Tuesday, June 30, 2009

principles of right and wrong.

A Power Foreign to Our Constitution

Mission Statement JNJ Library Federal J.A.I.L.

FAQs What?MeWarden?


Of Apples and Oranges

(By Ron Branson – National J.A.I.L. CIC)

Two days ago (6/27/09) I sent out a publication under the title of “California Going Broke.” http://www.jail4judges.org/JNJ_Library/2009/2009-06-27.html Therein, I appealed to an illustration of apples and oranges I once used to bait the California Director of Finances on how he could immensely increase the volume of revenue to put into the California coffers. He listened with intentive interest. I will here restate what I said.

“I asked him if I had an apple tree in my back yard, and my next door neighbor had an orange tree, and we decided to mutually trade a bushel basket of my apples for a bushel basket of his oranges, has a taxable event transpired for both of us? He said, “Yes.”

I then told him that the State of California was missing out on some very serious revenue. When a worker trades his labor to a corporation for a salary, he pays a tax on his labor. But on the other hand, the corporation which receives the labor in exchange, not only does not pay a tax on the value of the labor received, but in fact, takes it as a tax deduction. I asked him why California fails to tax the value of the labor received from the exchange, as this is a large amount of revenue to the State of California. His answer was, “We couldn’t do that!” I asked, “Why not, it’s a taxable event according to you.” He said, “The corporations would not allow us to get away with that!” [End of illustration.]

This publication sparked a sensible response from a person by the name of Ivan Fail, ilf@centurytel.net, of Sparta, Missouri regarding his true-life experience in dealing with a certain corporation. But first, let us establish this man’s credibility. We are not speaking of a young inexperienced whipper-snapper. He states that he was a very system man who served his country as an honorable Marine which thereafter led him into a 1960 highly respected career for the legal system as a Federal Prison Correctional Officer. Now, some 48 years later, he finds it hard to believe what he was a part of. He describes his part in a system that was a “…larcenous, greed driven, head games, hucksterism and hypocrisy of the legal system.” He states, “I started to ‘wake up and smell the coffee’.” Then after retiring from the system, a very frustrating,

prolonged and expensive frivolous lawsuit at the hands of a serial litigant

professional plaintiff that cost him $60,000. This, he said, was the ‘death knell’ of any residual respect that he had for the legal system. “Ironically my collective experiences taught me one infallible but shocking truth that millions of ‘un-sued’ law abiding Americans will never learn about because “their heads are forcibly buried in the sands of naïveté and ignorance” by political and legal hype and hucksterism.

That truth is the fact that one of America's major ‘Societal Time Bomb

Factories’ is ‘camouflaged behind white-collar greed, arrogance, a law degree, a black robe, hot air and ceremonial hype. … It is in fact an unscrupulous, politics-propelled and protected, cut-throat, ”for-profit industry” promenading as an “elite- and ethics-governed profession.’

What has stuck in his craw is the fact that after being forced to fork out $60,000 in frivolous attorney’s fees, he was not allowed to take a single penny of that loss as a tax deduction, yet corporations take these same fees as a standard deduction. He states, they “own and operate the Congress which belongs to the same Country Clubs that they do.”

Now, getting back to my illustration of the apples and oranges which I referred to above: In this illustration, the value of the bushel basket of apples is exactly the same as that of a bushel basket of oranges. Both sides agree on this point. According to the Director of Finance, neither owes a tax on the fruit of their own tree. However, once the two trade over the fence, both sides suddenly owe a tax on their “gain.” This is arrived at by government by the theory that the bushel basket of apples has no value to the apple grower, and likewise the same is true of the orange grower. So the apple grower gave up nothing in exchange for the oranges. And the orange grower gave nothing up in order to get the bushel basket of apples, i.e., both made a profit upon which they now owe a tax to the government.

In reality, each surrendered value for value, so neither gained, and would owe no tax. However, the Califofnia Director of Finance determined both made a gain out of thin air, and therefore owed a tax. Since this is his own established standard, I then applied that standard based on his rules. If a worker owes a tax on “gain”, therefore, corporations necessarily would owe a tax on their gain of the value of the labor received. He then responded, “We couldn’t do that!” and the reason he said was, “The coropration would not allow us to get away with that!”

I don’t know about you, but if I understand the operations of our tax system, refusal by a person or business to pay a tax owed is called a “tax protestor,” and they have a place reserved behind bars for these tax protestors.

Now let me point out that our current tax code is nothing more than a warmed over 1909 Corporation Tax Act as described in http://www.enotes.com/major-acts-congress/corporate-income-tax-act. It is a tax upon the profit or gain made as the result of the exercise of a corporate privilege. Hence, only those benefiting from the exercise of a corporate charter are the subject of the income tax.

This principle is explained in Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (1906), to wit, The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the state or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to criminate him. He owes no such duty to the state, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property.

“His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.

“Upon the other hand, the corporation is a creature of the state. It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public. It receives certain special privileges and franchises, and holds them subject to the laws of the state and the limitations of its charter. Its powers are limited by law. It can make no contract not authorized by its charter. Its rights to [201 U.S. 43, 75] act as a corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its creation.”

So let us revisit the apple and orange analogy applying the instant above criteria. If Party “A,” the apple-grower, is a private individual, no tax may be imposed upon his right to exchange his goods or his services, i.e. “apples” or whatever he wishes. As the Supreme Court has said, “He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.”

On the other hand, if Party “B,” the orange grower, is functioning under a corporate charter, and thereby in the exercise of its corporate charter, makes a gain of a bushel basket of apples, then they would owe a tax on such gain.

