CSIS officials, counsel learning to share information with courts by Colin Freeze, April 17, 2017, The Globe and Mail
Faced with what is being called an “urgent need” to win back the trust of judges, federal-government spies and their lawyers are trying to learn how to be more forthcoming in court. [Do any of them, notably the lawyers, have any chances of learning anything other than how to lie better so as to not get caught and embarrass Canada, her lying (Charter violating) spies and courts? ]
Intelligence officials have commissioned expert reports and are taking courses on warrant-writing as part of actions to mitigate the fallout from a scathing Federal Court ruling. In that decision released last fall, a group of judges publicly complained that Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) officials and their Department of Justice counsel have not included enough information in their warrant applications.
In October, the Federal Court ruled that CSIS had used its warranted authorities to unlawfully warehouse communications data. The information related to people who were not targets themselves, but whose data were captured during surveillance operations on other people. The information was put into a CSIS data-analytics unit the judges said they were never told about.
“We took the court’s criticisms seriously,” said Christian Girouard, a spokesman for the Justice Department. “We wanted someone to come in from the outside with expertise who could review our practices and tell us how to do it better.” [Too pathetic! Too tragically funny! Didn’t the Justice Dept lawyers go to law school? Or did they get their degrees at Walmart?]
The CSIS controversy at Federal Court was revealed just as Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale had launched a public consultation on the surveillance powers of federal agents. It complicated already complex political debates, including how the Liberals should make good on their campaign promises to rein in some spy-agency powers and heighten Parliamentary scrutiny of intelligence operations.
At issue in the Federal Court are the closed-courtroom hearings in which officers from the domestic spy agency ask judges for permission to launch surveillance operations against individuals or groups in Canada, such as suspected terrorists, networks of foreign spies or the people around them. [Wrong! More like: ordinary innocent families concerned about fracking, LNG, tarsands, Bill C51; First Nations concerned about their Traditional Lands and Rights; anyone daring to ask intelligent questions publicly that might embarrass provincial or federal governments, and anyone daring to file lawsuits against oil and gas companies and their enabling, non regulating regulators!]
Details about what is said, done and authorized are almost never disclosed publicly for security reasons. [Security has little to do with it! The secret dealings are most likely incredibly suspicious abuses of power, that if made public, would have concerned Canadians asking questions about, or possibly filing lawsuits and Charter challenges. The courts and politicians don’t want that. Thus the big ugly secrets] What is at stake, however, are the broader principles of civil liberties and judicial integrity, especially as intelligence gathering evolves beyond conventional wiretapping toward increasingly complex, data-driven spying. [and much much much worse!]
CSIS and its Justice counsel are supposed to tell warrant judges everything they might want to know in the hearings. In 2013, a Federal Court judge complained in a written ruling of “strategic” omissions. Last year, 14 specially designated Federal Court judges ruled that CSIS and Justice had verged on contempt-of-court by failing – for a decade – to tell the court the spy agency had launched the data-analytics centre, where it was indefinitely storing telecommunications information drawn from wiretaps.
“Both [agencies] understand the urgent need to restore the confidence of the Federal Court in them, and have resolved to make every effort to repair this vital relationship,” reads one of two expert reports recently commissioned by the federal government. “… In each case, the Court expressed its disapproval in very strong language.”
The reports are on the Justice Department website. One of them was written in December by Murray Segal, a former chief prosecutor of Ontario, and it makes 21 recommendations for better policies and scrutiny around CSIS warrant applications. Mr. Segal urged ongoing training, and with an RCMP sergeant and several Crown lawyers, conducted a two-day course in January for 50 spy-agency and legal officials on best practices from the criminal justice system’s approach to obtaining wiretaps.
Speaking to The Globe and Mail, Mr. Segal suggested it is getting harder for spy-agency officials to tell judges everything they need to know. CSIS and its lawyers “are well-intentioned and extremely hard-working people who do … high-pressure work,” he said. The recent shortcomings, he added, were not about falsehoods so much as “not always being comprehensive in terms of bringing to the table all the issues a judge issuing an order might want to have.”
His report points out that Parliamentary law allows relatively intrusive spy-agency measures, but because CSIS lacks powers of arrest or to lay charges, no defence lawyers get to challenge the surveillance at trial.
