? It is more that a Risk of impropriety, or a huge gov't foopaw, as the Solicitor General found himself in. It's a foopaw with horrific consequences; Maiming, Life Threatening, Homicide, Genocide, Democide.
Every interaction I have with those involved with this illegal policy introduces more lies, denial and the lack of accountability worsens.
Superintendent, don't forget, some senior civil servant wrote that the most important thing about this policy is that “it saves lives”. The statement is a lie. (If we, as Canadians, cancel the policy the Overcrowded Emerge and Surgery wait-lists disappear. How many lives will that save?) The statement in no uncertain terms means I am a killer. It means I will take your Right to Life away. It is the most horrific thing that one or a gov't could write about a person, or classification of people (the diabetic or disabled), or a culture. No documents were offered to prove that statement. No offer to withdraw the statement. That statement reverses who are doing the killing; blame the disabled, solve the woes of society upon the disabled. (They are using this statement and Fear that is associated with killers and Homicide to have Carte Blanch to do what they want no matter what the consequences.)
This is what the Nazis did, isn't it. The monsters of Genocide in Serbia. The Rwanda slaughter and Genocide. Solve the woes of society and the hell with Constitutional demands, Human Rights Codes, and laws such as the MVA, and Oaths of Office, and the Social Contracts of do not kill, lie, steal, mislead, break the Trust, etc, etc.
So, if the gov't will not retract the statement they get the same. What is good enough for them to give, is good for them to receive. Accidental killing compared to constructed killing; the difference in killing is understood. The difference is understood with the numbers they give about diabetics and doctors and the consequences of their actions, their own numbers prove their killing and maiming, their endangerment of life, and their Crime Against Humanity, Democide.
Why should I stop questioning those involved? Have you been labeled as a killer? Being a cop you have been called many things, but labeled a killer by gov't? What would you do? Would you kiss their ass? Would you not fight for your Constitutional Rights, Human Rights, MVA Rights, and a Right to Life? You wouldn't take on Nazis? In white collars?
*
More Absolutes Broken from the point of 'Oath of Office'.
The OSMV may not ever give a Policy as the HRT did not put a Timeline for a due date. You need to ask, “Why not?”. The whole matter should have just been a tweaking of the policy eight years ago. A response to keep up with modern science, as the Motor Vehicle Act was amended in 1996. Never done. A review of the Consequences of the intervention. Never done. A review of the Good coming from the policy. Never done. A review of Modern Diabetic Care. Never done. The HRT knows the OSMV has had years to justify the policy. They know the OSMV has had from 2002-04, from my initial inquiry to justify the policy. The HRT knows The Policy should have been given as the OSMV said it was done.
Again, what have I been given in order to go away? To stop my inquiry into how I am treated as a diabetic and person in society. To sign a settlement agreement from the point of Good Will. Reimbursed my DME fee, the money that I paid out in the first place, for an illegal policy's demand, complied to under the threat of loosing one's license. The DME fee is only $75. The doctor I visited at that time only charged half-price for the DME, so now you know where the $75 comes from. The gov't used his fee as the tax dollar to be used to pay for the DME. He, like me, is forced to comply to the DME. So, this is an interesting way to state he does not believe in the policy, so he does not charge the regular fee for a non-necessary medical examination. Civil disobedience is what that is called. It's great.
That is what Nazis do, isn't it. Force people they do not like to comply with laws, passed by these idiots, force people to experience, suffer, endure a meaningless, useless medical examination, force doctors to comply, knowing the medical examination cannot do what it is alleged to be able to do, and yet they do not comply with the existing Laws themselves.
The people I am confronting imply I should stop my inquiry because I have been given money back, but in reality they did not have the legal right to take my money away in the first instance.
This is another example of the OSMV reversal of reality. Giving my money back but making it look like something else; that they are the benevolent caretaker making amends. What a lie this reversal is. That settlement agreement promise was fulfilled in 2006, which also included change to the policy, which has not happened. The OSMV did not reimburse all disabled drivers their fee and when I discovered this and asked the OSMV, “Why not?”. The Superintendent would not respond to my inquiry. I lodged a Representative HRT discrimination complaint for all the other disabled drivers, #5699, it is written up on the HRT web page. This forced the OSMV to respond. I missed the six month Timeline in which to lodge a complaint so it was not accepted. The six month Timeline date of commencement was never established by the HRT as the settlement agreement was broken and is still not complete. So, when would the due date for the commencement of the six month Timeline really begin. It is not the day of the signing of the Out of Hearing Settlement Agreement concerning discrimination complain # 5791, as the OSMV broke that contract and did not renew it. Common sense informs us that the settlement agreement would need to be renew or amendments made to it to have a date to commence the six month Timeline. Why didn't the HRT acknowledge the breach of contract and what that does to due dates. I would need another $100 000 to go to court to fight this and the HRT knows this. Don't forget, this is screwing the disabled, it's their money, the OSMV made a conscious decision to not reimburse them as they did me, but included All disabled drivers in the change of fee payment, that is why this decision of the OSMV is discriminatory. But who are we dealing with? The disabled, the disenfranchised, those of society that Nazis hate and see no value or worth toward.
My point is, and you wonder why I write and ask questions of all involved and those hiding in the background. Like those that wrote the Draft. We do not know who those Nazis are.
I need to give up my Charter Rights, my Human Rights Code demands, and my Motor Vehicles Act rights for $75 every couple of years? I need to accept the label of killer by some idiot civil servant and his idiot superior?
I will never stop writing as long as I can. I am not a killer. I am not the monster. I have Rights. They have gone to far and do not know how to stop. The civil servants involved in this know of the harm, they know their policy is responsible for the Overcrowding in Emerge, the surgery wait-times; one death is not acceptable. The second death, because it is constructed, or could have been prevented, is what?
The third death is some kind of murder, isn't it. It's Homicide isn't it. It's Homicide because they know their actions are doing it. Maybe they like the smell of blood and death. Power at its ultimate, in their world I guess.
Superintendent, you are a policeman, is it Death and Maiming through reckless endangerment to human life?
Or Death due to indifference to human life. You know this.
This also applies to the surgery wait-lists, as taxes were diverted from bona fide and legally justified health care needs to pay for the illegal policy and its demands upon the health care system, the DME. This is fraud causing death. This is fraud causing reckless endangerment of my life through gov't policy. This is Democide.
What about those that die waiting for surgery? What will happen if Danny Williams, Jack Layton, and the Unknown woman die waiting for surgery? (She was interviewed by MLA Dix, NDP health care critic, a type 1 I believe, on TV). What about those maimed, as would have happened to me, and those that become addicted to the legal opiates used for pain and suffering due to their medical condition? A two year wait for surgery would have crippled me, shortened my life span, and I would have become addicted to Oxycodone or some other opiate.
Superintendent, the Shuffling of taxes to pay for this illegal policy is fraud. The gov't demands that your and my demands upon the health care system be a medical necessity; something bona fide with Good. The policy is illegal, not bona fide, and the DME is not a medical necessity, it cannot do what it is alleged to be able to do, and offers no Good. The change to who pays for the DME is an effort to mislead the public into believing that the policy is legal and offers Good.
The medical necessity is another Absolute that is demanded of me in order for you and me to have health care and yet the gov't does not abide by the Absolutes that it has created. Was Hunt managing the team of lawyers that changed the policy to a medical necessity in order for doctors to be paid by others than the disabled? Was it her office that the legal work was done to have the DME changed from the 'non-necessary medical' status to a 'medical necessity' in order for the DME to be paid by medical system, which is then reimbursed by the Solicitor General's office funding? I believe that is how it has been done. All done to hide the demand on the medical system, as the payment comes from things not associated with the Ministry of Health. This is just another charade set up to hide what is really going on.
Superintendent, when will the RCMP respond to my complaint about this falsifying of the DME Form and the shuffling of tax dollars to pay for the illegal policy's demands? It is fraud. I'm sure the new Solicitor General would like some help managing the corruption surrounding his office as he has not created it but certainly is embroiled in it now. As the old Solicitor General was lied to, you can bet this new one will set up and lied to about this policy and its consequences.
What has and is being done to me makes one question all interactions, as there seems to be No rules for those I am confronting. Isn't that what happens when there are no rules, people run amuck and pretend they do not need to be responsible for their actions. Consequences of the actions are buried and the Harm is not addressed. Whatever is still functioning in the democratic society fails at taking those to task, exemplified by the actions of the HRT and failure of the Solicitor General's office to do anything. The failure of the so called Independent or Free Press to do more than interview the survivors of Overcrowded Emerge deaths and surgery wait-times problems. Their failure to knock on the door of the Emerge or Wait-list door and walk through the doors as I did, accompanied with the numbers gov't has given me, which to their regret, I and now you, have come to understand how corrupt they really are.
And when I, one diabetic, is realized as 9% of society, the killing and maiming must be understood within this increase also, this Wholeness of the illegal policy must be acknowledged. An accidental death turns to a constructed death, which turns to Homicide. Homicide because it is gov't constructed and is turned into Mass Murder. An atrocity. A gov't constructed Crime Against Humanity, which is now defined and known as Democide.
My point is, the OSMV and other gov't agencies and ministry's know of the consequences of the policy. They know it is responsible for Emerge Overcrowding and surgery wait-lists and have done nothing to stop the Harm. They have a “knowingly reckless and depraved disregard for life” as exemplified by their refusal to have at least put the policy on Hold until a review was done and documents given. Instead, they stole documents to justify their Homicide, their Democide. And all this is presented by 'civil servant lawyers', which present themselves from the position of status, trust, power, and prestige, and have sworn an Oath of Office to protect the democratic society they work for and live in.
*
As my first complaint is mentioned lets revisit it for Absolutes, as seen through the Oath of Office, the Crime Against Humanity, the third definition of Genocide, Democide.
The same lawyers are present and they played a charade concerning the breached settlement agreement of complaint #1954, done to mislead that the breach has been rectified somehow, rewritten, or amended. I understand I have an Absolute Right to be notified if the Respondent has hired legal advice. This absolute must be fulfilled by the Respondent or its counsel. I do not know who is legally responsible but in the other Complaints I was notified by counsel; I was informed by a letter. I was Not notified that they had been hired to rectify the breached settlement agreement. They played their little charade concerning the breached settlement agreement the day before I had made contact with the Deputy Superintendent, Howie, the civil servant responsible for this illegal policy, the phoney DME, the consequences, and the settlement agreement. In our conversation she did not inform me she and the lawyers had played their little charade the day before; the day I was supposed to have the Draft of the New Policy. You do not forget to inform the complainant these kinds of things. It is consciously done. It leads one to ask, “Did Howie not inform me of the charade played out the day before on the advice of counsel?”
So, the Absolute about me being informed that the OSMV had hired counsel did not take place. Why?
Because Howie and the lawyers are the same thing, 'senior civil servant' and 'civil servant lawyers', which is one and the same, gov't? So, they left the Absolute of informing me that they had been hired up to Howie because they, 'she', was contacting me about the breach on the breach day? I wasn't home, so it turned out to be the following day when I returned her call? She never informed me that she hired counsel. Hunt's letter about this conversation never mentions Howie informed me Hunt and Iyer were rehired. Hunt and Iyer have an Absolute to make sure I know they were hired as counsel. They never did this. Is this what will be said to defend the charade of not informing me the lawyers were hired? Are they going to say, “Maybe a clerical worker faxed it to someone else?” or “Maybe the dog ate the letter that was supposed to inform me of their employment?” or “The mail system sent it to someone else or lost it.” or “It's not our fault.”
My point is, so they see themselves as the same and pretend the other guy did the notifying? This is acceptable conduct becoming lawyers? What happened to their Oath of Office to do no harm, obey the law, tell no lies, do not mislead?
So, they exemplify what I talk about as the 'civil servant and lawyer' being a 'civil servant lawyer', being outside the 'lawyer' and the third party protection, as they pass their Absolute of 'Informing me they were hired' to another gov't employee. So, now they are not protected and should be disciplined by the Law Society as lawyers representing themselves, to be held accountable for what they have written, said, and done.
Don't forget, the gov't has written that I am the killer, constructing the worst liability known to society, turned into the pariah, the Other, a construct of gov't, and in their view they did not need to follow the rules just as the OSMV has not. It doesn't matter what reason they give they did not fulfill the Absolute demand of informing me, which would protect them.
Again, I only discovered they had played this little charade two or three months after the fact; it really was a serendipitous moment, maybe a once in a life time moment. I could not believe what I was reading from Hunt, as she wrote a letter trying to explain her conduct concerning this breach and her charade. It is really important to know what she didn't say. Hunt did not say Iyer and her were on retainer to the OSMV? This means they were again hired to rectify the breach. The letter did not say when they were hired. How far in advance of the breached settlement agreement they were hired? The OSMV must have known they would not complete their promise of a Draft on Time, as they did not have a policy to begin with, they just lead everyone to believe they had a legal policy. And that they would need to steal science to justify the Draft of the policy.
Hunt never mentions that they ever contact the lawyer from CLAS. That he ever responded to them. That Hunt renewed or offered an amendment to the breached agreement.
Howie should have been fired for running the illegal policy; this was in 2002 when I began my inquiry, as that is as far back we can go to understand the policy was not legal. Howie should have been fired when she did not deliver the Draft on time. Howie should have been fired for blaming some low-level civil servant for the not having the Draft done on time. She had years to legally justify the policy and she didn't. She contrived the date for the due date of the Draft. She must have known the policy would not be ready as it takes years to get permission from the owners of the research used to justify a social policy of a foreign government especially when the OSMV would need to inform the owners of the research of the killing and maiming. Howie would have needed to declare the Harm to the owners of the research as the OSMV web page also demands Intent of Use.
This begs the question, “Would the owners of research give Permission of Use for a policy that creates Homicide and mass murder?” I do not think so. Knowing the Harm of the policy Howie should have put the policy on hold years ago. She didn't. Why not? On lawyers advice? What about her Oath of Office to follow the law, do no harm, do no lie, etc, etc.
My point is, this is another example of the gov't reversing what the reality is, Howie is responsible for the policy, the settlement agreement promises, and the consequences, not some low level civil servant, an underling. She blamed some underling for the breach. So, if she and her counsel cannot be honest about who is responsible for the breached settlement agreement, what and how much are they really hiding? How corrupt have they really become?
Superintendent, you have read enough to know how corrupt this policy is and now it is time to ask yourself, “Was there really an underling to blame the breached policy upon.” Or is it just another lie? Nazis blame other people for the woes of society, the underling, the disabled, the disenfranchised, etc.
Hunt and Iyer did not inform me they were employed by gov't is what kind of conduct? Fraudulent. Dishonest. Failure to inform. Dereliction of duty. Breach of Oath of Office by not telling the truth and breaking the law.
Why didn't they send me a letter of employment like they did in the following two complaints? I believe CLAS received a letter that the OSMV had hired counsel for #1954, as CLAS represented me. But now as I was not represented by counsel I have no Rights?
Additionally, Hunt's letter did not say why Iyer and she did not investigate 'why the CLAS lawyer did not communicate back to them about their supposed contact with him about the breached settlement agreement; they say they phoned and faxed the former counsel of complaint #1954, but not me, in an effort to redo or make an amendment to the breach and yet Howie was my contact if something went amiss.
So, they fax and phone someone about a breached gov't settlement agreement, that they contrived and implemented, that they have been hired to rectify, but the person they say they contacted never responds to their supposed contact.
Does this sound phoney or what? Did the dog eat the fax? Did the dog del 'eat' the phone message if there was one left on a phone recording device?
So, Hunt is saying the lawyer from CLAS never responds even if only to inform them he is not involved in the case anymore, his responsibility ended with the signing of the settlement agreement, as theirs did. Did he even receive the phone call and fax? Hunt never mentions he did. Just that the phone was used and a fax sent. Isn't this convenient that Hunt forgets to inform readers about the above.
This is just a charade to cover up what they are doing. By not mentioning these very important facts the letter is just another lie, a breach of their Oath of Office to tell the truth, obey the law, do not harm, and do not mislead.
Superintendent, Hunt was Supervising counsel for human rights in the Attorney Generals office at the time and Iyer had experience with the HRT, as I believe she had worked full - time for the BCHRT. Are we supposed to believe they did not know the lawyer did not represent me after the signing of the settlement agreement? Their contract also ended with the signing of the settlement agreement, as the Deputy Superintendent Howie was assigned as my contact if there were any problems.
So, why did counsel contact the former counsel on the day of the breach? Why didn't they just let Howie resolve the breach? They knew I was approachable, accommodating, and compromising, as I had agreed to the settlement agreement promising change? Why didn't they wait and see what Howie's conversation with me brought forward? I did agree to her request for three more weeks to complete the Draft. The Draft did not arrive within that Timeline, which meant another breach, which meant a letter to the Superintendent to let him know what his Deputy was doing and promised. He sent the letter to Hunt and she responded with the letter that I am talking about here. Of course this agreement with Howie was done on the phone so Hunt states that only I say Howie promised a new three week Timeline and the paperwork to amend the breached contract. Hunt is right, I cannot prove the phone call promises. However, what do you really think Howie phoned me at home for? To have tea? Or to have phone sex?