So, let us recap what is going on in this country. Party “A,” the apple grower, a private citizen who owes no taxes on his own private affairs, may be thrown in prison because he is convicted of failing to pay a tax which he does not owe, nor is the subject of the tax, while Party “B,” the orange grower, a government- created corporation which owes the tax, not only refuses to pay the tax, i.e., “The corporations would not allow us to get away with that,” but gets to deduct the figure of its gain from all other taxes it may owe.

Hmmmm, that’s like going shopping for a new car that is listed as a value of $30,000, and finding the one you want, you tell the dealer that you will take that one. He says ”okay”. Then you ask him, “Now how are you going to pay me the $30,000 you owe me for accepting the car?”

Corporations who owe the tax, are rewarded for being tax protestors, while citizens who do not owe the tax are thrown in jail if they do not pay over! This is taxation American-style. Isn’t America great?

Now how is it that such a crazy system has come about? The answer is very clear: It is the courts and their self-created doctrine of judicial immunity that was the necessary ingredient to bring this about. If it were possible to straighten out every wrong in this country excepting the doctrine of judicial immunity, it would not take long before we would be back exactly where we are now. This is precisely why Americans shall have no remedy nor a future without judicial accountability over judicial immunity by an independent, autonomous citizen’s Grand Jury. (www.jail4judges.org)

-Ron Branson – the crazy guy with radical principles of right and wrong.

Saturday, June 27, 2009

not personal problems.

Everything You Say and Do

Makes Perfect Sense

(By Kristi Devine - devinekristi@yahoo.com)

Kristi, there is absolutely no way to “...stop the illegal acts of judges on an everyday basis,...” inasmuch as we are dealing with a systemic problem, not personal problems. The problem is not evil, corrupt and unaccountable judges, but rather People’s ignorance. It was Pogo who said, “We Have Met the Enemy, and He Is Us.”

We truly have the implicit power to bring the judicial system under our power when we decide we want to do so. So long as the People continue to roam and flounder looking for case resolutions, they shall never find the answer! They shall be continually spinning their wheels, “Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.” II Timothy 3:7.

I have been called of the Lord to open the eyes of the blind and the ignorant, but will they see and hear? “Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.” Mathew 13:13-15.

How shall I say this so that the populace will receive it? I shall one day stand in judgment of the many who have rejected my words. “He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.” Matthew 10:40. Stated in inverse, He that rejecteth you, rejecteth me. And he that rejecteth Me rejecteth Him that sent me. This is not an objective I wish to do, but nonetheless, it shall indeed happen in that day when God does His marvelous Work!

- Ron Branson

Friday, June 26, 2009

loss of hole life work, live a hole life time to end up broke ?

> Richard Harris (injustice)
> Richard,Have you requested your documents in writing?

> Richard,Have you requested your documents in writing?

As the Province is
> paying their invoice in my opinion they should return your file.

The Invoice is $212,000,00? what do you think of this, for a guy that has a cheque for $2,726.00

for his Company property,???

.On the
> Goodwin matter, I informed you that I thought I might get you $10,000. I
> understand the situation as you paid Goodwin $21,000

and you did not use
> Goodwin in court,

so he did not loose the court case.

He may have delayed
> the matter, but I do not see that he caused you to loose your case.

> reason I suggested that you accept the $10,000, assuming that I can get it
> for you, is because should I act for you, my fee would be in the order of
> $7,500 plus HST.

In addition I believe we would need an expert witness to
> say that Goodwin's report was not up to an acceptable standard.

I would
> expect the expert would charge $3,000 to $5,000, but I inform you that I
> have not sought an expert so cannot say for certain what their fee would be.

If you accept my analysis of the costs involved, the settlement offer of
> $10,000 appears to be all that you might receive after paying all the
> costs.

Please do not hesitate to take your case to another lawyer of your
> choice for a second opinion as this is the best that I can do for
> you.Regards,David E>.

From: 'Richard Harris' > Date: 2006/08/07 Mon PM
> 11:38:57 EST> To: gndlak,,,,,,,nb.tico.ca>

Subject: Re:>> I just wanted to
> know how I am going to get my documentation back from these> lawyers.

> guess you more or less told me I'm not going to get any money>

out of the
> Goodwin matter.

.On the
> Goodwin matter, I informed you that I thought I might get you $10,000.

> understand the situation as you paid Goodwin $21,000 and you did not use
> Goodwin in court, so he did not loose the court case.

!!!! Richard could not use Goodwin in Court ?

on less i would guarantee him $70,000.00 to finish up the draft Report,////????

He may have delayed the Matter, ??

Richard says Delayed cost money no matter how you look at it. Delay will cost you your life.

> , but I do not see that he caused you to loose your case.

> reason I suggested that you accept the $10,000, assuming that I can get it
> for you, is because should I act for you, my fee would be in the order of
> $7,500 plus HST.

In addition I believe we would need an expert witness to
> say that Goodwin's report was not up to an acceptable standard.

I would
> expect the expert would charge $3,000 to $5,000, but I inform you that I
> have not sought an expert so cannot say for certain what their fee would be.

If you accept my analysis of the costs involved, the settlement offer of
> $10,000 appears to be all that you might receive after paying all the
> costs.

Please do not hesitate to take your case to another lawyer of your
> choice for a second opinion as this is the best that I can do for
> you.

Regards,David E>> From: 'Richard Harris' > Date: 2006/08/07 Mon PM
> 11:38:57 EST>

To: g.ca> Subject: Re:> Dave?? E.