“Indeed, even though a CSIS warrant can authorize profound intrusions into a person’s privacy, the target is never notified that he or she was ever a target. The adversarial challenge mechanism that elsewhere helps keep state power in check is generally absent,” Mr. Segal’s report said.
This, he added, “places a heavy responsibility on the service, on counsel and on the court to get it right.”
A followup report by John Sims, a former Justice deputy minister, gives specific guidance on how to implement the proposed changes. One of his points is that complex surveillance technologies and methods are blurring the lines on when CSIS needs warrants.
Mr. Sims suggests Federal Court judges may have several blind spots that CSIS and Justice must resolve soon. “An inventory of all programs and activities (including technical developments) related to CSIS operations that could potentially trigger a duty-to-disclose to the Court needs to be put together,” he wrote.
In addition to all this, CSIS and the Justice Department have lately signed on to a “full, frank and fair disclosure” courtroom policy that explicitly obliges CSIS officials to tell judges about any “new intrusive technique” being considered. [“Signed on” means nothing. A liar will keep lying, and law violator will keep violating the law]
The Canadian government reaction to intelligence-warrant practices stands in contrast to similar debates in the United States and Britain, where leaks about modern spy programs have brought information about intelligence agencies’ activities out into the open. In both of those jurisdictions, spy agencies were found to be using judicial warrants or ministerial orders to collect records relating to citizens generally – and not just spy-agency targets. Telephone-call logs, for example, were among several bulk data sets these agencies amassed in hopes it could be data-mined for potential leads.
The Canadian government has never had to weather such disclosure, but cryptic criticisms have been raised lately by CSIS’s watchdog agencies.
The Security Intelligence Review Committee said last year that CSIS had been collecting some data in bulk quantities without warrants, and urged judicial oversight for this.
Separately, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada has sounded the alarm about federal agents gravitating toward new technologies that “allow for personal information to be analyzed algorithmically to spot trends, predict behaviour and potentially profile ordinary Canadians with a view to identifying security threats among them.” [Emphasis added]
Some of the comments:
“In addition to all this, CSIS and the Justice Department have lately signed on to a “full, frank and fair disclosure” courtroom policy…”
Well that’s just precious. Given that CSIS and the Justice Department were required BY LAW to give full, frank and fair disclosure- and failed to do so- of what value is this statement that they’ll change their ways?
Look. For a decade or more, CSIS and the Justice Department were violating the law of the land. They willfully concealed vital information from Federal judges who were issuing warrants. Was anyone charged for their actions? Was anyone admonished, disciplined, demoted or removed? No. They just carry on as if nothing had happened while offering a vague statement about being more honest in future.
When government personnel violate the law with impunity, that’s a sign of corrupt government. And when those personnel are in the security establishment, that’s a sign of corrupt authoritarianism.
Absolutely right. CSIS conduct is an affront to our democracy. It is a filthy nest of rats and weasels who rummage through garbage.
They are all trained liars. The activities of the “intelligence” community are all based on telling lies. The Russian Doll metaphor of Le Carre’s Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy tells it all.
My father (now deceased) was a senior officer in the former RCMP Security Service. In one of the few moments where he spoke frankly about his work, he let it out that the operative was “don’t get caught”. It had nothing to do with following the rules but everything with avoiding being caught. What else would we expect from people engaged in such work – its all secret. Its not about open and transparent dialogue – its about secrecy. Hiding, covering up, manipulating, lying – doing what it takes to win are the attributes of a spy. Honesty, even to ones self, does not even factor into the skill set.
If that’s the case, then, at a bare minimum, active operational oversight that has nothing in common with the interests of those who benefit from “hiding, covering up, manipulating, lying” is required. As well, Bill C-51 needs to be revised with regard to the most dangerous aspects of that legislation.
At the moment, in Canada, real operational oversight doesn’t exist in any meaningful way, which stands in clear contrast with most (all?) of Canada’s closest neighbours legally and culturally in the global community. Examples include Australia, New Zealand, the US and the UK — all of them do have some form of active operational oversight of their security agencies.
in most occupations outside of public service, a willfully gross dereliction of duty is usually met with summary execution: immediate dismissal. in government, they are coddled with a crash course on honesty. and the taxpayer pays for this too.
Does any Law Society in Canada have jurisdiction over lawyers working for the Department of Justice?