So, the diabetic, the killer, the pariah, the Other's phone calls are no good, but Hunts are? We are supposed to accept that she phoned the CLAS lawyer and “just believe” due to her position? Just another little 'act' played out in the charade.
Are we to believe that three months after the conclusion of my withdrawal of complaint they did not know the CLAS lawyer was doing something else. That he may not even have been in the lower mainland when they called him as he travels around BC in his work for CLAS. Did they go online to see if he was managing a case, in or out of town? Did they contact friends in CLAS or CLAS to see what he was doing? The supposed phone call and fax was just another charade played out to complicate the defense of the illegal policy, the lack of a Policy, the breached settlement agreement, and at that time my understand of knowns Harms, a Crime Against Humanity. It was played out to make it look like the gov't was doing Right, but it really was a charade, as Howie only needed to deliver the Draft and have lawyers write an amendment up as she said she would. However, that promise cannot be proved as it was a phone call. And if they did write an amendment then it would have been proof of another breach and they wouldn't want that would they.
No matter what we call this there is an Absolute that the lawyers should have 'made sure' I knew what they were doing. Phoning CLAS once and saying they faxed him once is not good enough. They cannot prove they called him. They cannot prove the fax arrived, was accepted, and delivered to him. This lack of accountability was not attended to in my first complaint about these lawyers to the Law Society. It was buried. This conduct is not protected under the Law Society's third party protection, as they are 'civil servant lawyers' and acting for gov't itself, and have broken their Oath of Office, therefore accountable for their actions. They are not incompetent, they are constructing incompetency.
Don't forget, the OSMV knew weeks before, or months before, they would not fulfill the deadline for the Draft, as they had no Policy to begin with. They had on science to justify the want for the policy. The Draft offers No Science to justify what is presented, as to the want for the policy. No science to justify the killing and maiming. So, phoning and sending a fax 'on the due date' and doing nothing more is not acceptable. They had no intention of doing anything more and they didn't. This is not becoming conduct for lawyers and the Law Society lawyer buried that complaint.
Superintendent, I send these papers or letters by Xpresspost because the gov't does not answer my questions or even acknowledge they get the letters. Most people I write to do not respond, for unknown reasons, but at least I know through signatures that the Xpresspost was received.
My point is, these lawyers did not even do that, have a written record through a signature, and it is for a breached gov't contract that they contrived, offered, and implemented. This is Absolute Bullshit that they are establishing they were implementing reasonable actions to renew the breached settlement agreement.
They Absolutely failed the Absolute demand that I was to be informed of their employment by the OSMV. They Absolutely failed the demand that they prove they contacted who they say they were trying to contact. One phone and one fax is not sufficient by any means, as they know phone calls are not proof of contact. It is dereliction or willful neglect of duty or obligation of their Oath of Office, little lone a breach of lawyer code of conduct. A dereliction or willful neglect of the Oath of Office to do no harm, to Obey the law, tell no lies. And to take reasonable means to justify your actions, which they haven't. They use their position as 'senior civil servant lawyers' to mislead, misinform, and manipulate.
Why are we supposed to be dumb about this? Why are we supposed to accept this corruption and charades?
So, the absolute, that they must make sure the Respondent or counsel is informed that they were hired or employed by the OSMV was not done. Why?
There is the Social Contract of 'Follow-through' to guarantee all involved are not only contacted but are really cognizant or are aware of contact, and this was Absolutely Not Done. A Response is needed from those that are supposed to have been contacted. Why wasn't this Absolute fulfilled?
My point is, it wasn't done as then there would not be any lawyer involved, which would mean accountability and no document signed to renew the settlement agreement to bind the OSMV to a new Due Date for the Draft.
It was just a charade, to make it look like they were doing something. Just like the charade they played with the law firm in Alberta and its stamp of approval to justify the stolen research, but in reality that is not what was done. There was a charade to mislead, intent to mislead, falsifying documents, falsifying behaviour to make it look like standards or Absolutes were fulfilled.
My point is, the Law Society lawyer reviewing the above complaint did not attend to these things and buried the complaint. However, this does not mean I will bury it. They got away with the above, which just reinforces deviant behaviour. So, when you talk about Absolutes they are only there for their advantage.
And as above do not let yourself be manipulated by this, to say ha ha you got suckered. This again exemplifies the corruption, the lies, the misrepresentation and the breach of Oath of Office.
And all this is under the heading Democide,
“Democide can also include deaths arising from “intentionally or knowingly reckless and depraved disregard for life”;
“. . . According to Rummel, these were not cases of genocide, because those who were killed were not selected on the basis of their race, but were killed in large numbers as a result of government policies.”
And now Rummel can add the deaths and maiming resulting from this illegal gov't policy, which the consequences are known but never attended to. Which comes under the heading of “depraved disregard for life”. Democide is always in the background of what is being done to me, diabetics, the disabled, those waiting for surgery, by those corrupt civil servants and the politicians that will not address this policy and its consequences.
*
Another Absolute Broken; Fraud
Superintendent, here is another Absolute they broke. They had a responsibility to contact me no matter what the situation, or how many times it took. One letter would have done it. They didn't do it. This dialogue you and I are having is not the same. They were hired, began the engagement, and they need to follow up, they need to make sure I was contacted. They were hired to resolve a breached settlement agreement, and never did, played a charade they did, and were paid for it. This is fraud.
If someone was contracted to rebuild your house and took the money and walked away you would charge them with fraud or some other legal term, like theft, failure to complete contract or what ever.
However, the cost of courts would probably be prohibitive in trying to do anything, the courts decisions on things like this are weak to say the least, and the corrupt contractors know this. As society knows the Law Society's self regulation is also weak and corrupt lawyers know this. The Law Society's web page states about complaints that the process is not court and they cannot charge them with fraud or theft, but you can register a complaint against the lawyers, like the homeowner could with the Better Business Bureau, so others would know to stay away or at least could make an informed decision. That is what I have done, but this is bigger than that.
They took the money, my taxes, and did not do the work. The settlement agreement was never rectified or amended or renewed. Hunt's letter about the breach and her conduct never offered to make an amendment to the policy. She really closed the discussion off. I'm the lawyer, I'm the queen bee, you're the diabetic with no rights and the matter is complete. Go away. She really told me to kiss off.
There is nothing in Hunt's letter to me about the OSMV canceling the need to resolve the breach. There is nothing in Hunt's letter informing me that she had been dismissed and another law firm had been hired to resolve the breach. So, she has played a charade to renew the breach, didn't, but took the money as if she had. Her letter leads the reader astray, one is mislead to believe the breach had been rectified or renewed. Nothing of the sort ever happened. As she has stated about the phone call where Howie asked for three more weeks, only I say I agreed with Howie for three more weeks, only Hunt says the policy was renewed. So, we agree the phone call is not acceptable, where no due date was established and the promised documentation for the amendment or new settlement agreement made. This in turn proves Hunt did not do what she was hired to do, rectify or renew or make an amendment to the settlement agreement as I never signed anything and she took the money as if she had. If they offer something with my signature on it you know they are lying and the signature is forged.
This applies to Iyer also. I'm sure Heenan Blaikie billed the gov't for her work in this charade.
Hunt's letter was constructed to do three things, mislead about their responsibility, play the charade, and close the breach off without committing to another Due Date. It was not a little triple b, a bbb, or bBb, or BbB, it is a big BBB, it is Bullshit Baffles Brains. And the Law Society buried this.
So, the Oath of Office is broken again. Obey the law, do the job if you take the money. The letter is a lie as nothing was done and readers are lead to believe something was done to make the breached settlement agreement legal again.
Superintendent, when Absolutes benefit them they are adhered to but when they apply to me they don't count. It just goes on. The illegal policy and the consequences, its killing, maiming, and endangerment to life, are an interesting driving force for those involved aren't they.
So, the Law Society lawyer that reviewed the first complaint did not address the above, when I asked why I was told the lawyer that reviewed the complaint had buried the complaint.
I wrote the Attorney General, who is gone now, he gave the complaint to another idiot civil servant that did not answer my questions about Hunts charade, lack of contact, lack of re-writing the settlement agreement or making an amendment to it, etc. I informed the A G that his staff did not answer the questions. The A G sent the request back to the idiot who again did not address my questions. I informed the A G again. He wrote that if I wanted to explore my complaint further I should contact a lawyer. Sure, as if I have a hundred grand. So, what the Attorney General at that time did was bury the complaint and protect his senior lawyer, who has just presented stolen research documents and when caught lied about it.
All the while these civil servants and their private counsel ride around on my tax dollars and are in denial of their Oath of Office. He too forgot about civil servants Oath of Office to do no wrong, obey the law, and tell no lies and that as a politician he works for me not corrupt civil servants and he too swore an Oath of Office. He is/was a lawyer and judge.
Why didn't he stand up for my Rights? Would he have in court? Would he have if he was my lawyer? As an elected person in gov't he is not supposed to protect civil servants but make sure they are squeaky clean. He is supposed to attack corruption no matter who it involves. His Oath of Office comes before any affiliation with lawyers or judges. The political office is above lawyers and judges. He turned his back on the Absolutes. He failed his job to protect the public. His staff should have been squeaky clean. Breaking their Oath of Office should have seen Hunt fired. He did not challenge her and the deviant behaviour has increased.
The A G at the time was Wally Opal, is/was a lawyer and judge. When he was voted out of office a few months ago he went back to his office to collect his things only to discover that the civil servants had locked him out and the new team was already there with new codes to open the office with. He called them a bunch of idiots. He let us know what he thought of them. Why didn't he stand up to them while he was in office? What happens if he becomes diabetic or needs prostrate surgery again? Will he protect them then? I wonder if he had private surgery like I did? I wonder if, due to his position in life, he jumped the surgery wait-lists? Good questions, eh.
This double standard is like this policy, the civil servants can break the law but if I do it I will loose my license and if I drive, as an act of civil disobedience, I will be pounded by lawyers, and turned into a criminal. And you wonder why I write and will never give up. Hunt is a civil servant first and then a lawyer, a 'civil servant lawyer', gov't itself. She and the past A G have duties and obligations that precede those afforded to 'private lawyers' and should have attacked those running this policy, as that action would have fulfilled their Oath of Office, they would have had protection.
Hunt and Iyer took the money but did not do the job. They only pretend they did. The A G only pretended he fulfilled his Oath of Office, he should have investigate Hunt and my complaint, as his senior lawyer should be squeaky clean.
Superintendent, have you ever listened to Get Up, Stand Up, by Bob Marley & the Wailers? He knew what discrimination, hate, and corruptions is. He was shot over this. Somewhere in your life you need to stand up, I don't care how grand these people think they are. They are corrupt and some of them are Nazis. As I just wrote you about the theft of the stolen research, fraud, and falsifying legal documents, and mail fraud I am Right to carry on because my inquiry/complaint is Right, it is Just, and there is Public Good.
The monsters that I am confronting cannot state this about their behaviour, they cannot win against this and they know this, therefore the breach, charades, stonewalling, theft, lies, and now an unsolicited change to the Scope of my discrimination complaint and an open Timeline to protect the OSMV, to protect the gov't from not having a policy, to protect against the killing and maiming, the Democide. To cover their tracks until I die of diabetes, or experience disabling consequences of diabetes, or through attrition I quit.
Don't forget, the first Draft concludes with two pages of medical conditions a diabetic may have express only after having diabetes for 10, 15, or 20 years, conditions that are not dependent upon diabetes but nevertheless can harm a person. These future medical conditions are used to justify the policy today. How insane are these people? Nazis wrote that.
These future medical conditions are used to raise the Fear Factor of diabetics. To raise the Risk Factor, in order to justify the policy without science, falsely justified through a charade using the Fear/Risk factor.
Nazis bastardize, corrupt, twist, and use science for things it was not researched for, to justify their twisted behaviour and any illegal social policy they think of.
They can kiss my ass.
The Oath of Office is for a democratic society, to keep it a democratic society, and most civil servants obey or accommodate their Oath of Office. All those involved in this policy should be fired as they care nothing for the democratic society of Canada. And charges laid for all the things your lawyers can imagine and then some.
Let the world know Canada is not going to accept this corruption and Democide.
*
More HRT bias, prejudice, favouritism, corruption, and the blind eye
Superintendent, this concerns another corrupt feature of discrimination complaint #5791. The HRT decision writes it dismissed my complaint as it was the same as complaint #1954.
Don't forget, the HRT forgot to mention the OSMV presented science to justify the policy and then withdrew it, with the action being the OSMV defended the policy only to discover I challenged their science, which then saw the OSMV withdraw the science, which means they withdrew their defense against my complaint. The defense with science means the OSMV decided to defend the complaint with the very thing needed to justify the policy, fulfill the demands of the Charter, the HR Code, and the MVA. The withdrawal of science means the OSMV offered nothing to support the policy after instigating a defense, through the early Dismiss Application they specifically asked for and received. This means they decided to not challenge my discrimination complaint and the HRT should have found in my favour and canceled the policy. Why is this not mentioned in the Decision?
The defense with science means the complaint is not the same as no science was offered in the first complaint for the HRT to evaluate; the very thing needed to justify the policy through the demands of the Charter, the HR Code, and the MVA.
So, whatever legal case the HRT is accepting, as making the complaints similar is void, as the OSMV defended the policy, complaint #5791, which overrides any case the HRT brings forward they say makes the complaints similar, as there was no defense of an earlier policy and complaint, #1954. The OSMV chose to defend themselves, which the HRT must acknowledge, as even if the HRT presents the case as the same, it is clear the OSMV does not agree, which is explained through the offering the science to justify the policy. It is what the Respondent and Complainant want and present, not what the HRT thinks they should present.
The HRT accepted my complaint, #1954, as something worthwhile to investigate as my complaint fulfilled some criteria. The OSMV responded with a Response to Complaint and asked to go to Hearing. I said sure. They responded by saying , we've changed our minds, lets do an Out of Hearing Settlement Agreement. I said sure. The complaint was withdrawn through the Absolute of a formal withdraw of complaint process; there was no evaluation by the HRT, no judgment, and no declaration of a lack of worth, value, or merit concerning my complaint. The complaint was just withdrawn.
Complaint #5791 was accepted as worthwhile to investigate, the OSMV Responded with acknowledgment of the scope but did not offer any science, only the implication that the policy is legal, that means science justified the old policy and they asked for the Early Dismiss Application. So, somewhere, something was left out of the conversation, if there is 'old science' then the policy would be legal and I would not be here, where 'new science' is being presented to defend against the new discrimination complaint. If the complaints are the same that means the same 'old science' should have been presented and it wasn't. That means there must be something different with the today's policy and new complaint, as whatever the first one was it is not the same policy, as different science was presented to justify the new policy, therefore a new complaint. The use of 'new science' to challenge the new complaint voids the OSMV claim that the complaints are the same.
If the HRT supports the OSMV claim that the new complaint is the same as the first one then why didn't they acknowledge the science charade the OSMV has played out and I have just deconstructed? My discrimination complaint is about the policy not being justified with science, so why did the HRT not investigate the science aspect at all?
Does this mean the HRT had made their decision about my complaint at an earlier time?
To read in Iyer's presentation and the HRT decision, that complaint #1954 and #5791 were the same was interesting to say the least, as #1954 was Not evaluated by the HRT. Then to understand that I needed to defend myself from 185 scientific research documents that had never been presented before again perked my interest. Never presented but implied as during the years before my first complaint, as in the first complaint, or after, or then in the Draft, first Policy, second Draft, or after that, was daunting to say the least. This presentation of science was contrary to what the OSMV was saying about the complaint. They wanted the second complaint to be the same and yet if I did not deconstruct or respond to the science it would be used to 'justify the policy with science' and have my 'second complaint Dismissed' which would mean the policy would move from being illegal and discriminatory to legal and not discriminatory. The duality of the presentation was that the complaint was the same and it wasn't as new science is being presented. How is it that this science charade was not played during the first complaint?
So, they are saying there is 'old science' that was used to justify the policy but never used and the science that was presented is 'new science' to justify this new policy? Or is it to be added to the old science, the old policy, and my original complaint to legalize the old policy or the new one? By offering science at this time, to dismiss my complain, meant the OSMV had decided to not take at face value, or be honest about their demand that the complaints were the same. They cannot have it both ways; to say it is the same and then defend it with different science.
Or are they really saying that the policy is illegal and the new science is to legalize the old policy making the new complaint the same as the old complaint, complaining that the same policy is illegal and discriminatory, which means the policy today is illegal until the new science is accepted to justify the policy? This means they have broken their Oath of Office by breaking the law by running a known illegal policy that kills and maims. This means that they should be fired and taken to criminal court. Is this what they mean by claiming the complaint is the same; an illegal policy is only now trying to be legalized? This is what 'the same' means and the HRT doesn't address that the policy is illegal thus discriminatory.
Superintendent, counsel has played word games here, or the 'circle argument', not me. I did not instigate this but only respond to what is being presented, why hasn't the third party, the HRT? Counsel makes it complicated so readers drop it. Just another charade to hide the Democide.