I just wanted to
> know how I am going to get my documentation back from these> lawyers.

Douglas Caldwell in N.S.

> guess you more or less told me I'm not going to get any money> out of the
> Goodwin matter.

Douglas A caldwell bill to the tun of $ 212,000.00???? what did they do for me ? Delay me um till they broke Me.???
> Richard Harris (injusticecoalition@hotmail.com)
> Richard,Have you requested your documents in writing? As the Province is
> paying their invoice in my opinion they should return your file.On the
> Goodwin matter, I informed you that I thought I might get you $10,000. I
> understand the situation as you paid Goodwin $21,000 and you did not use
> Goodwin in court, so he did not loose the court case. He may have delayed
> the matter, but I do not see that he caused you to loose your case. The
> reason I suggested that you accept the $10,000, assuming that I can get it
> for you, is because should I act for you, my fee would be in the order of
> $7,500 plus HST. In addition I believe we would need an expert witness to
> say that Goodwin's report was not up to an acceptable standard. I would
> expect the expert would charge $3,000 to $5,000, but I inform you that I
> have not sought an expert so cannot say for certain what their fee would be.
> If you accept my analaysis of the costs involved, the settlement offer of
> $10,000 appears to be all that you might receive after paying all the
> costs.Please do not hesitate to take your case to another lawyer of your
> choice for a second opinion as this is the best that I can do for
> you.Regards,D>> From: 'Richard Harris' > Date: 2006/08/07 Mon PM

Thursday, June 25, 2009

Any Canadian citizen would be ordered to perform such a simple test in a minute when accused of rape.??

Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 2:49 PM
Subject: Newfoundland Justice

Dear Premier Williams:

I'm calling attention to the Byron Prior case which has the appearance of justice in reverse, which we've seen more of in recent times.

As you know, Byron has been trying for over 40 years to bring justice to the statutory rape of his sister. The accused are Mr. Hickman and Mr. Mathews. These individuals can be cleared once and for all by a simple blood test but they refuse and the judge refuses to order it, why? Is there rank immunity from law breaking in Canada? Any Canadian citizen would be ordered to perform such a simple test in a minute when accused of rape.

Rather than order the test of proof, the judge has found a way to silence the accuser by ordering a psychiatric assessment. It's pretty well guaranteed that with this much political pressure the psychiatrist will buckle under to the pressure and Byron will be declared a mental case. Is it possible he could be referred to a non-biased psychiatrist in another province? If Byron is declared mentally incompetent the precedent in Canada will be set that citizens with any degree of mental set-back have no right to report a rape.

Lloyd Brinson, (CFJ)

Judges like Mr.Orr.hiding the crimes

You do indeed deserve justice Mr. Prior. Just like ever Canadian. Unfotunately judges like Mr. Orr seem more intent on hiding the crimes of their peers than actually folowing the law. It sounds to me like you are being railroaded into the Waterford.

Canadian Gulag: Byron Prior Upda...
The latest developments in Byron's ongoing legal battle to expose the truth about ...
2 months ago 197 views cdnjusticedelayed



from Byron Prior to Danny Williams his old lawyer///??

Fw: Danny Williams and the real reasons for his "ABC," (Anything But Conservative), campaign in 2008.‏
From: Offline Byron Prior (alltrue@nl.rogers.com)
Sent: April 16, 2009 11:02:57 PM
To: Nova (novaburst13@hotmail.com)
Cc: canada@canadianembassy.org; Croft Woodruff (croft.woodruff@gmail.com); Andrea Binns (binns.sweetcheeks@gmail.com); James Zaretzki (gordzaretzki@hotmail.com); Paul Perrier (perriercanadian@hotmail.com); chris rice (dontvote@votestrike.com); Peaceact@mail.democracyinaction.org; brinson6@telus.net; Peace2all (peace2all@rogers.com); skshydro (skshydro@telus.net); craig batley (batleycraig@yahoo.ca); The Unstoppable Coach Frankie Picasso (coachpicasso@rogers.com); Brasscheck TV (news@brasschecktv.com); Janet Cresswell (janet_cresswell@yahoo.com.au); Olga Scully (muffyandbrian@westnet.com.au); Robert Cumby (markland123@hotmail.com); Love For Life Mailing List (campaign@lists.loveforlife.com.au); Stefan Blaschke (history_guide@web.de); carlocalandra@hotmail.com; samsongold@hotmail.com; barry davis (davisbh@hotmail.com); Jack Hook (jdhook@cox.net); bessie@three-sides-to-every-story.org; Tamlie1@aol.com; Alex Machidon (machidon@gmail.com); denisewhite@iwon.com; Phyllis Hollett (phyllis.hollett@sympatico.ca); Richard Harris (injusticecoalition@hotmail.com); Angela Fuson (fusonak@yahoo.com); Pedersen, Angela \(Equal Parenting Cycle Trek - US\) (volunteer@achildsright.net); Rini Brown (webmaster@tridentindia.net); Lori R. Price (lori@legitgov.org); pinklime@ns.sympatico.ca; monika.stoces@telenet.be; Pamela Farnsworth (pamelaf10@comcast.net); debra@2solitudes.com; Preckel (fpreckel@pinc.net); Sara Frahm (sarakbf@texas.net); Derrick Robinson (dcr618@msn.com)

Attachments: 13 attachments

firstminc...jpg (16.8 KB), titlephot...jpg (49.3 KB), firstmin_...jpg (6.0 KB), Oppal Nov...pdf (107.4 KB), Hamilton ...pdf (365.6 KB), CASP06-Co...pdf (1071.0 KB), Linda Mag...jpg (149.6 KB), Olanzapin...pdf (31.9 KB), Trevor Yo...pdf (50.6 KB), CCE00007.jpg (201.2 KB), 2006-05-1...jpg (26.9 KB), prior_no_...jpg (17.3 KB), Letter to...mht (2.8 MB)