From very first days, lawyers are taught that when acting as counsel for an applicant on an ex parte application (which a warrant application is) they have an absolute duty to make full and forthright disclosure of all relevant information to the Court. Failure to do so is a gross violation of professional ethics which would result in any other lawyer being hauled before the Discipline Committee of the Law Society of which they are a member – with very serious consequences.
Knowingly aiding and abetting a client to withhold relevant information in such circumstances is an equally serious violation.
So, what discipline did these Department of Justice lawyers face?
[AER lawyer Glenn Solomon lied in his arguments in Ernst vs AER at every level of court, and was never chastised or disciplined by any of the 14 judges hearing/reading the obvious lies. Seems lies by lawyers in Canadian courts are welcomed and valued. The system was created to perpetuate and nurture itself, and take care of judges, court staff, lawyers & their firms, criminals, the rich and corrupt.]
There needs to be better oversight of CSIS and CSEC, as well as their interactions with other agencies and governments, both domestically and internationally. The same applies to police forces at all levels and government as well.
Particular attention needs to be paid to “embedded” agents and police etc. The damage they can do that has nothing to do with their job is incalculable.
Wow so the dept of Justice sic. needs outside help to teach them how to tell the truth. You couldn’t make this stuff up. [Emphasis added]
[Refer also to:
2009 02 09: The Intimidation of Ernst A segment of Ernst presentation at Cochrane, Alberta, September 10, 2011
February 12, 2009: Following a CTV W5 National News segment of Ernst’s explosively contaminated well water and the ERCB’s (now AER, previously EUB) treatment of her, “undercover” Royal Canadian Mounted Police with Canada’s anti-terrorist squad arrive warrant-less at Jessica’s home in Rosebud to interrogate, harass and intimidate. EnCana, Alberta Environment and the ERCB had been served legal papers by Ernst two months previously.
The lead “police” interrogator lied to Ernst on the phone earlier in the week, telling her Harper’s anti-terrorist squad needed her to train them, and needed the trust Alberta landowners had in her, and her oil and gas industry expertise. Within an hour, Ernst caught him in his lie.
Abuse of police power to protect law violating regulators and illegal aquifer frac’er Encana?
2015 03 25: Did Harper and the oil and gas industry order RCMP/CSIS/Snipers to attack innocent mothers and grandmothers, and set aflame stripped police cars in New Brunswick to discredit all Canadians concerned about frac harms and lay a red carpet for Harper’s Bill C-51?
2015 08 07: How rampant is child abuse by RCMP officers? “Worst case of abuse police have seen.” Canada’s environmental activists seen as ‘threat to national security’, Police, security agencies describe green groups’ protests, petitions as ‘forms of attack’
2015 10 04: MUST READ! Will Canadian cops become next victims of industry’s water contamination and fraud? A dangerous new police “best practice?” RCMP members “drink the water” while “trying to understand the shale gas industry” and “educate” themselves. No word on if RCMP plan to try to understand, or investigate, the dangerous and rampant fraud associated with oil and gas industry’s widespread frac contamination, or the number to call if families need RCMP “water taster” to come taste their water after it’s been frac’d, as companies, regulators, and research councils try to cover it up, while lying to the public (including the police) that now toxic and explosive water is “common, normal, and safe”
2014 09 16: RCMP ignore “volley of gunfire” to concerned citizen’s home but warn government and industry: “Environmental extremists pose ‘clear and present criminal threat’ to Canada’s energy sector – more likely to strike at critical infrastructure than religiously inspired terrorists.” Canadian and Australian oil and gas lobby groups warn: Industry operations “impact aquifers” and “contaminate water resources” as pre-determined “bullshit” investigations, cover-ups and court rulings fix everything. No word if “religiously inspired terrorists” plan to retire because of the intense competition
2014 02 06: Complaint filed over alleged illegal searches of private information on Northern Gateway pipeline opponents by RCMP, CSIS and handing the information over to oil companies and Canada’s national energy regulator
2014 02 31: Communications Security Establishment Canada (CSEC) illegally spied on Canadians; Harper government insisted CSEC never spied on Canadians; Spy agency’s work with CSIS, RCMP fuels fears of privacy breaches