As for the HRT decision that the complaints are the same. I never received any documents, or an online write-up of complaint #1954, as I did with the other two complaints; addressing the presentations of both parties, an evaluation of why to have a Hearing or to not have a Hearing; something like the Decisions of #5699, the Representative Complaint, or like #5791, to not have a Hearing. So I do not understand how they can be the same if the HRT did not evaluate the complaint for all to see in order for the public to understand if the complaints really are the same. As far as I know complaint #1954 does not exist as it was not evaluated or written up, only written up.
I never went to Hearing for an evaluation of the discrimination complaint so there was no decision online for anyone to read and know what went on with complaint #1954.
The withdrawal of complaint was to withdraw it as the OSMV had offered change and that is what I wanted and still want. The HRT did not evaluate the complaint or evaluate the settlement agreement for approval or not. At that time no one offered any documents to inform me or the CLAS lawyer that the complaint had been evaluated by the HRT. It was not a withdrawal because the HRT had evaluated something that would force me to withdraw.
I believe the HRT interprets complaint #5791 the same as #1954, due to the fact the OSMV had not offered a New Policy to me for evaluation, so there could be no comparison between the two. No New Policy in order to complain about the differences, to see if the changes met or fulfilled my interest, therefore with no changes to evaluated we are still only with the same policy, the Old Policy. The trouble with this is there is no old policy. Why didn't the HRT acknowledge this?
This is commonly called a Catch 22. Or maybe a circle argument. But in reality it is not. It is another one of those events where the reality has been changed for the benefit of the OSMV and its counsel. Done by the HRT.
The problem that has not been addressed by the HRT is that the OSMV had sufficient time to offer a New Policy, as I had Criticized a Draft, a New Policy, and a second Draft on the New Policy and yet nothing arrived on the due dates the OSMV stated the New Policy would be made public. That was two years after the settlement agreement and that is sufficient time to wait for a New Policy. Two years after the settlement agreement was sufficient for a tweaking of the Old Policy, a so-called legal policy. The HRT does not mention this. It does not mention this as 'more than good will' on my behalf. It does not say I have been more than accommodating in my inquiry. It seems the two years was not enough to write a First Policy. Now we know they stole research to justify the policy, so was the New Policy late because the owners of the research would not give them permission to use the science? So, they stole it anyway and presented it in the Early Dismiss Application where no one would see the theft? No Press. No Witnesses. No Public.
My point is, the trouble is the HRT did not acknowledge there is no OLD POLICY to compare the New Policy to, in order for anyone to evaluate change. How did they forget that little bit of Truth, or Fact? How convenient of the HRT to forget this fact for all the readers of the HRT Decision. How convenient to not write about this Fact and not inform the Public there is no Policy Paper to begin with. By withholding these facts from their Decision, which is public, is misleading the public, misinforming the public. It is lying to the public.
Superintendent, what kind of lie is that? How deep the bias for gov't and the former human rights employee and prejudice against me?
The DME Fee Change is Real Change
Superintendent, within my complaint I mention the only change Absolutely visible for all to see is the change of who pays for the DME fee. As there is nothing else there to make comparisons with or to as there is no old policy and no new policy whatever policy is here or supposed to be here has been changed as not only the type 2 diabetic, not only All diabetic drivers, but All disabled drivers do not need to pay for the DME now. A new diabetic driver or new disabled driver will not pay the DME fee, so the policy is different to them. It is different to All disabled drivers.
How convenient of the HRT to not address this Fact. This is involves most diabetics as most people drive, approximately 300 000 people plus all the other drivers listed as disabled, there are supposed to be 100 different medical conditions managed by the OSMV. Change for 400 000 people is not good enough to acknowledge as change?
At that time I was right concerning the only change that all could see, the fee change. Other than the above about the science. But in 2009 a new change has come forward concerning the change in fee payment that needs to be addressed. As the DME Fee is now paid by our taxes my life was Endangered, as those taxes are now used to pay for an illegal policy and its non-necessary medical demand upon the medical system, taxes used for the demands of an illegal policy instead of paying for the bona fide medical necessity surgeries which offer good.
What did not change by the time I lodged the second discrimination complaint, #5791 are;
The lack of documentation to justify that the policy is needed.
The phoney medical examination did not change. It still does not do what it is alleged to be able to do.
The consequences of the policy did not change. The Homicide and maiming continues.
The lack of proof of Good has not changed.
The number of times I visit a doctor (20)compared to the number of times I am forced to comply with the DME did not change (1).
The libelous statement that the policy saves lives, in other words diabetics are killers, that I am a killer has not been withdrawn. I am still the pariah, the Other, the killer that will take your life away.
So, in the real world, at that time, there was nothing offered for comparison, except the fee change, a shuffling of taxes in an effort to give some legitimacy to the policy, and the new science. So, these were the only things I could compare to in the real world, the concrete world, as there really was 'nothing', no Policy, in the first place for comparison to. So, there really was change to evaluate, which means the policy really is not the same. The change was not anything to do with needles, medications, times for blood sugar testing, etc. This does not mean there was no change.
How convenient the HRT did not address this Fact. Did not let the public know this. So, even today, April 2010, if a New Policy came out today there is nothing to compare to. What bias will the HRT show the OSMV then?
So, after a realistic wait-time I lodged another complaint, as no Policy had been offered after numerous promises, with only the fee change to exemplify change, to only have the HRT defend the OSMV, which it should not have. As stated above, the HRT did not have the right to intervene in the settlement agreement breach or force the OSMV to comply with the settlement agreement, so why did it intervene for the OSMV at this time by not accepting real change for change?
How can they legitimize their action of not acknowledging that the OSMV had never offered a policy in the first place in order for me to compare a New Policy to if it did come? Why not inform the public? Why not acknowledge that without an old policy the policy is illegal, which defines discrimination.
In the real world there wouldn't have been anything to compare the New Policy to, and if it ever comes how am I to compare it something that is not there? I can't. So, at some time the OSMV needs research to justify the New Policy as a comparison of policies would not be available. Research would be needed to justify the policy in the present and for the future, and for the consequences, Homicide? And for past consequences, Homicide?
My point is, and of course counsel does not acknowledge this change does it. When they say there is no change to make the complaints different they are lying. They voluntarily and freely gave and implemented the change of fee payment. They broke their Oath of Office by lying about this change. They should be fired, fined, go to jail, and loose their privilege to practice law in B C.
So, they stole documents to justify the policy, as there is no new policy given at the HRT Early Dismiss and no previous policy for comparison, as they needed something to justify the policy and got caught. They then withdrew the remaining research which means they withdrew their action of defense of the discrimination complaint. And the HRT did not acknowledge this action of the OSMV and its counsel. Why?
Corruption explains their bias for gov't and prejudice against the diabetic.
Another viewpoint
Counsel from CLAS guaranteed that if the gov't did not justify the policy I could lodge a new complaint concerning the same matter, which is what I did after a reasonable time. This promise or proposition of the settlement agreement is recognized within the Dismiss of #5791. This means if the New complaint is the same as the Old Policy complaint a new complaint can be lodged. Again, with no new policy offered new science is being used to do what? Justify the same policy? And if the policy is the same it is not changed, therefore my complaint should have been heard. Counsel wants the new complaint to be the same as first complaint, so how does their argument hold as valid when we are both saying the same thing? No change, therefore the OSMV has not fulfilled its promises within the settlement agreement, therefore I can lodge a new complaint. Counsel says, no change the HRT would be evaluating the same complaint. Hold it. The complaint was not evaluated by the HRT.
So why didn't the HRT accept this as well as the case Iyer presented in her defense for the OSMV, which she claims makes the complaints the same. However, as we know from above there really is change and counsel instigated that change, the fee change and science change, and then refuses to acknowledge them and states there is no change, therefore the complaint is the same and not allowed to be heard by the HRT. However, like the phoney phone calls they are only saying there is no change where there really is.
Superintendent, the above is just another charade played out and deconstructed for you.
The trouble now is that the HRT gave the OSMV an open-ended Timeline, which is not acceptable; they are not allowed to defend an illegal policy, which they know is illegal as they are supposed to be an autonomous third party. The HRT knows the policy is illegal because that is what the New Policy is supposedly doing, making the old policy legal, so an evaluation of it can be determined, if it is discriminatory or not. And what did they do, the buried it for the gov't.
My point is, the above favouritism or bias or deliberate forgetfulness is in addition to the Scope change, the Timeline change, the withholding of the fact the OSMV presented stolen research and then lied about doing so.
And this behaviour is acceptable under the Oath of Office of senior civil servants and 'civil servant lawyers? .
Don't forget, my complaint is about two things, the policy is illegal, therefore discriminatory and the policy is discriminatory as the demands upon me and science does not justify the policy, even if they did produce some. How convenient that counsel forgets the policy is illegal and only focuses upon other things that are just distractions, the charade. They never mention the policy is illegal, this is just another charade to deceive people about what they are doing.
The claim that my complaints are the same and we, society, should not investigate it lunacy, as this means they acknowledge the first complaint, with the illegal policy, and as nothing has changed we are still looking at an illegal policy that they know kills and maims, and we, as society, should not confront an illegal policy because counsel says we should not. This means they support the illegal policy and all its harm. The support for the illegal policy, to continue running of an illegal policy that kills and maims, breaks the demands of the Oath of Office. So, the policy should be legalized first, to cancel that discrimination and illegality, then we could see if the demands of the policy and the science are discriminatory. As of today the policy is still illegal and the OSMV knows of the Harm and yet they continue on, which not only breaks their Oath of Office but the 'civil servant lawyers' Oath also, as they made a presentation to support an illegal policy that kills and maims, putting the democratic society, that they have sworn an Oath to, to do no Harm to, at Risk of legal action. They have also broken ethical standards and the Social Contract by supporting the illegal policy knowing the Harm
What does this make the HRT for supporting the policy knowing it is illegal in the first instance and allowing the OSMV to keep running the policy. How is this human rights when naïve bystander Humans are being killed and maimed by the illegal policy, not just by a legal policy whose demands may be discriminatory? This HRT has forgotten what they are, people fighting for human rights, what about the dead, the maimed, and the endangerment to life? The HRT groveled to the Nazis. Maybe showed favour to their former employee.
Superintendent, your counsel doesn't see this as corruption? As part of,
“... According to Rummel, these were not cases of genocide, because those who were killed were not selected on the basis of their race, but were killed in large numbers as a result of government policies.”
*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Important: depth of corruption
Superintendent, the above is important as it shows or exemplifies the depth of corruption the government will go to in order to bury or not take responsibility for their actions.
The above has happened and my story is more than “sour grapes” or “ha, ha, you lost and are not happy”. This attitude is how those that are doing this to me and society want one to realize this. If one thinks or realizes the above as only sour grapes then you have indeed been manipulated by the corruption and charades.
What is happening is bigger than the “sour grapes” and “ha, ha, you lost” attitude. It exemplifies the above quote and; “Democide can also include deaths arising from “intentionally or knowingly reckless and depraved disregard for life””.
The above behaviour defines the defense of Democide, the killing of the naïve bystander through illegal gov't policies.
I have not lost anything, I have gained everything, you have been introduced to what is really happening, really going on with the policy, the civil servants, the 'civil servant lawyers' and what has been done to escape from any responsibility and accountability concerning the illegal policy and its consequences.
As you have just read and come to understand the deviant behaviour of those involved has increased or escalated with every new interaction. When corrupt people 'get away with something' they try it again, and again, and the escalation comes with the arrogance associated with unchecked deviant behaviour.
No, I have not lost anything. The opposition has declared itself for all to see, for the world to see, its on paper not just a phone call that can be dismissed. They have documented all their cleverness for all to see, just like the German Nazis did.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My point is, some people and the Law Society pretend that lawyers cannot be involved, or attack an illegal activity that they may find themselves in the middle of, such as this illegal policy and the HRT illegal change of Scope and new Timeline. If they defend it, the Absolute of process of scope change, which they did for the first scope change, why not attack it when it is not followed?
By accepting the #5791 decision of allowing the HRT to make this open-ended Timeline and changing the Scope without my involvement, they have sided with the HRT in making changes to the Complaint and Settlement Agreement without my involvement and without following the Absolutes they have established; in other words the HRT is not neutral and neither are the 'civil servant lawyers'. They cannot have it both ways. They are neutral or active. The lawyers consciously chose to not act, in other words they were active, they made decisions to not do anything to confront or defend the Absolute of involvement in Scope change, little lone the Timeline change. They have benefited by choosing to not do anything. This is an active response to the benefit they receive from the bias of the third party, the HRT.
They chose to be active and accept these changes, break with Absolutes, so the argument that they are neutral and cannot be active and confront illegal behaviour is not true. The 'civil servant lawyers' would certainly complaint about me if the HRT made changes that showed benefit to me or even suggested benefits especially if an established Absolute process was not worked through. This turning a blind eye to the windfall of change of Scope and Timeline is not acceptable conduct by lawyers no matter what hat they wear, the 'civil servant lawyers' or the 'private lawyer' hat. Why not? Because they had just worked the process of changing the scope using an Absolute. It is not good enough for lawyers to say, they, the HRT, did this change on their own, so we do not need to contest it, or inquire as to why neither parties were involved in these changes.
My point is, the 'civil servant lawyers' benefited by an illegal gain, they condoned an illegal activity for their gain. Their Oath of Office does not allow for them to support or condone an illegal activity, little lone accept gain. But, then it must be remembered their policy is illegal in the first instance and their deviant behaviour escalates again.
My point is, the disregard of Absolutes is part of the strategy of defending a “reckless and depraved disregard for life”, as it stymies a bona fide investigation into behaviour, the illegal policy, that has 'known' horrific consequences that are not defendable.
My point is, how do we know the HRT made this change on their own? The HRT is not ignorant of the former positions of the 'civil servant lawyers'.
Not ignorant of the illegality of the policy, something that should have been legally justified at least since Canada's Human Rights Act of 1978, or the demands of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982, or the amended Motor Vehicle Act of 1996, or the promise of the OSMV to have a Draft of the policy in 2006 and a New Policy soon after that, or the promise of a New Policy to be presented in 2008.
Not ignorant of its horrific consequences, which are brought to light and understood through my letter, the “updated consequences” of the policy, all based upon the numbers given by the OSMV.
Not ignorant of the joint letter of the OSMV and Ministry of Health stating they know of the harm the policy does, that the policy is only based upon some civil servants “view” of the world, and that there is no science to justify the policy.
Not ignorant of the consequences of the policy as I had listed the consequences and the Five Points of Engagement.
Not ignorant of the horrific consequences resulting from the shuffling of tax dollars to pay for the illegal DME and Form, a non-bona fide demand upon the health care system, a non-medical necessity, a phoney medical exam that does no Good but Harms as it sets the diabetic up as a liability, and done to marry the Policy and DME for fraudulent legitimacy.
Not ignorant of the newly discovered tax dollars used for a phoney medical exam instead of using the taxes for bona fide and medical necessary demands upon the health care system. Demands such as those surgeries people are waiting for, surgeries such as my spinal surgery, where I was told I would be waiting for two years for surgery; this shuffling of taxes for an illegal policy and its demands endangered my life. Add to list of people that have had their lives endangered; Danny Williams, Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, Jack Layton, leader of the National NDP party, and the unknown woman NDP MLA Dix interviewed and those that cannot pay for private surgery and die, or are maimed, and may become addicted to pain medicine they need for their bona fide medical demands.
Not ignorant of the breached settlement agreement, the charades, the stolen research, or the lie about the OSMV and its counsel not knowing the scope, the withdrawal of the remaining research, the broken promise of the New Policy to be presented years ago, etc, etc.
The HRT is not ignorant of the impact of giving the gov't more Time to try and justify the policy. What the HRT has deliberately done is bury the policy, bury the availability of society to challenge gov't discriminatory policy due to the open-ended Timeline.
Bury my complaint as it is now dependent upon All other medical conditions the OSMV supposedly manages for the betterment of society to be legally justified with bona fide research, which has Permission of Use from the owners. (Do you think the owners of the research will give Permission of Use to justify a social policy that is illegal and has been running for years? Do you think the owners of the research will give permission after the OSMV has stolen their research once? After they discover the Homicide, the maiming, the endangerment of life, the corruption concerning the policy, the Democide?)
My point is, no Permission for Use means no research, which means no legal policy, which means more Homicide, maiming, and endangerment of life, and I am still labeled a killer, as these monsters will not cancel the policy, as it is beyond their minds to be able to do so.
My point is, this begs the question, “Are we to pretend the HRT does not understand that the owners of the research will not give Permission of Use of their research to justify a social policy that kills people?” especially after they are informed the previous stolen research was presented behind everyone's back? (The Early Dismiss Application is only seen by one HRT member, no Witnesses are called, no Press attending, and no Public attending, supposedly no witnesses to the theft and presentation. Except me. And now you.)
Superintendent, how stupid are we supposed to be? How afraid of the monsters doing this to me, society, and the RCMP are we supposed to be? How afraid of these monsters is the HRT staff? How afraid are Parliamentarians and the Press that they do not confront the civil servants running this illegal policy?