Dear Danny,
I am quite sure that you would not want your friends and enemies in Newfoundland and Labrador and the rest of Canada remain in the dark about the real reasons for your "ABC," (Anything But Conservative), campaign in 2008, nor should you want them to remain ignorant about real reasons why you decided to prosecute Byron Prior and lately contract well tested Dr. David Craig to eliminate Byron Prior at the psych ward of Waterford Hospital.
Lets start with the timeline:
1. Tim Marshall was elected NL legislature and appointment to Cabinet in 2003 as a Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Newfoundland and Labrador, see; http://www.assembly.nl.ca/members/cms/memberdetail.asp?MemberID=30. Now we know, that this appointment opened the door for Dr. Mary-Anne Marshall to seek justice for sexual abuse at the hands of Alex T. Hickman. (Burin where she grew up and Grand Banks where Priors grew up are very geographically so it is safe to assume that Hickman was operating in Burin as well.)
2. Dr. Mary-Anne Marshall died July 6, 2004, the same day she was discharged from the Health Sciences Centre's psychiatric unit in St. John's by Dr. David Craig, see: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2007/01/24/suicide-suit.html?ref=rss. Now we know that Dr. Mary-Anne Marshall was killed thru skilful application of "psychodrugs pump and dump" pseudo medical procedure in a contract murder that was most likely arranged by Alex T. Hickman.
3. In September 2004, you Danny attend at First Minister's Conference to Fix Healthcare for a Generation (see: attachment and, http://www.bloggingtories.ca/forums/topic6943.html and http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/healthcare/firstminconf.html) that Paul Martin arranged in order to cover up mass murder of the Inuit of Baffin Island during so called "Canadian Zyprexa Experiment. You Danny, knew that Paul Martin was up against the wall so between September of 2004 and January of 2005 you have cranked up Marshall family of Newfoundland in order for them to make noise in Ottawa about Dr. Mary-Anne Marshall's murder and scare Paul Martin so you could shake Paul Martin down for 2.6 billion dollars in a deal that was signed in late January of 2005 see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danny_Williams_(politician).
4. Now we know that you never told Marshall's what the real deal was and as soon as you made your deal with Paul Martin you started to back-pedal on criminal prosecution of Dr. David Craig.
5. Federal liberals lost their grip on power in January of 2006, see; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election,_2006
6. In April of 2006 Byron Prior went to Ottawa and started to demonstrate in front of Canadian Parliament, see; http://www.equalparenting-bc.ca/testimonials/prior_byron.htm

7. In early May of 2006 Norman Doyle Conservative MP from Newfoundland spoke to Byron Prior, in front of Parliament Building, took his papers and promised Byron that he will hand deliver them to the new Minister of Justice Vic Toews, see; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Doyle and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vic_Toews. He came back to Byron later in a day to tell him that he hand delivered these papers and left them on Vic Toews' desk.

8. On May 15, 2006 Byron Prior was approached by Tim Marshall than sitting Minister of Justice for Newfoundland and Labrador and four other men from Newfoundland and Labrador Ministry of Justice. They encouraged Byron Prior to keep up his fight for justice, see; http://www.assembly.nl.ca/members/cms/memberdetail.asp?MemberID=30. Now we know that Marshall family had their own score to settle with Alex T. Hickman over the contract murder of Dr. Mary-Anne Marshall. Now we also know that Tim Marshall who met Byron Prior in Ottawa held a meeting with federal officials in Justice department in Ottawa in May 2006 discussing not only Byron Prior's case but also contract murder of Dr. Mary-Anne Marshall in 2004 arranged by Alex T. Hickman.

9. After Tim Marshall went back to St. John's he put a lot of pressure on you Danny to have Hickman prosecuted for abuse of Prior family. He in fact was a part of coalition to have you turfed out Danny as you were so stupid to screw Loyola Sullivan's daughter who at the time was going out with your own son.

10. You Danny would not take it without a fight so in June 2006, you started a war in Newfoundland Legislature accusing Ed Byrne and others politicians of corruption, and you forced Ed Byrne out of your cabinet see; http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2006/06/22/nf-williams-byrne-20060622.html

11. By December of 2006 you have successfully managed to quell that rebellion by forcing Loyola Sullivan to quit politics and by moving Tim Marshall out of Minister of Justice portfolio into finance. see: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061230/Loyola_Sullivan_061230/20061230?hub=Politics

12. I January of 2007 you nominated your flunkies Tom Osborne, who was not even a lawyer as new Minister of Justice of Newfoundland and Labrador, see: http://www.assembly.nl.ca/members/cms/memberdetail.asp?MemberID=33

13. In January of 2007 CBC published information that Alfred Marshall filed a civil lawsuit against Dr. David Craig and the Waterford Hospital see: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2007/01/24/suicide-suit.html?ref=rss

14. After October 2007 elections, you Danny, nominated your buddy from your old law firm Jerome Kennedy, Q.C. as a Justice Minister to keep lid on things, see; http://www.pcparty.nf.net/jeromekennedy.htm

15. "ABC," (Anything But Conservative), campaign in 2008, that you waged in fall of 2008 had nothing to with your alleged dislike of Stephen Harper or his policies toward Newfoundland and Labrador, it was a plain retaliation for Norman Doyle starting a coup against you Danny in May 2006 that had to quelled by you by selectively exposing and selectively prosecuting corruption of your political opponents. You knew that in case CPC gains a majority they will retaliate against you. Your "ABC" effort was successful enough that Harper never got the majority in October 14, 2008 elections but he nevertheless scared you by winning more seats than you expected so in order to mend fences with Harper right after federal elections you shuffled your cabinet on October 30, 2008 and you put Tim Marshall back into Justice Minister position.