MUST READ Letters by Robin Mathews:
April 18, 2017
Brenda Butterworth-Carr, Assistant Commissioner RCMP, British Columbia, 14200 Green Timbers Way, Surrey, British Columbia, V3T 6P3
Justin Trudeau, the Right Honourable, Prime Minister, Hill Office, House of Commons, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0A6
Jody Wilson-Raybould, the Honourable, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, 284 Wellington Street, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0H8
Christy Clark, the Honourable, Premier, B.C., Box 9041, Station Prov. Govt., Victoria, B.C., V8W 9E1
Suzanne Anton, Attorney General, British Columbia, PO Box 9280, Station Prov. Govt., Victoria, B.C., V8W 9E2
Mike Morris, Minister of Public Safety, British Columbia, PO Box 9010, Station. Prov. Govt., Victoria, V8W 9L5
Mesdames and Sirs:
I write this letter (first) to seek answers from you, Assistant Commissioner Butterworth-Carr, concerning the present condition of the apparently falsely accused (and convicted) couple, John Stuart Nuttall and Amanda Marie Korody whose conviction on terrorist charges was nullified by Justice Catherine Bruce of the Supreme Court of British Columbia. (1)
From the others (above) addressed, I want (and I am certain Canadians want) action to provide the fullest accounting possible of “Project Souvenir” and of the crimes committed by RCMP officers (and others) in the pursuit of a fraudulent Terrorist Event.
This communication is sent as an Open Letter and will be widely distributed in Canada.
Canadians will ask – with every expectation of a complete answer – what kind of highly organized criminal undertaking drove the RCMP to employ more than 200 officers and millions of taxpayer dollars in order to produce a wholly fraudulent Islamic Terrorist Incident in this country? To do so, moreover, the Force implicated and allegedly entrapped two “impoverished recovering heroin addicts with mental health challenges” (2). Who gave the orders? Who else committed crimes? Did top elected officials know of (and participate in) the Criminal Conspiracy? Who was to benefit? What does the Criminal Conspiracy tell Canadians about the national police force and all those responsible for its conduct?
In her judgement, I will remind you all briefly (there is a great deal more that might be quoted from her conclusions than I will cite), Justice Bruce found officers of the RCMP involved (repeatedly) in serious, improper actions undertaken to create a false and fraudulent Islamic Terrorist Event at the legislature grounds in Victoria, B.C., July 1, 2013. I remind you, also, that RCMP officers very probably – under the Terrorism Section of the Criminal Code of Canada – engaged in criminal activities to which are attached sentences of life imprisonment … as well as lesser terms.
Justice Catherine Bruce states at paragraph 769: “Based on the evidence before me, I am satisfied that the RCMP knowingly exploited the demonstrable vulnerabilities of the defendants in order to induce them to commit the offenses.” At paragraph 770, she writes: “Not only did the police take over the leadership, but they committed illegal acts to enable the defendants to play their small part in the plan.” And she writes at paragraph 775: “This is truly a case where the RCMP manufactured the crime; this is not a situation where the police simply ‘instigated, originated, or brought about’ the offence”.
Significantly, Justice Bruce writes, earlier, at paragraph 63: “From the outset of the planning for Project Souvenir [the name given to the Nuttall/Korody entrapment] it was apparent that the RCMP at the National Headquarters E-INSET Division were regularly briefed on the progress of the investigation.” A police officer wrote (paragraph 63) “this is a priority investigation not only for E-INSET but also for the National Security Program from Ottawa HQ”.
The structure of E-INSET Division at RCMP Headquarters [INSET means ‘Integrated National Security Enforcement Teams’] involves a co-operating relation with CSIS (the Canadian Security Intelligence Service), with the Canadian Border Services Agency, and with other established police forces in Canada.
Canadians cannot know at present the complexity of the intended and effected criminal actions involved in what may fairly, I believe, be called the Nuttall/Korody entrapment [named by the RCMP ”Project Souvenir”]. We know E Division officers were in regular contact with E-INSET Division at the Ottawa Headquarters of the RCMP. Information at the trial, I am informed (without the transcript before me) made clear, also, that the [Stephen Harper] Prime Minister’s Office was informed regularly of “developments” in the preparation and execution of “Project Souvenir”.