Fear and intimidation is accepted behaviour; done through their Oath of Office? Fear and intimidation is used by Nazis and corruption to defend behaviour that is “reckless and depraved disregard for life”.
*
Why would I have signed an open-ended Timeline for the OSMV to legally justify the horror they are blaming me for?
Are you out of your minds?
Again, the 'civil servant lawyers' are not in the position of third party, as they are the gov't and working for themselves, where they are not covered by the third party protection, as they have broken their Oath of Office. So, the HRT gives them protection by this unsolicited intrusion into my Human Rights Complaint.
The gov't is not allowed to turn a blind eye to this favouritism by the HRT to themselves, the Respondent. They demand the Absolute and must demand of the HRT why they were not involved in these changes that were done without their consent and mine, or without mine.
These additions to the settlement agreement, as that is what they are, the Scope to include not only All types of diabetes but All medical conditions the OSMV supposedly manages and All Classes of license from the Class 4, changes the settlement agreement in its entirety. The HRT staff has no Right to change the settlement agreement as the OSMV and I had withdrawn the complaint. They wrote they could not help with the broken settlement agreement so why the unsolicited intrusion now?
Secondly, it must be remembered that the OSMV and its counsel just changed the open-ended wording of the HRT acceptance letter of my complaint, where the HRT used the word 'diabetes,' not 'type 2 diabetes'. This is the lie that was presented; that the OSMV did not understand that diabetes meant type 2, where counsels letter informs us otherwise. So, the HRT not only changes the complaint back to diabetes but escalated it to include All medical conditions and All licenses. This action is not corruption?
Third, I would not have agreed to an open-ended Timeline for the OSMV in order to present the Draft and Policy. As stated above they have had thirty or almost forty years to do so. They have had enough time to do so. They should have at least put the policy on hold knowing it was illegal and knowing the harm. They didn't and this exemplifies the mindset of these people, they care nothing for those that are being killed and maimed due to their policy. It is their policy, and they are not canceling it. They have personalized this for some reason. How about explaining the killing and maiming to a judge and jury and the public. That thought is good enough to have the complaint buried isn't it?
Fourth, I am challenging the policy as it discriminates against me, has gov't employees calling me a killer, which is a lie as he never offered any documents to support the lie, he is a monster for writing that horrible lie. I am challenging these people as they force me to undergo a meaningless medical examination, done to denigrate me in the eyes of society, that cannot do what it is alleged to be able to do, offers no Good, and I already visit the doctor 20 times to their once.
All this turns me into a liability, something society should fear, the monster. The Pariah. The Other with no Human Rights.
And the HRT believes I want the OSMV to have an open-ended Timeline for them to justify the policy that does all the above and more. The HRT should be investigated for condoning the gov't sponsored discrimination and atrocity against humanity.
The HRT has protected the OSMV and its supporters from any responsibility or accountability for their illegal policy and the crime against humanity. Human Rights staff, critical thinkers, and lawyers know what Genocide, Mass Murder, Atrocities, and Crimes Against Humanity are. They are not naïve bystanders in this and have chosen to protect the gov't and all those involved. They seem to be in denial of their obligations to Humanity, Human Rights, and Human Life, which all come before corrupt civil servants, former employees, the government's Oath of Office, or some Law Society's rules.
Superintendent, I would not have consented to the OSMV demand for a second change in Scope the HRT has given them as now my complaint is dependent upon a hundred or so medical conditions that are monitored that have nothing to do with diabetes and I and most people know nothing about. The OSMV has had ample time to legalize the policy or cancel it and have done neither, which means they are completely incompetent and corrupt with diabetes, which means what about All the other medical conditions they supposedly manage for the good of society?
Why should I give them more time to denigrate my character, my life?
Why should I give them more time to kill people with the policy?
Why should I give them more time to kill people with this policy and use the false label of me being the killer, as the excuse to not fulfilling the Charter, the HR Code, and the MVA, as the killer needs to be managed at any cost?
Why should I give them more time to endanger peoples lives as they did with mine, with the shuffling of taxes to pay for the illegal policy and phoney medical examination?
No, the OSMV and the HRT knew/know I would not give them a change in Scope nor the change in Timeline.
*
Superintendent, how did you or do you understand the diabetic? Do you see me as the killer? As that idiot senior civil servant wrote? How do you really see the type 2 diabetic driver? Have you been manipulated by these monsters and their policy to realize me as such a liability that the demands of the Charter, the Human Rights Code, and the Motor Vehicle Act are all forfeited by these monsters and that is ok to do? That I am such a liability that their Oath of Office means nothing? Where the past three Solicitor General's resigned or were forced to resign due to only that there may be a Risk of a conflict with their Oath of Office concerning money. Not illegal policy. Not death. Not maiming. Not endangering life.
What happens when your organization breaches Law? The shit really hits the fan doesn't it. So, why isn't anyone stepping up to these monsters, the killing, and maiming? It is too great for their understanding of what 'being a good Canadian is', isn't it. This is over the edge, people are in denial, and it is only going to worsen.
This is similar to the denial of who didn't inform me that the OSMV had hired counsel. They imply it was the other guys job, that the other guy is to resolve this. This is not for the other guy to resolve. This is for you, the RCMP, to stand up to, make public, and resolve this. Dig this up from the burial the HRT gave it and the OSMV and its counsel have not challenged.
The RCMP deals with monsters, that is part of your job, part of your profession, you travel around the world helping others to deal with the monsters. There are real monsters here that need to be confronted.
My point is, isn't that why the HRT gave it to them in an Early Dismiss Application Decision, where if one wants to contest the Decision one would need to go to criminal or civil court. Go to the courts which are managed by the Attorney General's office, where the supervising 'civil service lawyer' concerning my complaint comes from, where she is the Supervising lawyer where she is supposed to defend the public and gov't from corruption and crime. At a cost of how many hundreds of thousands of dollars and how many years? They know this and they use our taxes dollars to defend their illegal policy and their Genocide. Interesting stuff, eh.
So, now the policy is open-ended and includes All medical conditions and Classes of license that the OSMV supposedly manages, not something I would have agreed to and the 'civil servant lawyers' turned their backs while this was being done to me, to society.
This is not acceptable conduct of 'civil servant lawyers' that have sworn a Oath of Office to do no Harm, obey the Law, do not Lie, etc, etc? This is not acceptable conduct for 'private lawyers' to condone an illegal policy and Genocide.
This is ok to cover up, to bury an inquiry into discrimination and the reckless endangerment of Human Lives? To bury the gov't action that could have stopped the killing but didn't, to stop the discrimination charge with presenting the remaining stolen scientific document, which they didn't do for some reason. All of which is the underpinning for a charge of Genocide; Democide. And the BCHRT has buried it. These people are sleeping with the enemy.
*
Who wouldn't sign a Settlement Agreement that offered change
On the other hand, who wouldn't sign a Settlement Agreement that has offered change, as that is what I am endeavouring to do. Change a social policy that is based upon old ideas or views of the world that are not acceptable. Make corrupt senior civil servants abide by their Oath of Office to obey the law, do not lie, do not deceiver, and do not run a policy that kills. Make them take responsibility for their actions as they demand the diabetic take responsibility for their actions, and yet we know, through bona fide science, that type 2s and possible type 1s are not doing anything to be afraid of or anything to be labeled a killer. Make them stop the harm they do, as it is a constructed harm compared to an accidental harm coming from a diabetic having a driver mishap.
Secondly, I was not asking for reimbursement of the DME fee, only stating that the policy is illegal and I still had to pay the fee myself. Being a illegal policy why should anyone need to pay. This acknowledgment of the policy and fee was just letting everyone know how corrupt the OSMV and its supporters really are. The reimbursement of DME fee payments was freely offered by the OSMV, as the policy is illegal and why should anyone pay for an illegal policy fee.
In the real world the OSMV was only giving me my money back, making it look as if the gov't idiots are benevolent, trustworthy, and the policy is legal Oozing that patronizing stench that I and the disabled should be beholden to them, as we do not need to pay for the examination again. That is why I was reimbursed the fees, it is a false demand by gov't.
Again, it must be remembered that the OSMV escalated my complaint to include All Diabetics and All disabled, and All Classes of license in this move, and yet they did not reimburse All drivers their fees. Common sense tells us the OSMV should have done so as they escalated my complaint from type 2 Class 4 to the above, why wouldn't one believe All other disabled were reimbursed their fees? Those other disabled drivers were not conscious of or informed of my complaint, the thing that brought change to the fee payment scheme, so why were they not just reimbursed their fees without knowing why. By the time I understood this different treatment, understood what had been done, and that I could lodge a Representative complaint concerning this discrimination it seems the Timeline in which the HRT would allow a complaint lodged had gone by. Although the HRT did not adjust the starting date of the six month Timeline due to the breached settlement agreement. I accepted this change, a Good, as it really impacts three, or four, or five hundred thousand disabled people and all tax payers yet the HRT did not acknowledge this as change.
Policy change does just not mean reimbursing my money for the demands of an illegal policy. All disabled should have been reimbursed their fees and they were included in the unsolicited DME fee change. Change also means changing the policy as it is illegal and does nothing. I gave ample time for the OSMV to offer a Policy Paper, with justification for the policy and its consequences, which they never did, therefore the new complaint. Don't forget, the OSMV should really have been 'just tweaking an existing policy' and offering the proof of need, good, etc, that should have been there in the first instance. It should have been done in a month. They have done nothing. As the Law Society has Timelines, the HRT has Timelines, and I gave the appropriate Time for the policy to be tweaked for todays life. And this manipulation of the disabled is ok for the civil servant to do? Doesn't the Oath of Office demand that civil servants do not lie, do not manipulate, do not deceive, do not steal, etc, etc. Screwing the disabled like they did is not acceptable. This exemplifies how little worth and value the disabled have for these civil servants. The Other has no value or worth. This is just another charade played out and not acknowledged by the corrupt civil servants that adds to the underpinning of Democide.
My point is, and I was lead to believe the Out of Hearing Settlement Agreement would be worthwhile and resolve the illegal policy and its demands. Upon reflection it was just contrived to bury the complaint as the OSME and its counsel cannot justify the illegal policy and the Genocide.
Again, don't see this as sour grapes or some other negative. Rather, see it as a positive, a positive as it is another example of how deep the corruption runs. As with Nazi behaviour, the longer the corruption, the greater the paper work and those involved, which leads to a better understanding of the charades, leading to the complete understanding of the show.
Just another silly Charade within the Settlement Agreement
My point is, I would not have signed the offered settlement agreement if I had known about the 'legal case' Iyer quoted, which would not allow me to return to the complaint if the respondent did not prove or change their behaviour within a reasonable time. No one would have. As I demonstrate good faith, am approachable, accommodating, and compromising, aware that the HRT acknowledges 'common sense' and 'good will', one signs documents that offer a return to the complaint if the other side in the argument does not fulfill their propositions. One only goes by the established Absolutes the HRT has established, 'common sense' and 'good will' to move on from the HRT complaint to the public space where one party has agreed to make changes rather than have a Hearing. Without this Trust there would be no signing of agreements to resolve problems outside the HRT other than go to court and who had a hundred thousand dollars or more to go to criminal court, where the gov't has inexhaustible monetary resources.
So, the charade of having a 'legal case', in the ready to nullify their settlement agreement if I complained before a 'Policy' was given, after a two year wait, was played out and the HRT conveniently did not address their own use of 'common sense' and 'good will' concerning this miraculous happening of a 'legal case' that would nullify the settlement and protect the OSMV from another HR discrimination complaint concerning type 2 diabetes.
That the HRT conveniently did not address their own use of 'common sense' and 'good will' concerning this miraculous happening of a 'legal case' that would nullify the settlement and protect the OSMV from another HR discrimination complaint concerning type 2 diabetes is not acceptable. For the HRT to ask questions about this would have legitimized my expectations that I should have been able to sign the settlement agreement without worrying about a 'case' in the background, ready to be played out to disqualify my return to my complaint if the OSMV did not present a Policy within a reasonable Time. The HRT set the Absolute of these two tools by their acknowledgment of 'common sense' and 'good will' and their use within HRT complaints and Decisions. They chose to not follow their own Absolutes.
The consequence of this bias toward the OSMV has taken the discrimination complaint out of the HRT format and into the court system, a place where I cannot afford to go, where most people cannot go. This charade concerning the presentation of the 'case' to nullify my complaint must be acknowledged as a strategy of the 'civil servant lawyers' that really is not acceptable for a number of reasons. Firstly, it breaks the Trust the HRT establishes that things like this do not happen. The consequence is that I would never sign a settlement agreement again. No one should. No one should as the HRT does not have the courage to stand up and defend their use of 'common sense' and 'good will'. Where these two instruments of Trust were used to Trust the OSMV would fulfill their propositions and not play a charade with the 'legal case' in the background to cancel their agreement if they do not fulfill their promises. Something that was not what it seemed but presented as; you can Trust me, where you really cannot.
Secondly, this breach of Trust buries the discrimination complaint which means the public's wait-time to see a GP continues and lengthens. With that Consequence creating the Overcrowding in Emerge which not only continues but increases. And all the while the policy continues to kill and maim at a greater rate than in 2002, when I began my inquiry, as the diabetic rate is now 9%, increased from 5%.
Third, this is like the first charade concerning the broken settlement agreement, something that was not what it seemed but presented as.
Like the presentation that I had been informed counsel had been hired to renew the broken settlement agreement, something that was not what it seemed but presented as.
Like the reimbursement of the DME fees, something that was not what it seemed but presented as.
Like the theft of research and its presentation, something that was not what it seemed but presented as.
Like the lie about not knowing the scope, something that was not what it seemed but presented as.
Fourth, by using the newly found taxes to pay for the illegal policy and its demands, which seems good, but in reality endangers peoples lives on surgery wait-lists, as the newly found taxes should have been used for bona fide, medically necessary surgeries not the illegal policy and its phoney medical examination. Something that is not want is seems but presented as.
My point is, this charade of false 'good will', to encourage me to accept an out of Hearing Settlement Agreement could not have been done if they did not have prior knowledge of the complaint Iyer mentions and the HRT accepted. So, where is their Oath of Office of 'good will', the Oath of not to lie; this is lying about the settlement offer. Oath of Office to do no harm; this lie has the illegal policy continuing on, with the Homicide continuing.
There is also the Human Rights aspect of this situation having the expectations of reasonable behaviour and fulfillment of promises, even when the HRT is not looking; this did not happen.
I know, I know, I had counsel through CLAS, but maybe even he expects good will between colleagues within the “quasi-judicial body” format of the HRT. (HRT homepage) This should not be where people are saying 'ha, ha you were suckered in, ha ha'. 'You should have known better, ha, ha.' The HRT is not that kind of format, it really uses 'common sense' and 'good will'. You know this or you are hiding from that reality. Having the 'legal case' in the background while they approached the HRT and myself to cancel the discrimination complaint is falsifying legal documents, as the protective device should have been declared as a bona fide protective device just in case something really did happen. Doing it this way is deception, knowingly engaging in behaviour which is misleading. No different than the charade with the Affidavit, a breach of Trust, and presenting something that was not what it seemed but presented as; this is another example of falsifying legal documents.
Secondly, if the date of the 'case' Iyer presented is after the settlement agreement it cannot be used as a legitimate case. This is like the Nazis that wrote the Draft, using medical conditions that may express in the future to justify the policy and its consequences today. Like the stolen research; using science today, used out of context, science not researched to be used for social policy, used to justify past policy, todays policy, and the future consequences. How insane are these people?
So, in other words the 'civil servant lawyers' contrived, wrote and presented a settlement agreement that they already knew could be defended even if they broke the premises or promises of it; which they did and did protect themselves.
My point is, this was just another charade played out by the OSMV and its 'civil servant lawyers'. Once again, one cannot fall into the trap of only saying,
“Jenkins, you had counsel and you should have known.” “The responsibility and accountability is on your head, no one else.”
You are wrong, as that is what the gov't wants you to believe and stay focused upon. Where is the HRT and its Absolutes of 'Common Sense' and “Good Will'? Why didn't the HRT work through the above? Where are the laws of contracts that are similar to the Affidavit, based upon Trust and disclosure. These were corrupted and the HRT did not have the courage to question? Why?
Superintendent, what is not being said here, while the focus is upon the miraculous 'case' that came from nowhere to defend the broken settlement agreement and its promises? Dobbs Affidavit is misleading, not honest, and a lie.
Out of Hearing settlement agreements depend upon Trust. I have been approachable, accommodating, and compromising, depending on the 'common sense' and 'good will' acknowledged by the HRT, and the Social Contract Trust, which cannot be said of the gov't and its actions. Therefore, the 'civil servant lawyers' have broken their Oath of Office concerning this offer to settle out of Hearing; do not lie, do not mislead, do not Harm, do not condone illegal behaviour, etc.
The important thing to remember is the disposition of the OSMV and its 'civil servant lawyers'. They have falsified a legal document to protect themselves. This charade exemplifies the depravity of all those involved.