All of it was nice and good Danny but now it seems that the political climate has changed quite dramatically and it seems to me at least that you might fall a victim of your own sword. Your fingers are all over the cover-up of Dr. Mary-Anne Marshall's murder and worse still they are all over Byron Prior prosecution.

Your minion Justice Orr who got appointed to the judicial bench for his various services in support of drug traffickers in NL already said in court that he found Byron Prior guilty. Your other minion and contract murderer Dr. David Craig already said in court that he recommends locking Byron Prior in psycho ward of Waterford Hospital and he also recommends pumping Byron with Pimozide (orap) see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pimozide.

Danny, if your goons do what they said in court that they will, do you honestly believe that you will get away with all of that??

Canadian justice system has many of their own problems that they have to cope with and covering up for child rapist and murderer is not something that they can afford at the moment, especially now when they can throw old Hickman and you Danny under the wagon and score badly needed brownie points with Stephen Harper who will be around for a long time.


Karol Karolak P. Eng.

Subject: Letter to Hon. Gordon Campbell regarding Dr. Lionel Trevor Young

From Karol Karolak P. Eng.
To: Premier of BC the Honourable Gordon Campbell
Jan. 3, 2009
Dear Mr. Campbell,
Over last couple of days I have emailed you copies of numerous documents regarding a psychopath and suspected mass murderer disguised as a prominent Canadian psychiatrist Dr. Lionel Trevor Young.
Over a year ago I have sent copies of selected documents from my "Zyprexa Experiment File" to the University of British Columbia, Chief Constable of Vancouver Police, and to your parliamentary colleague Hon. Wally Opal, Attorney General of British Columbia. You can see a copy of a letter that I wrote to Hon. Wally Opal, below and you can see copy of his response in attachments.
This head in the sand attitude that was shown by your parliamentary colleague Wally Opal is quite shocking, even more shocking is the fact that despite of my warning your another parliamentary colleague Hon. George Abbott decided to rely on Dr. Trevor Young's "expertise" in drafting changes to BC Mental Health Act. See: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081231.wcoleman01/BNStory/National/home
I just wish that your parliamentary colleague Wally Opal exercised his due diligence and was somehow fooled by the homosexuals running Ontario Ministry of Attorney General into believing that I am some kind of a crank who makes up some baseless accusations against prominent member of Canadian medical community.
On a surface of things the truth of the matter seems much more sinister than I have ever anticipated. It seems that my warning about Dr. Trevor Young was taken as a letter of recommendation by wanna be criminals disguised as BC parliamentarians. It seems that Dr. Trevor Young advertised to Hon. George Abbott his inside track with pharmaceutical companies and dangled in front of him prospects of millions and millions of dollars in research grants that could flow into the coffers of University of British Columbia and into the back pockets of BC politicians in exchange for turning financial liability that BC homeless present for BC government into a financial windfall.
All that could be accomplished if the BC government were to cooperate in turning BC homeless into Guinea Pigs of pharmaceutical industry.
This is very similar pattern that was used elsewhere. In early 1990ties Department of Psychiatry of the University of Toronto was on a forefront of medical research, Dr. Eric Hood another psychopath disguised as prominent Toronto psychiatrist was put in charge of psychiatric outreach program helping "poor Inuit' cope with their own mental problems.see ;
According to his own CV Dr Eric Hood conducted secret and never published research into Suicidal Ideation and Behaviour in Eastern Arctic Population.
Prior to U of T involvement Inuit suffered high suicide rates but that was nothing compared to what they suffered as a result of help provided to them by Toronto psychiatrists, see; http://www.utpsychiatry.ca/DivisionsAndPrograms/SuicideStudies_docs/CASP06/CASP06-Cornelia_Wieman.pdf
Dr. Cornelia Wieman shows these results quite graphically (see attachment). She reports unusually high suicide rates in Baffin area. It is quite obvious that suicide rates among Inuit decrease proportional to distance to Baffin Regional Hospital. Dr. Wieman also shows steady increase of suicide rates from 6 in 1991 to 37 in 2003.
Year 1991 is significant in marking start of experiments with Zyprexa and start of Dr. Eric Hood's involvement with the Inuit.
Choice of a young psychiatrist Dr. Lionel Trevor Young from McMaster University, in Hamilton Ontario, who at the time conducted animal research (drowning test) on mice and rats, to be involved in U of T psychiatric outreach program at Baffin Island was not in any way shape or form accidental.
Drug induced suicides among Inuit due to drowning, still unaccounted for in suicide statistics, that Dr. Young observed during his stay at Baffin Island might have given Dr. Lionel Trevor Young an idea how to determine how depressed his mice and rats were, when he back to his McMaster University Lab.
It seems to me that illicit drug users and homeless people of BC are yet another population that shows increased suicide rates that could be significantly increased by Dr. Lionel Trevor Young intervention.
Considering the fact that you Sir were present in Ottawa in September of 2004, considering the fact that you were informed of Zyprexa Experiment and mass murder of Inuit during televised Premier's Conference on Fixing Healthcare for a Generation, considering the fact that the moment that the documents that I faxed you regarding mass murders of the Inuit was captured by the CBC cameras and broadcasted to all Canadian who cared to watch. Considering the fact that prior to that televised conference ex-Prime Minister of Canada Right Hon. Paul Martin asked you and all the other Premiers to prepare and deliver a speech about how Canadian government cares about health and well being of Native people of Canada and considering the fact during that televised conference ex-Prime Minister of Canada Right Hon. Paul Martin publicly offered Native people of Canada 800 million dollars to fix their healthcare, there is no way that you Sir can now claim ignorance and acting with good intentions.
Same goes for your dear friend and colleague Hon. Dalton McGuinty who was also knew as he was also present at that conference and did everything he could to cover up Zyprexa Experiment fiasco at Baffin Island and same practices at CAMH. His goons also did everything they could to cover up attempted murder of famous Canadian Mezzo Soprano Ms. Linda Maguire.

Prime Minister Paul Martin chats with Quebec Premier Jean Charest as Premiers Dalton McGuinty (left) of Ontario and British Columbia's Gordon Campbell chat in the background during a break in the First Ministers Conference on Health in Ottawa Tuesday Sept 14, 2004.(CP PHOTO/Tom Hanson)
Dear, Mr. Campbell, it is not the first time that BC serves as a dumping ground for Ontario criminals. see;
I would hate to learn that your friendship with Hon. Dalton McGuinty ruined your political career.
Karol Karolak P. Eng.
Subject: Letter to Hon. Wally Oppal, Q.C. regarding Dr. Lionel Trevor Young

Karol Karolak P. Eng.

1003 – 3125 Queen Frederica Drive

Mississauga, Ont. L4Y 3A6

Phone (905) 804 9564,

email karol_karolak@rogers.com

August 4, 2007.

Hon. Wally Oppal, Q.C.

Attorney General of British Columbia

PO Box 9044
Victoria BC
V8W 9E2

Dear Sir,

I am writing this letter to you just to give you a fair warning. In not so distant future you might have on your hands a problem so big that it would make current Picton’s Trial into a child’s play by comparison. The name of your potential problem is newly appointed;

Dr. Lionel Trevor Young

Professor and Chair, Department of Psychiatry

University of British Columbia
Department of Psychiatry
2255 Wesbrook Mall
Vancouver BC V6T 2A1

If you would like to know of a magnitude of your potential problem you might wish to consult with your colleague the Honourable Gordon Campbell, BC Premier, and ask him about Premier’s Conference held in Ottawa in September of 2004. At that time our ex-Prime Minister the Right Hon. Paul Martin Jr. made an attempt to defuse brewing scandal involving Dr. Eric Hood and Inuit of Baffin Island by organising televised Conference on “Fixing a Healthcare for a Generation” and offering to spend 800 million dollars to improve healthcare of Canadian Inuit population. I just happen to break up that farce by leaking relevant documents to Premiers of all provinces.

Premier Campbell most probably could tell you some juicy details about a very memorable dinner, which was held following day two of that Conference at 24 Sussex Drive, and lasted until 3:00 am.

I am sending you copies of relevant documents regarding Drs, Trevor Young and Eric Hood.


Minister Greg Byrne is confronted by Blogger!!

Minister Greg Byrne is confronted by Blogger!!


who is Greg Byrne ? a lawyer that work for PPHM law group and this group was all so

the Lawyer group that was M.R.D.C. lawyer all so ??? go to http://canlii.org and you find out

what is really going on in the Government



Wednesday, June 24, 2009

Bulldozing America

Bulldozing America

Back in 1996 in the beginning phase of J.A.I.L. Ron Branson wrote the following words.

"[T]he entire middle-class is planned to be obliterated, including you who are influential reading this. It is predetermined you be financially gutted. Your business is to be slowly depleted through "unfortunate" circumstances of debt foreclosure, bankruptcy, bad decisions, unable to meet tax obligations, poor business, and legislative control of your business and private property. …

Imagine for a moment the power of the Federal Reserve. They can shut down the housing market and cause all construction to cease with one phone call. They can just pick up the phone, place a call, and cause upheaval in the entire world market. They can send the stock market into a tailspin within minutes. They can bring about massive layoffs in all industries, or create a national depression at whim. They can do what no military power on earth can do, ruin the nation over the weekend and
never fire a shot.”

Behold, these days are coming upon this country. Since those days, J.A.I.L. has constantly be publishing the good news that “J.A.I.L. is the only answer,” likening these days the words of Christ, 37- 39 “But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.” Few has thus far listened to the words of J.A.I.L. even among patriots, and people who should know better. Shall their posterity look back upon these days and say, “Ron Branson was again right?

- Ron Branson

Accountability Initiative Law

Judicial Accountability Initiative Law (J.A.I.L.)

(California Initiative – Ver. 2-7-07)

Preamble. We, the People of California, find that the doctrine of judicial immunity has been greatly abused; that when judges abuse their power, the People are obliged - it is their duty - to correct that injury, for the benefit of themselves and their posterity. In order to ensure judicial accountability and domestic tranquility, we hereby amend our Constitution by adding the following provisions as Sec. 32 to Article I, which shall be known as "The J.A.I.L. Amendment."