They have contrived a settlement agreement protective device that would allow an illegal policy to continue on, knowing it is illegal with Homicide being a consequence of the policy.
They have contrived a settlement agreement protective device that has allowed an illegal policy's consequences to continue. They absolutely know of the consequences and yet have decided to continue on with the illegal policy for who knows how many years. This is the Genocide Rummel refers to, Democide;
““The murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide, and mass murder”.” “Democide can also include deaths arising from “intentionally or knowingly reckless and depraved disregard for life””.
“Some examples of democide cited by Rummel include the Great Purges carried out by Joseph Stalin in the Society Union (despite those people were executed), the deaths from the colonial policy of the Congo Free State, Mao Zedong's Great Leap Forward resulting in a famine which killed millions of people. According to Rummel, these were not cases of genocide, because those who were killed were not selected on the basis of their race, but were killed in large numbers as a result of government policies.” (Wikipedia, Democide, p 2)
The Overcrowding in Emerge kills and maims people as the Press informs us. As Emerge doctors inform the world. As the Ministry of Health and the OSMV has informed us. As my Updated Consequences exemplifies.
The surgery wait-lists kill people, endanger people's lives as it did mine, and endanger or kill people that become addicted to legal medications used to manage their pain and suffering from their bona fide medical needs. And the wait-list is there because the gov't shuffles taxes around to pay for the illegal DME and Form, which offers No Good, and yet could pay for all the surgeries on the wait-list
All this based upon an illegal social government policy of the OSMV, its government supporters, and its unknown non-government supporters. All done without the acknowledgment of their Oath of Office and its demands.
The OSME and its 'civil servant lawyers' absolutely know of the consequences of the policy and have done nothing to remedy the problem, not even putting the policy on hold, and this is not “intentionally or knowingly reckless and depraved disregard for life””? Democide to say the least.
*
Breach of the Affidavit, Trust, and now Change
Again, the HRT did not accept the change to the DME fee as bona fide change. It does not defend the legal document the 'Affidavit', it does not defend the breach of 'Trust' concerning the 'legal case' charade, and the refusal to acknowledge the DME fee change is a 'bona fide change' exemplifies the HRT bias to the gov't and its employees. Once again, if they are allowed to play long enough patterns can be realized due to the paper work and players.
75% of BC people drive. 9% of society is diabetic, or approximately 400 000 diabetics. They do not need to pay for the fee anymore. At $75 an examination that is approximately $30 000 000, over a five year cycle of examinations. $6 000 000 a year payed by our taxes. (One exam on diagnosis, then at years end, then in two years for a Class 4 (a commercial license) or in five years for a Class 6 (the private license). So, in the first six years of diabetes a diabetic is forced to undergo the examination three times. So, as type 2s Class 6 are the majority of those taking the test I have averaged the test to be every five years.)
I paid approximately $10 000 for my spinal surgery by a neurosurgeon. There are approximately 160 people waiting for spinal surgery. That only amounts to $10 000 x 160 people = $1 670 000 tax dollars needed to fund all the medical necessary spinal surgeries. While approximately $6 000 000 is used to pay for the illegal policy's DME that cannot do what it is alleged to be able to do and offers no Good. This is not being done because of the bias, prejudice, hate, ignorance, fear and loathing, disgust, and contempt for the diabetic. The lust for power over the disabled. The power of abuse of the Oath of Office.
And this is for diabetes only.
Then add the number of people from the other 100 medical conditions the OSMV supposedly manages to this yearly cost of $6 000 000. And the HRT says there is no change from the original policy? Tax dollars needed to be found to pay for this as the disabled were not paying anymore.
This influences approximately 300 000 diabetics and maybe as many more disabled. If diabetics are 9% of society what is the percent of the other 100 medical conditions? Another 9% would realize another $30 000 000.
My point is, and the HRT would not accept this as change? Why? Their bias is unacceptable and the person evaluating the Early Dismiss is mentally retarded, drugged, or has been bought off some how. Pretending that a change that financially impacts 600 000 people of 4 300 000 people in B C is not change is insane and no one needs to buy into the HRT corruption concerning this.
The above is Real Change and the HRT had no right to not accept this. It is the only clearly visible change to happen since the settlement agreement of 2006. Which means they should have accepted my case as something different than the first complaint. Their bias toward the OSMV is not acceptable. Not mentioning the above is lying to the readers of the Decision of the complaint. The Decision should have had the Fee change and payment explained to the public.
My point is, Superintendent, if the HRT is defining Change, that their definition is only known to the HRT, then we really are in trouble, as Absolutes have been broken. They are trying to change reality to protect the gov't. This is like the “view” of the civil servants, only their “view” of things to justify the policy. This is like the 'civil servant lawyer' that paraphrased the MVA to manipulate the reader about what the MVA statutes mean, and the HRT said nothing. The HRT is making things up by not following the Absolutes of Law, (the Affidavit breach) the Charter, the HR Code, the MVA, and now we have the HRT changing the meaning of the English language to justify their support of the gov't and their former employee. The HRT is following the OSMV illegal behaviour by saying Change is only defined by them. It is not. The changes done in order to change the DME fee are enormous.
Don't forget, the medical term of the policy being a non-necessary medical demand to be a medical necessity needed to be changed. People, doctors, unions, insurance, and public organizations spend years trying to make changes to this classification; the change is no small event.
*
My point is, the HRT has done what the OSMV has done, based their Decision on arbitrary views of the world. The HRT has broken away from established ideas of Time, introducing a Timeline based upon something no one else knows about. Something arbitrary. The HRT has Absolutes in Time in which someone my lodge a complaint, six months and only a month to respond to the Respondent's Response. The Law Society also only gives a month. To give the OSMV an undefined Timeline is bias to say the least.
So, why is it that the HRT decided that two years without a policy, only from the settlement agreement to the new complaint, was not sufficient enough Time for the OSMV to have a policy to make the policy legal? How is it that the HRT forgot the OSMV had had forty or so years to justify the policy and did not. How was it that the HRT decided that after a late Draft, a New Policy, and a then a Second Draft which canceled out the New Policy, and then commitment from the OSMV to deliver a policy, which it hasn't fulfilled, with the result that I had not given the OSMV sufficient Time to tweak an existing Policy, to justify the policy with bona fide documentation, and explain the Homicide or cancel the Policy?
So, how is it that the HRT did not acknowledge the OSMV never had a previous policy?
This action was deliberate. Facts like this cannot be forgotten. It is what my HRT discrimination complaint is based upon; no policy and lack of acknowledgment of the policy's consequences and yet the policy is based upon the unproven consequences of diabetes. Not mentioning this is lying to the readers of the Decision of complaint #5791.
The HRT showed bias toward the gov't and prejudice against me.
My point is, the 'civil servant lawyers' knew the above before they offered the settlement agreement, which means they did not come to the table with the conviction of their words of settlement and change under the umbrella of 'common sense' and 'good will'. They came with 'deception' and 'ill will', knowing the horrific consequences they were trying to hide.
As with the above examples of other charades, what was offered was not really what was offered. These examples are more than mischief making. There is more to this than me pointing out that the 'civil servant lawyers' had a previous case in hand before the presentation of the settlement agreement.
My point is, the important thing is to understand that it happened and what it means. What it means is that the OSMV and the 'civil servant lawyers' or gov't cannot afford to have the complaint heard before a HRT as the horror of the policy really is worse than I have imagined or presented within the “Upgraded Consequences” letter.
This strategy and charade exemplifies how corrupt the Policy really is. How harmful the consequences of the policy really are for the civil servants and the 'civil servant lawyers' to do this. But then they are protecting themselves aren't they, as they are gov't themselves who is doing this. They are corrupt as the illegal policy exemplifies and to manipulate the settlement agreement is just part of the corruption they have decided to follow. To disregard their Oath of Office to protect and defend an illegal policy and its Homicide is not acceptable.
My point is, the above really has happened. It exemplifies the depravity of those involved. It exemplifies they have no Love of Life, as they carry on their petty charades while everyday another person is killed by their policy, and that is in only one overcrowded hospital and there are ten in BC, and people like Danny Williams, Jack Layton, the unknown woman, and me have their lives endangered by this policy and its consequences. All the while the shuffling of taxes to supposedly marry the Policy to the DME and Form in another charade, supposedly to give the marriage or union legitimacy.
These people care nothing for their Oath of Office, our democratic society, Law, or Life. That is why this policy really can be defined by what R. J. Rummel considers Democide, “intentionally or knowingly reckless and depraved disregard for life”.
*
Lies
So, what we really have here is the use of lawyers as the supposedly gov't scapegoat; presenting their lies, theft, and defense of an illegal policy through lawyers being protected from any wrong doing by being protected with the third party protection afforded some lawyers. Done to mislead the public as to the real position of these lawyers, who are not individual, independent, or private counsel but 'civil servant lawyers' bound to their Oath of Office to defend the gov't from corruption in the first instance. They are gov't itself, therefore liable for their actions. The gov't misleads as to what these lawyers can contrive and present, all supposedly covered under the misleading presentation of third party protection. These lawyers are gov't itself and the elected politicians have sanctioned them to represent them, all are bound by their Oath of Office and its demands first, then any protection a society like the Law Society can or will afford them.
Superintendent, we know they have been given carte blanche to do what they want as everyone believes the lie the 'civil servant lawyers' are protected as a 'private lawyer' is, the 'non-civil servant lawyer' is, but they aren't. The lie is needed to protect the 'civil servant lawyer', as they have broken their Oath of Office and really need protection.
So, Trust is given between the 'civil servant lawyers' and other gov't agencies, or gov't people, to act as one. This places these 'civil servant lawyers' beyond the protection of a 'private lawyer' representing someone, as they are gov't representing themselves and liable for all their deeds, just as a 'lawyer' representing himself or herself is.
So, Trust is given to each other, gov't or civil servants and 'civil servant lawyers', but that trust is not afforded to the opposition or public, (one cannot trust the presentations from the 'civil servant lawyers' which is not acceptable). The public are are manipulated into believing gov't lawyers are the same entity as non-gov't lawyer are. And you wonder why they deceive about their position when it comes to third party protection.
That is why the gov't is so brazen in its actions against me, the more bizarre the charade, the more people will believe the action is ok to do, as who would do such a thing if it wasn't true, and the lawyers are only presenting for the gov't and cannot be held responsible for their actions. This charade is just another charade to protect against the breach of Oath of Office.
This presentation is just like the lie about the policy saving lives; therefore the diabetic is a killer. With such a horrific statement being made about someone, a class of people, or a culture, the public believes, as who would write something so horrific if it wasn't true. It is not true. The gov't is a liar and they cannot be trusted with any presentation.
*
“Stages of genocide and efforts to prevent it”
My point is, being labeled as a killer by gov't is one of the eight “Stages of genocide and efforts to prevent it” from the 1996 Stanton paper, president of Genocide Watch. (Wikipedia, Genocide, pp 10 - 12, of 17. 02/03/2010
#3, Dehumanization. “One group denies the humanity of the other group.”
As stated above a senior civil servant labeled me a killer. His superior wrote that the pronouncement was appropriate. It is not. No documents were offered to justify the lie. The lie has not been withdrawn; this means this murderous language is gov't policy. The lie is just another example of how the gov't reverses reality in its presentations; it is the gov't that is doing the killing not the disabled or diabetic, so they have their colleagues lie to protect themselves.
The lie is a breach of their Oath of Office; do not lie, do not harm, do not deceive, etc. Why weren't they fired for the lie, their hate, prejudice, and contempt? For contempt of the Charter demands, of the Human Rights Code, the MVA rules or demands of the statutes and the demands of the Social Contract that keeps us from the slipper slope of corrupt gov't officials therefore corrupt democracy? Section 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, we are a “democratic society”.
A killer will take your Life away. They deny you your “Right to Life”. It doesn't matter where you live this lie is the worst thing that can be spoken of or written about a person, class of people, or culture. This public action sets the diabetic up as a liability, the grandest liability a society can have. It dehumanizes the diabetic, the disabled, by the gov't in order to control them even though the claim is not proved. Only based upon some civil servants point of “view” of the world. It is such a horrific declaration that the public believes as who would state such a thing unless it is true. It is only based upon corrupt civil servants that pretend they do not need to be or cannot be held accountable for their actions. They may be right. Laws of the country and the Social Contract are broken to justify the dehumanization of the group, diabetic, or disabled.
Fear of the unknown and unseen is established and the unseen disease is equated with those other unseen diseases of horror, the unknown killer; HIV/AIDS, or hepatitis or other diseases transferred by needle use.
All diabetics, or all should, use a 'lance' to express a drop of blood from a finger used to test their 'blood sugar'; the lancing device, a tool similar to a 'tack' is miraculously turned into a 'needle' and the word sugar disappears to have 'blood' confront the non-diabetic. So, reality is changed again, needles and blood are introduced in the negative, just another reversal of reality by the anti-diabetics.
This introduces the Fear/Risk Factor. The killer is High Risk, High Fear, and the above contrived Fear increases the Fear therefore Risk, and unknown High Risk must be diminished at any cost, according to the monsters doing this to me. Dehumanization supposedly allows those in power to disregard the demands of the democratic society, those of the Charter,
the HR Code, the MVA, the Oath of Office, and the Social Contract. They are wrong.
“Members of it are equated with animals, vermin, insects, or diseases.”
Diabetes is the unseen disease, unseen and unknown by the public therefore can be hidden, which means the diabetic is sneaky and deceiving, as the non-diabetic could be right beside them and the non-diabetic not know this. (But who is sneaky and deceiving?) (This is another reversal of the Truth. The civil servants are sneaky and deceiving, not the diabetic.)
Diabetes is a chronic disease, it gets worse and will never go away. This can lead to other nasty diseases expressing themselves. (Disease is used not medical condition.) Diseases that may make the non-diabetic sick also, but that is not the point as the Fear/Risk Factor is increased again. (This is exemplified in the first Draft where the Nazis that wrote the Draft finish the Draft of with two or three pages of medical conditions that may only express after a diabetic has had diabetes for 10, 15, or 20 years.) (Type 2 expresses late in life so add these years onto that age and don't these conditions express anyway if they are going to?) (These medical conditions are not dependent on diabetes to express. How convenient the Nazis do not mention this.) (They may only express after a Commercial driver has retired, this is not acknowledged.)
Diabetes is associated with needle use. All the negatives, all the inhuman consequences of drug use, the junkies, bums, street trash, welfare bums, meth heads, morally corrupt people involved in needle exchanges, all other illegal drug use through the needle, and all the scum that import and distribute drugs are transferred to the diabetic whether the diabetic uses insulin or not, which most do not. It doesn't matter that most diabetics do not even use medication to help manage their situation with diabetes, the 'needle' is pronounced and the 'medication' is turned into the 'drug'.
Labeling me a killer takes my Humanity away and once that is done all the above come into play and it seems I am the only one that has the courage to stand up to Nazis.
#1, Classification. “People are divided into us and them”.
I am Labeled, Classified, and Forced to take a Medical Examination that cannot do what it is alleged to be able to do, that is predict, prevent, and manage hypoglycemia. They present hypoglycemia as dangerous, therefore Classification is needed to establish us and them, (them being diabetic, the Pariah, the Other). Don't forget, the “us” just stole 174 scientific articles on diabetes and 15 on Thyroid to legally justify the policy; to legalize a gov't social policy based upon stolen scientific research really is corrupt and slimy isn't it. And the policy is still not legal but the Classification continues, the killer, the liability, the needle users, etc.
However, this is again the reversal of reality, the 'us' and 'them' is reversed, the corrupt civil servants and their policy really is the 'them', the monster that really needs control, that should be Classified as the liability as their deviancy is real. The diabetic is playing by the rules not the civil servants. Society wants to support those that support society not those that break the rules.
The Consequences of the policy are not acknowledged as the civil servants or gov't believe they are above reviewing their actions. There is no Good coming from the policy, which means they cannot admit to this, as this means there would be no reason for the Classification of killer and liability and phoney medical examination. Good, in the minds of the civil servants does not need to happen, as long as the killer is controlled and labeled.
What the diabetic killer does to manage hypoglycemia, their health, which manages their impact, or footprint, upon themselves and society is not acknowledged, as this would diminish the want of gov't for Classification and unchallenged management into the us and them. Again, I voluntarily visit the doctor 20 times to the 1 forced visit. If a diabetic uses medications they are forced to visit the doctor as these medications are not over the counter medication, prescriptions are needed. Why is this not mentioned by the Nazis and other anti-diabetics? It would break the lie the diabetic needs gov't management.