1. Definitions. To avoid absurd results, words shall be given their plain, ordinary and literal meanings; and where appropriate, the singular shall include the plural and vice-versa. For purposes of this Amendment, the following terms shall mean:

a. Judge: A judicial officer hearing and adjudicating legal actions and proceedings within the judicial branch of government (to include arbitrator, mediator, or a private judge, any of whom is assigned by a court to hear involuntary proceedings). This definition shall not be construed to mean trial juror, prosecutor, or any administrative official.

b. Material allegations: Statements essential to the claim or defense presented in a pleading filed in court.

c. Blocking: Any unlawful act that impedes the lawful conclusion of a case, to include unreasonable delay and willful rendering of an unlawful or void judgment or order.

d. Corporate litigant: A party holding a corporate charter, as distinguished from a business license.

e. Juror: A Special Grand Juror.

f. Strike: An adverse immunity decision or a criminal conviction against a judge.

2. Exclusions of immunity. Notwithstanding common law or any other provision to the contrary, no immunities shielding a judge from frivolous and harassing actions shall be construed to extend to any deliberate violation of law, fraud or conspiracy, intentional violation of due process of law, deliberate disregard of material allegations, judicial acts without jurisdiction, blocking of a lawful conclusion of a case, or any deliberate violation of the Constitutions of California or the United States. The foregoing judicial misconduct shall not be construed to mean court decisions made within the authorized capacity of a judge.

3. Special Grand Juries. For the purpose of returning power to the People and ensuring the integrity of the judiciary, there are hereby created within this State three twenty-five member Special Grand Juries with statewide jurisdiction having inherent power to judge both law and fact. This body shall exist independent of statutes governing county Grand Juries. Their responsibility shall be limited to determining, based on the evidence shown on the record, whether any civil lawsuit against a judge would be frivolous or harassing, or fall within the exclusions of immunity as set forth in paragraph 2, or whether there is probable cause of criminal conduct by the judge against whom a petition/complaint is brought before the Special Grand Jury.

4. Professional Counsel. Each Special Grand Jury shall have exclusive power to retain non-governmental advisors, special prosecutors, and investigators, as needed, who shall serve no longer than one year, and thereafter shall be ineligible to serve; except a special prosecutor may be retained to prosecute to conclusion ongoing cases through all appeals and any complaints to the Special Grand Jury. Each Special Grand Jury may hire clerical staff, as needed, without time limitation.

5. Establishment of Special Grand Jury Facilities. Within ninety days following the passage of this Amendment, the Legislature shall provide a suitable facility for each Special Grand Jury. Each facility shall be reasonably placed proportionately according to population throughout the State, but no facility shall be located within a mile of any judicial body.

6. Annual Funding. The Legislature shall cause to be deducted two and nine-tenths percent from the gross judicial salaries of all judges, which amount shall be deposited regularly into an exclusive trust account created by this Amendment in paragraph 10 for its operational expenses, together with filing fees under paragraph 7, surcharges under paragraph 8, forfeited benefits of disciplined judges under paragraph 18, and fines, if any, imposed by sentencing under paragraph 16.

7. Filing Fees. Attorneys representing a party filing a civil petition or response before the Special Grand Jury shall, at the time of filing, pay a fee equal to the filing fee due in a civil appeal to the State Supreme Court. Individuals filing a civil petition or response on their own behalf before the Special Grand Jury as a matter of right shall, at the time of filing, post a fee of fifty dollars, or file a declaration, which shall remain confidential, stating that they are impoverished and unable to pay and/or object to such fee, pursuant to First Amendment right of redress.

8. Surcharges. Should this Amendment lack sufficient funding through its fines, fees, and forfeitures (including deductions in paragraph 6), the Legislature shall impose appropriate surcharges upon the civil court filing fees of corporate litigants as necessary to supplement the funding of this Amendment so as not to be chargeable to the public.

9. Compensation of Jurors. Each Juror shall receive a salary commensurate to that of a Superior Court judge, prorated according to the number of days actually served by the Juror.

10. Annual Budget. The Special Grand Juries shall have an annual operational budget commensurate to double the combined salaries of the seventy-five Jurors serving full time, which sum shall be initially deposited by the Legislature into an exclusive trust account to be annually administered by the State Treasurer. Should the trust balance, within any budget year, drop to less than an amount equivalent to the annual gross salaries of fifty Superior Court judges, the State Treasurer shall so notify the Legislature which shall replenish the account, prorated based on the actual average expenditures during the budget year. Should the trust balance in any subsequent year exceed the annual operational budget at the beginning of a new budget year, the State Treasurer shall transfer such excess to the state treasury. Except for the initial year, no expenses in paragraphs 6, 7, 9 and 10 of this Amendment shall be chargeable to the public.

11. Jurisdiction. Each Special Grand Jury shall have exclusive power to appoint a foreperson, establish rules assuring their attendance, to provide internal discipline, and to remove any of its members on grounds of misconduct. The Special Grand Jury shall immediately assign a docket number to each petition/complaint brought before it, unless such case is transferred to another Special Grand Jury to achieve caseload balance. A transfer shall not prejudice a docketing deadline. The Special Grand Jury first docketing a complaint shall have sole jurisdiction of the case. Except as provided in paragraphs 17 and 22, no petition of misconduct shall be considered by any Special Grand Jury unless the petitioner shall have first attempted to exhaust all judicial remedies available in this State within the immediately preceding six-month period. (Such six-month period, however, shall not commence in petitions of prior fraud or blocking of a lawful conclusion until after the date the Special Grand Juries become functional. This provision applies remedially and retroactively.) Should the petitioner opt to proceed to the United States Supreme Court, such six-month period shall commence upon the disposition by that Court.

12. Qualifications of Jurors. A Juror shall have attained to the age of thirty years, and have been nine years a citizen of the United States, and have been an inhabitant of California for two years immediately prior to having his/her name drawn. Those not eligible for Special Grand Jury service shall include elected and appointed officials, members of the State Bar, judges (active or retired), judicial, prosecutorial and law enforcement personnel, without other exclusion except previous adjudication of mental incapacity, imprisonment, or parole from a conviction of a felonious act.

13. Selection of Jurors. The Jurors shall serve without compulsion and their names shall be publicly drawn at random by the Secretary of State from the list of registered voters and any citizen submitting his/her name to the Secretary of State for such drawing. The initial Special Grand Juries shall be established within thirty days after the fulfillment of the requirements of paragraph 5.

14. Service of Jurors. Excluding the establishment of the initial Special Grand Juries, each Juror shall serve one year. No Juror shall serve more than once. On the first day of each month, two Jurors shall be rotated off each Special Grand Jury and two new Jurors seated, except in January it shall be three. Vacancies shall be filled on the first of the following month in addition to the Jurors regularly rotated, and the Juror drawn to fill a vacancy shall complete only the remainder of the term of the Juror replaced.

15. Procedures. The Special Grand Jury shall serve a copy of the filed petition upon the subject judge and notice to the petitioner of such service. The judge shall have twenty days to serve and file a response. The petitioner shall have fifteen days to reply to the judge's response. (Upon timely request, the Special Grand Jury may provide for extensions of time upon the showing of good cause.) In criminal matters, the Special Grand Jury shall have power to subpoena witnesses, documents, and other tangible evidence, and to examine witnesses under oath. Each Special Grand Jury shall determine the causes properly before it with their reasoned findings in writing within one hundred twenty calendar days, serving on all parties their determination as to whether or not immunity shall apply as a defense to any civil action that may thereafter be pursued against the judge. A rehearing may be requested of the Special Grand Jury within fifteen days with service upon the opposition. Fifteen days shall be allowed to reply thereto. Thereafter, the Special Grand Jury shall render final determination in writing within thirty days. All allegations in the petition shall be liberally construed. The Jurors shall keep in mind, in making their determinations, that they are entrusted by the People of this State with the duty of restoring judicial accountability and the perception of justice. The standard of authority by which the Jurors shall be guided in making their determinations shall not be opinions of courts, but shall be the Constitutions of California and of the United States and laws made in pursuance thereof. The Jurors shall avoid all influence by judicial and government entities. The statute of limitations on any civil suit brought pursuant to this Amendment against a judge shall not commence until a final determination by the Special Grand Jury. Special Grand Jury files shall always remain public record following their final determination. A majority of thirteen Jurors shall determine any matter.

16. Indictment. Should the Special Grand Jury also find probable cause of criminal conduct on the part of any judge against whom a petition is docketed, it shall have the power to indict such judge. The Special Grand Jury shall, without voir dire beyond personal impartiality, relationship, or lack of fluency in English, cause to be impaneled twelve special trial jurors, plus alternates, which trial jurors shall be instructed that they have power to judge both law and fact. The Special Grand Jury shall also select a non-governmental special prosecutor and a judge with no more than four years on the bench from a county other than that of the defendant judge, having jurisdiction solely to maintain a fair and orderly proceeding. The trial jury shall be selected from the same pool of jury candidates as any regular jury. The special prosecutor shall thereafter prosecute the cause to a conclusion, having all the powers of any other prosecutor within this State. Upon conviction, sentencing shall be the province of the special trial jury, and not that of the selected judge. Such term of sentence shall conform to statutory provisions.

17. Criminal Procedures. In addition to any other provisions of this Amendment, a complaint for criminal conduct against a judge may be brought directly to the Special Grand Jury, when all of the following conditions have been met: (1) an affidavit or declaration of criminal conduct has been lodged with the appropriate prosecutorial entity within ninety days of the commission of the alleged crime; (2) the prosecutor declines to prosecute, or one hundred twenty days have passed following the lodging of such affidavit or declaration, and prosecution has not commenced; (3) an indictment, if sought, has not been specifically declined on the merits by a county Grand Jury; and (4) the criminal statute of limitations has not run. Any criminal conviction (including a plea bargain) under any judicial process shall constitute a strike.

18. Removal. Whenever any judge has received three strikes, the judge shall be permanently removed from office, and thereafter shall not serve in any State judicial office. Judicial retirement for such removed judge shall not exceed one-half of the benefits to which such judge would have otherwise been entitled. Retirement shall not avert third-strike penalties.

19. Public Indemnification. No judge against whom a petition/complaint is brought, or sued civilly by a complainant pursuant to this Amendment, shall be defended at public expense or by any elected or appointed public counsel, nor shall any judge be reimbursed from public funds for any losses sustained under this Amendment.

20. Enforcement. No person exercising strict enforcement of the findings of a Special Grand Jury shall be held liable civilly, criminally, or in contempt.

21. Redress. The provisions of this Amendment are in addition to other redress that may exist and are not mutually exclusive.

22. Challenges. No judge under the jurisdiction of the Special Grand Jury, or potentially affected by the outcome of a challenge hereto, shall have any jurisdiction to sit in judgment of such challenge. Such pretended adjudication shall be null and void for all purposes and a complaint for such misconduct may be brought at any time, without charge, before the Special Grand Jury by class action, or by any adversely affected person.

23. Preeminence. Preeminence shall be given to this Amendment in any case of conflicts with statute, case law, common law, or constitutional provision. The foreperson of each Special Grand Jury shall read, or cause to be read, this Amendment to the respective Jurors semi-annually during the first week of business in January and July. Should any part of this Amendment be determined unconstitutional, the remainder shall remain in full force and effect as though no challenge thereto existed.