In the real world there is the diabetic hypoglycemic and the non-diabetic hypoglycemic, who is not acknowledged. Hypoglycemia is not dependent upon diabetes. The civil servant never mentions this as they pretend they do not experience or are above hypoglycemia, therefore Classification seems justified in their minds. With non-diabetics being 91% of society and not knowing what hypoglycemia is there is more Risk the non-diabetic is more at Risk of hypoglycemia than the informed diabetic; especially when considering non-diabetic participation in fad diets, alcohol, illegal drugs, over use of medical drugs, fad exercise programs, and long work hours which does not include those long commute hours. Just the difference between 9% and 91% of society makes one question who really is at risk of a driver mishap due to hypoglycemia. Especially when the non-diabetics are in denial that hypoglycemia does not occur to 'them', which means driver mishaps are not acknowledged and investigated for non-diabetic hypoglycemia. Don't forget, most diabetics are type 2 and most of those do not use medication, and most of those that do, do not use medications that may cause hypoglycemia. But of course all of this cannot be acknowledged as then the phoney demand for Classification of 'us' and 'them' would be exposed for what it is; discrimination, bias, prejudice, hate, ignorance, fear and loathing, disgust, and contempt of the diabetic and Law.
#2 Symbolization. “When combined with hatred, symbols may be forced upon unwilling members of pariah groups . . .”. Killer. Mentioned above. (Motor vehicle Killer constructs what images in your mind? Your mind runs wild with blood and guts and carnage, broken glass and bend steel and plastic, doesn't it? Your family, friends or lover?) How else can the Homicide, the Genocide be hidden, reverse who is doing the killing.
Unseen disease, mentioned above. The image from 'chronic disease' is nasty isn't it.
Diabetes can cause Overweight or Obesity and we know society and the Press hates fat and obesity. A fact not mentioned by the anti-diabetic lobby. (Associated with greed, sloth, and gluttony; three of the seven deadly sins.)
Diabetes can express due to Overweight or Obesity, which has the diabetic labeled as a person of poor health, that which does not take care of their personal health, therefore deserving of the disease. The symbol of the unclean. (Associated with greed, sloth, and gluttony; three of the seven deadly sins.)
The Needle Affect. We know how gov't fights Needle Exchanges. We know what society presents 'needle use' as. We know how society experiences needle use for medicine and the dentist. The diabetic uses needles. Very few do but that is not how diabetes is presented. Needle tips screwed onto a plunger are used by the diabetic but are presented as 'the needles', and we all know the fear gov't constructs surrounding Needle Exchanges and use for illegal needle drugs. The 'diabetic needle'; the use is equated with the illegal use of needles and their illegal drugs and those that use them, the pariahs, the monsters, the Other, those that have lost their humanity; to certain people.
The lances used to prick ones finger to test blood sugar are registered as Needles or Needle tips; not something freely given over the counter, which means if you want to test your blood sugar to help manage your health you may need a doctors prescription, which means you will be Classified and monitored as a needle user. There is no reason for this other than control and abuse against the diabetic as Needle Users. This establishes and increases the symbol of Fear/Risk Factor.
Knowing the policy is illegal and knowing the horrific consequences how is the policy justified other than hate? What is the symbol of Hate? Hate is hidden as it is so repulsive and controversial. Hate is expressed through the contrivance of things not true; that the policy is legal, that the settlement agreement was renewed, the consequences are acceptable, the DME can do what it is alleged to be able to do, there is Good, the diabetic does not see the doctor for care other than the forced examination of the OSMV, the research has legal use, the misunderstanding of the scope of complaint is valid, etc, etc. All the above are twisted as to what is really happening allowing the reader or listener to fill in the space between, which in their minds logically constructs prejudice, fear and loathing, disgust, and contempt, all leading to hate which is never written or spoken, allowing the reader or listener to come to their own conclusion, something they have thought through themselves, therefore something sound, not knowing the premises are all lies. Hate buries the contrivances as they are not allowed to be acknowledged because they are not defendable.
Needles are a symbol of hate for some. Needles represent illegal drug use, which brings hate to the surface in some.
Additionally, there are the negative symbolizations of symbols, symbols twisted and corrupted to reverse the power of those symbols. A symbol like science.
If science does not justify the policy then the policy and all the things associated with it must be based upon bias, prejudice, hate, ignorance, fear and loathing, disgust, and contempt. This needs to be reversed. How is science symbolized? Through better understanding of life, through rigorous standards, worldwide. Through research that can be duplicated again, again, coming to the same conclusion, peer reviewed, and published in peer reviewed Journals. The symbol 'Credibility of Science' or the 'power of science' or 'symbol of science' is established through these standards, it is then protected by instruments such as Copyright, Intellectual Property Rights, and Intent of Use. If and only if the demands of these protection instruments are fulfilled may someone or gov't use the research for the declared use, which includes declaring the consequences of what wants to be done or is already being played out.
However, in this case, permission to use was not attained and 'false powers' were used to present the science as if the bona fide legal protection instruments had been fulfilled to use the 'power of science'. However, the 'false powers' do have very real 'powers' in society, which have been used to manipulate all concerned. 'Lawyers' as well as 'academic researchers' have a position in society, that position of status, trust, power, and prestige; very real power that is afforded to these people, as is the 'third party protection' afforded to lawyers by the democratic society. However, 'lawyers' usually only write the protective instruments in the first instance, they have nothing to do with the research. And the 'academic researcher' with the 'power' of that designation has never been involved in the matter at hand either. She has proven she does not really care for the rigors of science, the very thing that constructed her designation, unless science can be used to benefit herself.
So, 'false powers' have corrupted the 'positive' symbol of science' to be turned into a 'negative' instrument.
Secondly, the science is presented as if the science standards have been fulfilled for All the research used.
Third, that All the research was on topic. Not so, most is padding.
Fourth, that All the research is relevant. Research from 1950, 1960, 1970, 1980, and possible 1990s are not relevant.
So, the symbol of science is bastardized, corrupted, twisted and used out of context against the pariah, and everyone believes it is bona fide, as those presenting are supposed to be beyond question as they have the symbol of power themselves.
“When combined with hatred, symbols may be forced upon unwilling members of pariah groups . . .”.
The symbol of Science is forced upon the diabetic, the pariah, the Other, but in a negative way. The science is not worthwhile, no permission to use, not current, not on topic, not relevant but coming from 'false powers' it seems as if it is. Negative Science.
Current or modern science disproves the need for the type 2 policy, but with the false 'powers' presenting the science their powerful position in society, that of status, trust, power, and prestige carried their presentation to the HRT, where I confronted the negative presentation and then they lied about it.
However, their position within society saw the HRT bow to them and pretend the abuse did not happen. Therefore, the Negative Science used to heighten the Fear/Risk Factor has not been challenged in public, other than my writings.
The symbol of Science has been bastardized, corrupted, twisted, and abused by the theft and its use to justify an illegal social policy that kills, maims, and endangers lives. Nazis do this. Nazis use Negative Science to justify their perverted “view” of life. A twisted or the opposite of the 'symbol of science' was covertly presented to society and “. . . forced upon unwilling members of pariah groups . . .” in an effort to scientifically justify and legally justify an illegal social policy concerning the diabetic, the disabled.
#4 Organization. “Genocide is always organized . . . Special army units or militias are often trained and armed . . .”
The army or militia here are the civil servants that spread the word that the diabetic is the killer, such as the civil servant that wrote the policy saves lives, and his senior that wrote that the letter containing the lie was appropriate. This lie travels through the gov't bureaucracy that runs from top-down. The lie comes out in the offices that test for licenses and renewal of licenses, as happened with me in Victoria when I renewed my license. The public statement was that diabetic drivers are a liability and need medical monitoring. Some times in your life you just keep your mouth shut. I did and I should not have. We need to ask what the gov't union members are told to say about the diabetic, what they were told. What the managers of those licensing offices are told by senior civil servants to tell the union members? Yes, the defamation of character is organized by those in the top. This allows society to follow the lead of gov't. This allows the policy to go uncontested. This allows the troops to do what they are told and pass any responsibility or accountability to the other guy. The old adage is, 'I was just doing what I was told to do.' 'And it comes from up above and they know what they are doing.' The Gomery Commission, a recent review of civil servant behaviour and lack of accountability recommended that civil servants be held accountable for their behaviour no matter what level of employment in the service.
Don't forget, the bureaucracy of our democratic gov't is the form of the pyramid, managed from top-down, with the responsibility and accountability being pushed back up when questions of accountability are asked. Lastly, the civil service language is military speak; our troops are ready for the recession, we are attacking that or this front, etc, etc, the language of war is used and the civil service is trained how to write the double speak.
If there are naïve bystanders it is these lower level union members, as it the same people doing this to me that are telling them the lie too. It begs the question as to what has been stolen to justify the lies told to the managers of licensing offices and other lower offices. The people doing this to me have stolen research and presented it in a Human Rights discrimination complaint, it makes one wonder what have they stolen and lied about to manipulate the low level gov't workers? Those low level workers that have also sworn an Oath of Office and are only doing what their bosses have instructed them to do. It really is, 'do what you are told or you will be disciplined.'
I've written the union about this corruption and how it turns their members into accomplices. Hopefully they will not continue passing on the propaganda told by the senior managers of the OSMV and other senior civil servants that have broken their Oath of Office. Done in order to break that chain of command of top down management of the troops. At least these troops have a union for dialogue and challenge if needed, which may support the law and the Oath of Office. Support for their own diabetic and disabled workers. There is approximately 60 000 union members, that is approx 5 400 diabetics plus other disabled workers. They have the power to review what they are being made to say from corrupt civil servants. They do not need to be the goose stepping goons of those who think they are the masters.
#5 Polarization. “Hate groups broadcast polarizing propaganda . . .”
Labeling me a killer divides society, as being a killer is the worst thing a human can be or be labeled. Labeling me a killer, by senior civil servants reinforces this polarization. And it is propaganda as public scrutiny of the policy has not been allowed. The choice to confront the Nazis had been buried by the HRT. By the Press who do not expose the illegal policy and its consequences only the Overcrowding and surgery wait-lists, not those instigating these problems. By the politicians that I have contacted who refuse to even acknowledge my letters. Yes, propaganda does not allow choice and choice has been taken away.
The forced medical examination divides society. The gov't forcing doctors to administer the phoney, useless, meaningless, non-meaningful, pointless, redundant, un-needed medical examination reinforces the division. This action broadcasts to society that the diabetic is a killer, a liability. Doctors are not allowed the choice on doing or not doing the DME.
Again, from #4, the polarization is done by the troops of those senior civil servants spreading the word. The senior civil servants involve other ministry's in their propaganda, such as the OSMV using the Min of Health as supporters, which reinforces the polarization as there are now two Ministry's involved to manage the diabetic. With the Attorney General's office now supplying legal help, which means there are three Ministry's spreading the word of hate, bias, and prejudice.
They also use non-gov't organizations such as the BC Medical Association that is supposed to be reviewing the New Policy for worth and value. The BCMA is supposed to be evaluating the diabetic policy, which is is illegal, and their employers, the OSMV, has just stolen research to justify the policy. If the BCMA has not stood up to the corruption of the policy since I began my inquiry in 2002, and before that date if they were involved in the demands upon the health care system, then why should anyone believe they are capable of exposing the policy for what it is, illegal with horrific consequences. They add to the polarization and polarizing propaganda. It is already the goose stepping goon for the OSMV.
Also, the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles has written that “externals and internals” need to be contacted about the Draft and New Policy before implementation. Who are these unknowns that he defers his or her responsibility and accountability to? This action polarizes through the 'false power' of the unknown, as those unknowns endorse the propaganda and no one knows who they are but they must be powerful.
So, the propaganda concerning the diabetic, the disabled, is broadcast into society through gov't, its affiliated gov't offices, written works, forced medical examination, forced doctor intervention, independent medical organizations, the unknown internals and externals, and the use of stolen scientific research presented through a corrupted Affidavit.
Lastly, propaganda means 'your choice' has been taken away. The Press I have contacted have refused to expose this corruption, which takes peoples choice away, which prevents the public from knowing what is really happening. The Press interviews Emerge doctors about the Overcrowding, the killing and maiming but does not knock on the door so to speak; to see the why of where the fifty percent of Emerge clients come from and why; that according to the Emerge doctors should not be there.
Where I not only knock on the door, open it, but walk in; I use the information the OSMV has given me which explains the Overcrowding, it is all explained in the “updated consequences” letter. The corruption and slaughter is so great the Press is afraid to inform the public. This really is appalling that the Free Press in a Liberal Democracy is afraid of some civil servants and the killing they are doing. Their action denigrates our democracy.
Additionally, the Press interviews about surgery wait-lists, which again they only interview and do not knock on the door. Since 2006 our taxes have been diverted to pay for the DME, which is a demand from an illegal social policy which offers no good. Society should know this diversion is responsible for the surgery wait-lists and that the taxes used for the DME would pay for all the surgeries on the wait-list and have millions left over. This is theft and fraud by the OSMV. I have written the Press about this. No response.
This defines propaganda. The refusal of a few to inform the majority of what is really taking place; with informed choice being denied. With the gov't not informing and the Press supporting the corruption there is not a better definition of propaganda. The Canadian Press should be ashamed of themselves. These monsters doing this to society need to be exposed. The people doing this have broken their Oath of Office, the Social Contract, Law, Laws of Life, and the demands of the Charter, the HR Code, and the statutes of the MVA. They do not deserve protecting.
#6 Preparation. “Victims are identified and separated out because of the their ethnic or religious identity . . .”
I am a victim as I am Classified, Labeled, forced to take a medical exam, blamed for unproven acts, not acknowledged as taking care of myself, thus society, and have just recently survived the endangerment of my life. Yes, I am a surviving victim of bias, prejudice, hate, ignorance, fear and loathing, disgust, contempt, and propaganda.
The victims are those that have been identified and separated, and I am still here. Those that can be “identified and separated out ” to see who they are, because they are not here anymore are the naïve bystanders in Overcrowded Emerge facilities and those on surgery wait-lists, such as I was on. Those that have been killed are registered by doctors, emerge, and coroner offices. This is the best example of Rummel's third definition of Genocide, Democide, a definition to include corrupt gov't polices and their consequences;
““The murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide, and mass murder”.” “Democide can also include deaths arising from “intentionally or knowingly reckless and depraved disregard for life””.
“Some examples of democide cited by Rummel include . . . [those who] were killed in large numbers as a result of government policies.” (Wikipedia, Democide, p 2)
#7 Extermination. ““It is “extermination” to the killers because they do not believe their victims to be fully human.”” The illegal policy has been in my life since 1999 when I was informed that I am diabetic. Those that are doing this to me know what they are doing and the consequences of their actions. Again, they have not fulfilled the Charter demands, the Human Rights Code demands, (the OSMV is no stranger to the the BCHRT), the demands of the Motor Vehicle Act nor the demands of their Oath of Office. Never forget the lawyers for the OSMV paraphrased the MVA statutes that the OSMV put forward to justify its policy. This corrupt paraphrasing gives the Superintendent carte blanche to do what he or she wants, which is not what the statutes demand. The MVA is there to keep Fascist, Nazis, and personal “views” of civil servants from running amuck as they have done. They falsified a legal document to get their way. I caught them. Lawyers do not make mistakes paraphrasing statutes or laws, not one statute, but three. There was no mistake. Was Hunt supervising the lawyer that did this? Was this lawyer just doing what she was told to do under threat or promises?
My challenge did not stop them. This was done as they have constructed the diabetic, me, as the Pariah, the Other, which according to these people, do not have Rights, therefore I am not human. Not Human means they do not need to acknowledge that I have Rights.
Secondly, again, the Five Steps of Engagement must be worked through in order to understand how corrupt this policy and these people are. Not to acknowledge these five points for the diabetic means I have no basic rights as the OSMV has put itself above working through the five points for me (honestly working through the five points) or when it comes to their behaviour, (are we supposed to believe they have not worked through the five points for themselves?).
Additionally there is no Equality when it comes to Standards they have acknowledged and supposedly worked through for themselves. The lack of accepted Standards for me means I am not human to these people.
Third, add the fact that they have falsely labeled me as a killer, makes me a non-human in their “view” of life.
Fourth, don't forget, the OSMV and the Min of Health in their response letter concerning my inquiry into the legality of the policy and its consequences stated that in their “view” the policy is ok to do. It is not. They do not have a “view” as they are told what to do by the Charter, the HR Code, the MVA, and their Oath of Office to the democratic society. Breaking all these instruments of democracy to get at the diabetic exemplifies how far these people have gone to restrain and control the non-human. These instruments of democracy do not apply to non-humans.
Fifth, in the same letter they also stated they know the Harm. This means they made the decision to continue with their constructed harm, the killing and maiming, to supposedly stop the unproven killing the diabetic driver is supposed to be doing. To kill the naïve bystander to restrain and control the non-human turns the dead naïve bystander into Roadkill, which is not human. (Roadkill, as this OSMV policy is part of the Auto mobile industry and animals killed by autos are just roadkill, as are these that are killed in Overcrowded Emergency Facilities and those on surgery wait-lists.) I am not human to these monsters.
To get at me and control me they are exterminating the naïve bystander, it is extermination, as they know they are doing so and have not stopped what they are doing and they have had ample opportunity to do so. This is not war where the killing can be balanced off, kill for kill. This is not war where the innocent are killed. This is not war where propaganda does turn the enemy into the pariah, the Other, the non-human in order to survive or instigate expansion. This is a social policy concerning type 2 diabetes where the science I have grown with proves there is no need for the policy.
The people doing this to me are the monsters, the not “fully human” human, as how else can they continue with the policy knowing it is illegal, kills, maims, and endangers life?
Sixth, in the same letter they also stated they know full well that Science does not support the policy, that they do not know if there is science that could be used to support the policy. So, they base the policy on some “view” of theirs and do not fulfill the demands of the demands of the Charter, the HR Code, the MVA, and their Oath of Office, the very instruments or tools some humans have invented to guarantee Human Rights, that 'Humanity' is guaranteed to all; even to visitors to their country, such as Canada does. The civil servants and their supporters don't do this do they.
If they had canceled the policy no one could charge them with breach of Office as they would have only been fulfilling the demands of the Charter, the HR Code, the MVA, and their Oath of Office, which proves there is no need for the policy. Little lone trying to justify the killing of the naïve bystander. But they didn't did they. This would acknowledge the humanity of the diabetic, the disabled.
#8 Denial. ““The perpetrators . . . deny that they committed any crimes . . .””
Where do we start on this one?
The illegality of the policy is not acknowledged. The consequences of the policy are not acknowledged. The breach of the demand of the Charter is not acknowledged. The breach of the HR Code is not acknowledged. The breach of the MVA statutes is not acknowledged. The falsifying of the statutes of the MVA is not acknowledged. The breach of the Settlement Agreement has not been renewed and this has not been acknowledged. The corruption of social and scientific standards within the Draft is wrong, it bastardizes and corrupts science. The Draft manipulates the reader as it is written as if the Policy is legal and that the consequences of the policy have been attended to, and are acceptable. The Draft concludes stating that medical conditions that may express to a diabetic only after having diabetes for 10, 15, or 20 years are good enough reason to justify the policy. (Nazis do this kind of thing, and Nazis deny, deny, deny but their paper work also exemplifies what the have done.) The shuffling of tax dollars to pay for the illegal DME Fee has not been acknowledged as supporting an illegal social policy, where the taxes should be used for bona fide medical necessary demands on the medical system. (Isn't this is fraud?) The change of the DME to be a medical necessity from a non-medical necessity in not bona fide, which has not been acknowledged. The theft of scientific research has not been acknowledged. The lie about the OSMV not knowing the Scope of the human rights complaint has not been acknowledged. The intent of that lie, was done for two reasons, done as damage control concerning the theft of research, and to change the HRT Scope of the complaint, which would somehow allow the remaining stolen research to be used to justify the policy, even though I had pointed out that all the research had been stolen. All the stolen science was then withdrawn for some unknown reason and this is not acknowledged. The withdrawal of the science means the OSMV and its counsel withdrew their presentation of defending the policy. In other words, they gave up with their presentation which means the HRT should have acknowledged this and found in favour of my complaint. This has not been done. The charade concerning the Alberta law firm and its legal stamp of approval on the stolen research has not been attended to. The power of the Affidavit was misused, falsified, corrupted, this has not been attended to. The HRT unsolicited change to the Scope of my complaint has not been attended to. The HRT unsolicited change to the Timeline given to the OSMV, as to when it can present its policy concerning diabetic drivers, has not been attended to. The HRT refusal to acknowledge the policy to be illegal has not been addressed. The HRT refusal to acknowledge the stolen research has not been addressed. The HRT refusal to accept the change to the DME fee as change has not been addressed.
Also, the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles has written that “externals and internals' need to be contacted about the Draft and New Policy before implementation. Who are these unknowns that he defers his or her responsibility and accountability to? This action is a denial of accountability and responsibility. This is the old ploy of 'I didn't do it, they told me to do it.' This is the old practice of self-preservation, premeditated denial, denial, denial.
The breaches of the civil servant's Oath of Office are not acknowledged.
All of this is done by these civil servants that have broken their Oath of Office, as the policy has been illegal and is illegal today. If they had legalized the policy or canceled the policy then they would have been protected by their Oath of Office. By not fulfilling their oath of Office they are liable for their actions and this is why they are in denial, denial, denial.
They also are liable for not fulfilling the demands of the Charter, the HR Code, and the MVA. That is why the charades are played out, to deceive and mislead about these demands.
Lastly, the Universal Health Care System in Canada has only two users, the Public and the Government, not what the government leads you to believe. The Public use runs from preconception to after death, with new tools and training, and new medications, etc. The gov't blames shortfalls upon the demands of the Public, which are all known because they must be bona fide, medical necessities or they are not funded; if 'acknowledged' as a medical necessity they are 'funded', therefore 'managed'. All demands are evaluated as whether they are a medical necessity or not. Cosmetic or vanity surgery is not a medical necessity, therefore not funded. Care for Autistic children is not considered a medical necessity. Many drugs for HIV/AIDS are not deemed a medical necessity. Crutches, if needed when leaving a hospital, are not free.
The Government also makes demands upon the health care system, like the demand of the diabetic DME and fee. Never forget, the DME takes doctors out of the system as they are forced to comply and administer a mandatory medical examination that cannot do what it is alleged to be able to do and offers no Good. The demand upon doctors is not acknowledged; 35 – 40 G Ps just for diabetic drivers per year. Add to that demand the other hundred or so medical conditions doctors are forced to administer a phoney medical examination for. Does this mean that 18 - 20% of all G Ps are filling out forms for the OSMV and other Ministry's demands?
Superintendent, now you know where long wait - times to see a G P come from. Long wait - times people go to the Emerge for care that day, where they may need to wait 3 - 5 days to see the G P they visit. Again, the policy is illegal therefore the DME is illegal, besides it does nothing Good. The DME is not a medical necessity and has not been for fifty years or so. Therefore, the disabled needed to pay for the DME, that is, until my discrimination complaint brought the change of who pays for the DME. Nothing bona fide in the world, science, or medicine changed the meaning, worthiness, or value of the DME, in order for it to be changed to a medical necessity, in order for it to be paid by our taxes. The gov't is in denial of their illegal demand upon G Ps. The gov't is in denial of this phoney demand, which means it is not funded properly therefore not managed properly.
(Do not allow the corruptions surrounding this policy distract you about where the taxes come from to pay for the DME; it is a new demand upon our tax base, new funds that could and should have been used for the bona fide demands upon the medical system. Our taxes are delegated to a Ministry for their budget. However, what we have here is they are now shuffled around from (Ministry of) Solicitor Generals Office to the Ministry of Health, and the Medical Services Plan, MSP, the organization that pays for bona fide, medical necessary medical demands. The doctors now get paid by the MSP. That organization is then repaid by the ministry making the demands, the Solicitor General's office. So, the demand upon the health care system is not acknowledged as the demand is not documented through a payment from the MSP to the Min of Health. And yet the demand is made upon the doctors, not acknowledged in budgets, as it not funded and managed by the Min of Health.) (How many other ministry's are making these kinds of demands upon doctors and the medical system, which means they are not acknowledged, funded, and managed properly?) And we wonder where all the G P have gone to. And wonder why G P and emerge surgeons are leaving their field of medicine.
If we understand the charade played out here correctly the OSMV has just done something that seems bona fide on the surface but in reality it is not. Just like the other examples I have exposed that are not what they seem; the breached settlement agreement phoney renewal, no employment notification lawyers must do, the phoney stamp of approval on the academics stolen research, her Affidavit that all presented is bona fide and factual, which it is not, etc. In reality, the DME is not a medical necessity, therefore it cannot be paid for through the MSA, the organization that pays for bona fide, medical necessary medical demands. The charade is used to deceive the public in order to marry the DME to the MSP, so the public is lead to believe the DME is a medical necessity, something bona fide, therefore reinforcing the lie that the policy is legal. This is a debit to the MSP, which needs to be legally justified and cannot, the Solicitor General's office repays the MSP for the payments to the General Practitioners that do the DME, or Surgeons that may do the DME, in order to rectify the phoney debit.
So, what we have is a demand upon the medical system that is not acknowledged, as it doesn't come from the Min of Health, therefore not funded through direct lines for all to see, therefore not managed. The demand upon doctors is not acknowledged because the funding for their use comes from a different ministry than the ministry that manages them, therefore creating a debit of doctors, which is not acknowledged, which explains the 'why' of the unexplained long wait - times to see a G P. The result of long wait - times to see a GP comes as she or he is filling out useless forced medical examinations and forms for not only the diabetes policy but for the other hundred or so medical conditions the OSMV supposedly manages and now pays for.
So, what we have is a demand upon the health care system, that is not a legal demand, not a bona fide medical necessity, therefore hidden as to who pays for it, which in turn hides it from accountability and management. A denial of the demands upon doctors needed to administer the DME is also present.
So, we must ask how many other demands of gov't on the health system are not 'acknowledged', therefore not 'funded', therefore not 'managed'. And all the while the gov't blames the problems of the health care system on the Public. And yet, we know the Overcrowding comes from an illegal policy and surgery wait - lists come from the shuffled taxes to pay for an illegal policy and DME. A very good example of denial on the Government's behalf. All done to restrain and manage the pariah, the Other, the non-human diabetic and the disabled. Always add the denial of the Oath of Office which demands do not break the law, do not lie, do not steal, do not deceive, do not manipulate, etc, etc.
(These eight stages of genocide are from Wikipedia, Genocide, pp 10-12 of 17, 02/03/2010.
Superintendent, now you know why you and other readers must construct a Wholeness of this policy and all the corrupt presentations that are used to deceive.
*
Crime Against Humanity
Have you read Heart of Darkness, by Joseph Conrad? This is the darkness, the corruption, the rotten part of the spectacle of human life he writes about. The Absolute Corruption of some people and the Fear of others to do nothing.
Superintendent, your staff and hopefully you took the time to read and actually list some of the horrors happening to me, they are monstrous when you expand or extend this to the public as a whole, when we as a society realize this as a whole, as we must do, as the diabetic was 5% of society when I began this in 2002 and are now supposed to be 9%. And then we need to add the other one hundred or so medical conditions the OSMV says it manages.
These monsters are not in the closet or under the bed, they are real and need to be confronted.
Again, read the “Updated Consequences” letter and wonder about how many have been killed and maimed due to this policy. How many more yet to come? How many on surgery wait-lists, like I was, due to the OSMV shuffling taxes to pay for the illegal policy's demand upon the medical system, for an examination that is not bona fide and cannot do what it is alleged to be able to do. And my life was jeopardized due to their corruption and greed. All based upon some idiots in the civil service with some point of “view” of the world that they base the policy upon.
This is not Genocide according to two of the three definitions. The gov't is not killing off diabetics or killing to get rid of the gene pool but it certainly is fulfilling the third definitions, Democide, Genocide by a Democratic Society;
“ “The murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide, and mass murder”. ”
“Democide can also include deaths arising from “intentionally or knowingly reckless and depraved disregard for life”; . . . ”.
“Some examples of democide cited by Rummel include . . . [those who] were killed in large numbers as a result of government policies.”
It is also a “Crimes Against Humanity, as defined by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Explanatory Memorandum;
“are particularly odious offences in that they constitute a serious attack on human dignity or grave humiliation or a degradation of one or more human beings. They are not isolated or sporadic events, but are part either of a government policy (although the perpetrators need not identify themselves with this policy) or of a wide practice of atrocities tolerated or condoned by a government or a de facto authority. Murder; extermination; torture; rape and political, racial, or religious persecution and other inhuman acts reach the threshold of crimes against humanity only if they are part of a widespread or systematic practice. Isolated inhumane acts of this nature may constitute grave infringements of human rights, or depending on the circumstances, war crimes, but may fall short of falling into the category of crimes against humanity.” ” (Wikipedia, Crime Against Humanity, p 1 of 8) (wikipedia gives references)
A government stalking or hunting a minority, denigrating that minority, breaking laws to stereotype the minority, falsely accusing the minority of killing, to set-up the minority as the pariah, then the Other, are/is not an “isolated or sporadic events”. Being labeled killers the diabetic or disabled is beyond the need of gov't to legally justify the behaviour against the minority. It forces the minority to undergo medical examinations that do nothing except support the differential treatment of the minority, it broke a legal settlement agreement and refused to renew it, knowingly not fulfilling the Absolute that the minority has legal Rights; that Right to know that legal help had been attained by the gov't, which the minority would only accidentally discover months after the charade to hide the breached settlement agreement had taken place. Stealing scientific documents to justify their position, not challenging the changed proposals of the settlement agreement from a third party who had no legal right to do so, which protected the illegal position of the gov't, refusing to acknowledge the consequences of their actions, etc, etc defines a “widespread practice”.
Again, the Overcrowding of Emergency Facilities is one of the consequences of the illegal policy due to the fact that doctors are taken out of service, as they are filling out useless forms that are used against the minority, the resulting consequences of less accessibility to doctors forces the public to Emerge resulting in Overcrowding, resulting in unexpected and unexplained deaths and maiming only explained through the Overcrowding of Emerge. Caused by those in the OSMV and its unknown anti-diabetic and anti-disabled supporters that are running the policy, all the while espousing how great they are, as they are only defending society through managing those that are, in their “view”, a liability to society. To do this involves numerous Ministry's, which is “widespread or systematic practice”.
Additionally, the other major consequences concerning death and maiming are the unexplained deaths, maiming, and addiction to drugs of those waiting for bona fide surgery, all because the OSMS has diverted taxes to pay for the illegal policy and its demand, the Driver's Medical Examination. The newly found taxes used to pay for this illegal policy should be used for bona fide medical demands such as spinal surgery, as I needed. The funds diverted to pay for this illegal demand upon the universal health care system, a non-medical necessity, could pay for all the bona fide medical necessity surgeries on the wait - lists. So, the killing, maiming, and addiction of those on the wait-lists has been deemed acceptable by those in gov't, as they need to hunt the minority at all cost, even the killing of the naïve bystander waiting for bona fide surgery. The naïve bystander becomes Roadkill to those in the OSMV, something of no value and pushed to the sidelines.
To do this involves numerous Ministry's, which is “widespread or systematic practice”.
And lastly, the gov't absolutely knows of the killing, maiming, and drug addiction as my letters to it document these consequences. It is a Crime Against Humanity as those humans that are killed and maimed need not to have experienced this, as the OSMV and its civil servants had the opportunity to stop their behaviour. They didn't. They have continued on knowing the harm, knowing the policy is illegal, knowing the policy offers no Good.
*
A gov't policy that causes one death can be realized as an accidental death. Horrific but still an accidental death. However, is it really no different than a death that a diabetic driver may be involved in or you, whom ever you are?
It is different. Government policy is not supposed to kill anyone at all. Laws, research, rules, and guidelines are supposed to curb gov't intrusion into our lives unless proved as needed, does no harm, and offers Good. Prototypes, models, and simulations are supposed to be worked through, as seen with medicine, to understand the consequences. Are we to believe the OSMV did not work through the policy to discover the consequences of the policy before implementation? Don't forget, they care nothing for Law, as they knew the policy had not been illegally justified through the demands of the Charter, the HR Code, the MVA, and their Oath of Office. So, they run the policy knowing of the killing, maiming and endangerment to life and that it discriminates, turning the diabetic into the pariah, the Other.
The Second death is what? The second death gets attention, it should cause Reviews. The second death should cause a HOLD on the policy. This was never done. Why? Because of bias, prejudice, hate, ignorance, fear and loathing, disgust and contempt.
Fear of loosing power over the minority, fear of loosing power itself through a decrease of things to supposedly manage, therefore power. The lust for power would not be fulfilled if the policy was canceled or curtailed, causing a decrease in funding. Therefore, a decrease in budget for all the other Ministries to point fingers at and laugh at the fall.
If the medical examinations for the disabled driver were curtailed or actually stopped, as should have been done with the type 2 driver years ago, there would be a decrease in power over the minority, the non - humans.
If the medical examinations for the disabled were curtailed or actually stopped there would be a decrease in the power over doctors, General Practitioners, as they are forced to administer the DME.
If the medical examinations for the disabled were curtailed or actually stopped there would be a decrease in the power over other doctors, Surgeons and Emerge doctors this time, as they are forced to deal with the consequences of the policy. It is these doctors that must inform the survivors of the death and maiming due to the Overcrowding. This will decrease as the policy is curtailed or canceled. This action of the Emerge doctors informing the survivors of death is another good example of how the gov't has reversed who is doing the killing. As I have been labeled a killer, which is a reversal of facts, the Emerge doctor is being labeled a killer because they could not fix the client, when in actual fact the Overcrowding should not have been there in the first place. The responsibility and accountability has been reversed by the gov't.
This also applies to all the other medical conditions if the need is not documented, if it harms, and there is no proven Good. Imagine the loss of power these corrupt civil servants and their supporters would realize.
The Third death is what? It is listed under Homicide isn't it. Because the OSMV and its supporters know of the harms and did nothing to stop. However, what kind of Homicide is this? As we need to understand the policy in its Wholeness, not just one diabetic, or the use of one doctor, or one hospital, or one death, or one needed surgery such as mine, it is many corrupt civil servants, many doctors, and many hospitals, etc. Democide defines this Wholeness. But what does the gov't get charged with as all the people will say they were only doing gov't business. But that is like the 'civil servant lawyers', isn't it. They broke their Oath of Office, therefore they have no protections.
Mass murder?
Negligent homicide?
Is it death due to reckless endangerment of human life?
Is it death due to indifference to human life?
Specialists in this field will need to address this. Specialists outside the BC government's influence as they are corrupt.
Or, are there still honest lawyers, judges, and Press still out there?
*
This is white collar crime, something our society is afraid to challenge. It is so horrific all concerned with this seem to be in denial of it and afraid to acknowledge it. There is no third party protection for Homicide, or death due to reckless endangerment of human life, or death due to indifference to human life. Or Harm due to reckless endangerment of human life or Harm due to indifference to human life, as has just happened to me with my need for spinal surgery.
Isn't this why the OSMV hired the Attorney General's office of 100 or so lawyers, who then hired Heenan Blaikie of 700 or so lawyers, and then they hired Armstrong Law of Alberta. All to fight one person of a minority asking questions about how they are treated? One low level civil servant could have resolved the whole mess with proof of need, proof of Good, and proof that would justify the consequences; if that could ever be accepted.
However, that could not be done as there is no proof of need according to modern science. And killing as a bi-product of intervention is not acceptable, therefore the charades, the breached settlement agreement, the lack of conformity to absolutes, the lies, theft of documents, and now illegal changes to the settlement agreement by a third party, which protects the gov't from any other HRT complaints concerning my complaint.
All the above are the under pinnings of a bona fide Crime Against Humanity, Genocide/Democide within Canada.
Superintendent, this is what you and I are really involved in and your lawyers could not intervene concerning the theft of the research?
Are your lawyer really not cognizant of the consequences of this policy? Have they buried it, as the HRT buried my complaint?
Superintendent, it does not matter what kind of person, or employee, or lawyer you are, you have a Human Duty to confront such horror, even if it is in Canada.
Lastly, gov't lawyers have a duty to obey their Oath of Office and they have not. They are not protected by the 'private lawyer' third party protection and society really needs to attack what they have done and what they have not done. They knew this was a Crime Against Humanity, Genocide, before I did, as they are Human Rights Lawyers and know the policy is illegal, and they know of the consequences, and they know there is no Good from the policy. They are the ones that contrived the strategy of delaying tactics, stonewalling until now where the HRT has protected them,etc, etc, all the while knowing the policy is illegal, killing and maiming, and others are blamed for the killing and maiming. They are part of that harm, as gov't employees, but with the addition of their actions added to the corruption of those running the policy.
Lastly, diabetes is worldwide and there are different policies concerning difference types and licensing. Not all have a universal health care system, such as we do, where the consequences can be so easily understood. So, if we, Canadians, have fallen to the point of stealing worldwide science to justify the policy what are other country's diabetic policies based upon? The corruption is worldwide. The Deputy Superintendent wrote that other countries do this policy. (This was a self-protective device, denial, pushing the responsibility and accountability onto someone else. Just as she did when the Draft was not done on Time, she blamed some low level civil servant. I wrote back and stated that she and those that told her to write that denial of accountability should go live in those so - called other democratic societies and see if she really wants to just blindly follow what they do to their citizens. No response. It is denial of any accountability and responsibility.
Superintendent, the changes that must come with the challenge to Genocide/Democide will change the world and make the world a better place. Canadians changed the world with the invention of insulin therapy for diabetes, we can change the world again for the rights of diabetics and all those naïve bystanders that have been killed and maimed by the illegal policy and all those waiting for surgery that are having their lives threatened as taxes are diverted to pay for the illegal policy.
It will also make Canada a better place as corrupt civil servants not obeying the laws of the country and their own Oath of Office will be taken to task and our democratic society will stumble along on our Laws and Rights and Freedoms. Which for me have been taken away and my life threatened by these civil servants for Absolutely no good reason other than their twisted, sick, perverted point of “view” of how Life works.
*
Go to wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_against_humanity#United _Nations or go to wikipedia and type in crime against humanity. This will give you what I have read and what most of the world considers a Crime Against Humanity and Genocide. Just in case you think the above statements about crimes against humanity and genocide are not correct. There is sufficient referencing to the original Documents, Journals, Books, and UN Reports.
Pages 1-7. On p. 7 focus upon the Rome Statute Explanatory Memorandum.
On p 6. click on Democide for a further eight (8) pages. Pp 1-2, the third meaning, a “generalized meaning” is most appropriate. The title “Numbers” of deaths is interesting when compared to the numbers you get when you work through my “Updated Consequences” letter. Then multiply this by seven (7) as the rest of Canada is seven times the population of BC. Look at Serbia and how many were killed there. And you wonder why people do not want to acknowledge this killing.
*
Corrupt Science to Justify Democide
Superintendent, I do not know what documents you have concerning my complaints but the science is used to manipulate people, or gov't manipulating people. Dobbs' presentation was used to manipulate readers. Her presentation coming from an academic researcher with the added position of senior civil servant with status, trust, power, and prestige was used to manipulate. She is government and science was used to mislead and to continue on with the illegal policy and horrific consequences. Her presentation was stamped by a law firm to legally justify the presentation, an Affidavit. With an Affidavit one just Believes and Trusts. She then used it for something else, didn't she. This really is the best example of Democide, of the underpinnings that are used to justify a Crime Against Humanity; phoney science, bastardized science, twisted science, science used for purposes it was not researched for, science used after the researchers wrote, 'do not use', an Affidavit that she used for other purposes than legally stamped to be used for; her presentation is not Science, little lone Good Science.
I have enclosed the so called science that was offered by the government's new academic researcher, only to the UN, Human Rights Watch, and the Montreal IGHRS, Concordia University, as the Xpresspost only has so much space and it costs me money to copy and mail. If anyone would like her presentation and my deconstruction of it I can send them. But then you would need to contact me, eh.
It is worth reading as most people are afraid of science and I debunk that fear. Then I debunk her presentation. And that is why the OSMV and its 'civil servant lawyers' lied about the theft and not knowing the scope of the complaint.
Secondly, her presentation is like the 'civil servant lawyers' presentations, it is not what it seems. As she relies upon 'Hats' that define her, to build trust and acceptability of her presentation, she does not wear them in her presentation. You, the reader, are set-up to be used and manipulated. Another charade. Something played out to deceive you.
And if it wasn't for me standing up to these people, you and everyone else in Canada, the world, would have been suckered in by the charade and believed the policy had been legitimized through Human Rights Discrimination Complaint #5791. These people should go to jail for this event by itself, little lone being fired from government.
As the 'civil servant lawyers' wear 'Hats' to define them they also do not wear them, they put on the different lawyer 'Hat' in this instance, the 'private lawyer' hat, and scream look at me, look at me, I am the same as the 'private lawyer', do not treat me differently, I am a 'private lawyer' and have third party protection..
They are not the same. They are 'civil servant lawyers' and have broken their Oath of Office 'to do no Harm', 'to Obey the Law', and 'do Not Lie' among other things RCMP lawyers can list. As this 'civil servant academic researcher' pretends she does not need to wear the 'hats' that make her, she is just playing another charade. She has no protection as she broke her Oath of Office to begin with, which would have protected her if she had obeyed the law, her Affidavit, and Rules of Science.
They were all involved in this corruption of science and they should be held accountable for the abuse.
*
Regards
Dave Jenkins
CC; To Previous Contacts;
Adrian Dix, MLA, Opposition Health Critic, Rm 201, Parliament Buildings, Victoria, BC, V8V 1X4. You actually try to make the health care system run better. Although you never respond to my mail. I believe you are a type 1 diabetic.
Danny Williams, The Office of the Premier, Confederation Building, East Block PO Box 8700, St., John's, NL, A1B 4J6. You had your life endangered by this policy and went to the USA for private health care. Hope your convalescence is coming along. You have not responded to me either. I paid for my surgery also. I should not have needed to.
Jack Layton, 300 – 279 Laurier West, Ottawa, ON, K1P 5J9. You had your life endangered by this policy and are fighting the disease. You were on TV the other day, you looked much better than a month ago. Are you going to use your position in society to jump your position in the wait-times for surgery or health care? You have not responded to me either.
John Stackhouse, Editor- in-Chief, Globe and Mail, 444 Front St., West, Toronto, ON, M5V 2S9. You are the Press and write about Overcrowding and surgery wait-lists but do not publish the reasons for such things. Why? Why do you stop your investigation with the unknown still there, after I have given you a bona fide reason, good enough to attack those doing this. Why haven't you written about the corrupt civil servants breach of Oath of Office, as you write about the Solicitor General's Oath of Office breach? We get rid of him and the thieves and liars are still there.
Maclean's, April 26, 2010, “The Return of Hitler”. Those Nazis are always in some other place aren't they. Us apologetic Canadians are just too nice for that to happen here. Maclean's is afraid to look at Canada's Nazis, they're supposed to be skin heads with tattoos, not While Collars and senior civil servants. The civil servants doing this to me and other disabled are Nazis. The politicians and Press who refuse to acknowledge the illegal policy and consequences are cowards. The Press and politicians who refuse to acknowledge what has been done to me in order to justify the policy and protect the monsters are cowards.
I emailed your reporter, Hunter, April 15, as she wrote about B Cs health care problems of Overcrowding and Surgery wait-lists, March 26. I told her to ask for the material I sent your office and said you may not allow her access and would not let her respond to me. It seems I was right.
Superintendent Graham Burnside, Director, Federal Enforcement Branch, RCMP,1200 Vanier Parkway, Ottawa, ON,
K1A 0R2. You get a copy because you are involved. You know where to send this if you do not investigate Genocide. I started this letter before I received the letter from Superintendent Tom Jones, April 20, 2010, informing me that the RCMP would not be investigating the theft of the research documents. Why isn't the charade concerning the documents being an Affidavit therefore being the Truth and everything enclosed legal and then being used for something other not good enough for a criminal investigation? This means people can to what ever they want under the guise of Affidavit. Dobbs and the Alberta Law firm that stamped the document as legal tender should be charged with Falsifying Legal documents, then charged with Mail Fraud as they use the mail system to move the documents from Alberta to British Columbia.
I began this letter only after coming to terms with Democide and that the past Solicitor General's staff had lied to him about my discrimination complaint being resolved. As the above states it has not been resolved only that the BC HRT has buried it, which they should not have done.
Superintendent, the policy is illegal to begin with and I should not need to list every other problem or criminal act that has been done to justify the policy and the horror. The new Driver's Medical Examination Form is false, those who contrived it did so to mislead the reader about the policy and its legal status. Other things are within the above. Why do these civil servants still have their jobs? When the S G resigns under the Risk of a breach of Oath of Office these people had broken their Oath of Office?
Hopefully, this charge of Genocide, Democide, will help the RCMP investigate the illegal policy and all those concerned.
The Law Society of British Columbia, 845 Cambie St., Vancouver, BC, V6B 4Z9. You get a copy because I have complained to you about the lawyers involved in this. First, my second letter is not the same material as your refusal to acknowledge they are civil servants and bound by an Oath of Office makes the material different. Secondly, you have not acknowledged they are 'civil servant lawyers' and have sworn an Oath of Office to Obey the Law, do Not Lie, do No Harm, do Not Steal, do Not Mislead, etc, etc, and protect the government, the democratic society, before supporting an illegal gov't policy and its corrupt civil servants. They have broken their Oath of Office which means they are not protected by the Oath of Office nor the Law Societies third party protection democrats like myself afford lawyers in our democratic society. These lawyers should have attacked the illegal policy against the diabetic not support those running the policy which kills, maims and endangers lives. Third, as you have stated that the complaint will be forwarded to your “Complainants' Review Committee” they may want to read what I have come to understand about the policy and consequences. This new understanding of the consequences of the policy explains why the lawyers have done what they have done, why the Law Society defends the lawyers conduct, why the Press, the RCMP, and even a diabetic provincial parliamentarian are afraid to acknowledge themselves, in public at least.
Vancouver Sun, Letters Editor, #1 – 200 Granville St., Vancouver, BC, V6C 3N3. You are the Press and write about Overcrowding and surgery wait-lists but do not publish the reasons for such things. Why? Why do you stop your investigation with the unknown still there, after I have given you a bona fide reason, good enough to attack those doing this. Why haven't you written about the corrupt civil servants breach of Oath of Office, as you write about the Solicitor General's Oath of Office supposedly breach? We get rid of him and the thieves and liars are still there.
Maclean's, April 26, 2010, “The Return of Hitler”. Those Nazis are always in some other place aren't they. Us apologetic Canadians are just too nice for that to happen here. Maclean's is afraid to look at Canada's Nazis, they're supposed to be skin heads with tattoos, not While Collars and senior civil servants. The civil servants doing this to me and other disabled are Nazis. The politicians and Press who refuse to acknowledge the illegal policy and consequences are cowards. The Press and politicians who refuse to acknowledge what has been done to me in order to justify the policy and protect the monsters are cowards.
New contacts
Francis M. Deng, UN Secretary General's Special Advisor on the Prevention of Genocide, 760 United Nations Plaza, New York, NY, USA, 10017. You represent the world and should not be influenced by what Canada is, a nice place to live but with some deep problems. General Dallaire has brought some of these to light. Our Governor General, Michaelle Jean, just made an apology to Rwanda for our failure to support General Dallaire and his critical evaluation of the failure of the state in Rwanda.
*
The quote is from an online article.
“Sarah Boesveld
From Thursday's Globe and Mail Published on Wednesday, Apr. 21, 2010 12:52PM EDT Last updated on Thursday, Apr. 22, 2010 1:02PM EDT
Governor-General Michaëlle Jean has acknowledged Canada’s failure to respond to the Rwandan genocide as part of the international community. During a state visit to the country Wednesday, she conveyed the guilt of the many nations accused of ignoring the 1994 crisis in a statement delivered during a meeting with President Paul Kagame, a leader of the Tutsi rebel uprising. “The world's failure to respond adequately to the genocide is a failure in which Canada – as part of the international community – readily acknowledges its fair share of responsibility,” she read from a prepared statement as she sat in the Rwandan cabinet chambers in the capital of Kigali. “It is with a sense of utmost humility that I express the respects of Canada to all Rwandans who perished, suffered and who continue to suffer measurable loss in the Rwandan genocide.” Her statement was first reported as an apology, but the Prime Minister’s Office swiftly clarified to say it was an acknowledgment.”
*
The Prime Minister's office is cowardly. This is again civil servants not taking any responsibility for their actions. Civil servants had a huge influence in not supporting Rwanda, and we do not know who they are. As we do not know who most of the civil servants are that are doing this to me. As these civil servants and politicians did this to General Dallaire and Rwanda, condoning Genocide, turning their blind eye to genocide, they are doing this to me and Canada. By not standing up against Genocide in those far away places they have brought their Genocide home to Canada. This really needs to be exposed. These people and their shallow “view” of the world do not represent the idea of Canada.
Human Rights Watch, 350 Fifth Ave., 34th Floor, NY, New York, 10118 – 3299, USA. You get a copy as you are not beholden to Canada and its corruption. As Human Rights people you will see the BC Human Rights Tribunal showed bias toward the gov't and prejudice against me. They told me to get a lawyer. Maybe you can expose their absolute failure to stand up to corruption, the abuse of human rights, and discrimination. They didn't have the guts, the courage, the backbone, the grit to stand up and represent human rights. This is not the loss of work or a nasty neighbour. This is an illegal government policy that kills naïve bystanders and endangers lives. They had the power to put the policy on hold and save lives and they chose not to. People need to know this of the BC HRT.
Montreal Institute For Genocide and Human Rights Studies, Concordia University, 1455 De Maisonneuve Blvd. West, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, H3G 1M8. You get a copy because General Dallaire's web history brought me to you. You get a copy because you study both events and whether I like it or not I am involved in each. Whether being a university will allow you to intervene or study this I do not know. Universities take on some heavy duty stuff but sometimes funding will disappear and you will not know why. But at least you are not a naïve bystander now.
Rummel @ Hawaii.edc
Rummel coined the term Democide. According to R. J. Rummel, a political scientist, Genocide has three different meanings; Democide, the third meaning applies to the consequences of this diabetic policy. Rummel “created the term as an extended concept to include forms of government murder that are not covered by the legal definition of genocide, and it has found currency among other scholars.”
Democide ““is a term coined by political scientist R. J. Rummel for “the murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide, and mass murder”.” (this applies to this policy)
“Democide can also include deaths arising from “intentionally or knowingly reckless and depraved disregard for life””. (this applies to this policy)
“Some examples of democide cited by Rummel include the Great Purges carried out by Joseph Stalin in the Society Union (despite those people were executed), the deaths from the colonial policy of the Congo Free State, Mao Zedong's Great Leap Forward resulting in a famine which killed millions of people. According to Rummel, these were not cases of genocide, because those who were killed were not selected on the basis of their race, but were killed in large numbers as a result of government policies.” (this applies to this policy) (the above is from Wikipedia, Democide, pp 1 – 2, 06/03/2010, which are referenced)