It is for that reason, Prime Minister Trudeau, Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould, B.C. Premier Christie Clark, B.C. Attorney General Suzanne Anton, and B.C. Public Safety Minister Mike Morris you must set in action a full, complete,independent Public Inquiry into every aspect of the deeply unfortunate adventure that was almost certainly a complex structure of organized crime by people (officers of the RCMP… and who else? ) entrusted to keep the peace and to assure the rule of law in Canada.
In a previous letter to you (insultingly unacknowledged), Prime Minister Trudeau, and to you Minister of Justice Jody Wilson-Raybould … and to others in responsible positions I requested such an Inquiry be undertaken with a view to ascertaining precisely the responsibility of persons involved (to be publicly identified and charged) and to assure a full review of RCMP governance, day-to-day operation, public reporting, and internal structure in order to re-build the Force from the ground up…, making impossible a repeat of any undertaking like the Nuttall/Korody entrapment to effect a criminal purpose: “Operation Souvenir”.
We Canadians must be ashamed – as well as deeply troubled – that such an elaborate, allegedly large criminal conspiracy by police forces and others could take place in our midst. The failure by you – Prime Minister Trudeau, and you Minister of Justice Jody Wilson-Raybould – even to acknowledge a communication on a matter as deeply important as this one should send ‘a chill of terror’ down the spine of every Canadian. And it should inspire in Canadians, as well, a determination to learn who (secretly) so commands your loyalty that you refuse to act on behalf of Canada, Canadians, and the rule of law in this dominion.
The failure of B.C. Minister of Justice Suzanne Anton to reply and to act upon the information she received – in concert with Premier Clark, M. Morris, Minister of Public Safety – and the rest of the British Columbia cabinet is a condemnation of their role as holders of trust for all British Columbians. They are declaring, by their silence, that – at the least – they cannot be trusted to protect British Columbians.
In the miasma of unanswered communications, unacceptably anonymous (and, therefore, I assume fraudulent) replies (from the BC Ministry of Justice and the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP), the condition of John Nuttall and Amanda Korody is easily masked. Arrested (Justice Catherine Bruce attests) as the result of a fabricated fraud, they lost their dwelling place where they were living (by reports of neighbours) quietly and unobtrusively. In the process of being (allegedly illegitimately) detained by RCMP, they lost all of their possessions, including their pet cat.
Kept separated, in Remand Centres (deprived of their freedom), for three years, the two … after the presentation of Justice Catherine Bruce’s detailed findings of entrapment … were released. The RCMP has not taken responsibility for finding them accomodation comparable to that from which they were removed by RCMP actions. The RCMP has not restored to them household possessions comparable to the ones lost to them upon their (allegedly improper) arrest.
In addition, unless I am badly misinformed, the RCMP (improperly) holds personal documents of the couple which the two need and which can have no role in any continuing or fresh legal process. Refusing to return essential documents to John Stuart Nuttall and Amanda Marie Korody may well be a violation of the law. And … after Justice Catherine Bruce has revealed astonishing, repeatedly improper (almost certainly, criminal) behaviour of RCMP officers in relation to the couple, one would expect The Force would work impeccably to assure itself (and Canadians) of its determination to work flawlessly and without prejudice in relation to the misused pair. Instead, the present treatment of John Nuttall and Amanda Korody – to my mind – smacks of intimidation, of neglect, and, perhaps, harassment. Is that truly the state of our vaunted national Force: the Royal Canadian Mounted Police?
I request a reply from you, Assistant Commissioner Butterworth-Carr, assuring me (and other Canadians) the RCMP has found acceptable accommodation for John Stuart Nuttall and Amanda Marie Korody, has furnished the accomodation with acceptable furniture and necessary possessions – and has returned to the couple their identification documents and any other possessions the RCMP may be (improperly) holding that the two need in order to pursue undisturbed, peaceable, and tranquil lives.
I request from the others addressed (named at the top of this letter) the courtesy of reply … and a report of the actions they will undertake to bring to justice all those participating in the huge, complex, and expensive criminal activity named by the RCMP “Project Souvenir”. That was the elaborate fraud… undertaken to mislead Canadians about police activity, to brainwash and lie to Canadians about fake criminal acts, to indoctrinate Canadians with hatred of Islam, to treat Canadians as stupid dupes who can be led by the nose to believe any hateful, destructive slander that the perpetrators of the shameless deceit chose to invent, as well as, almost casually undertaken, sleazily, to entrap in order to exploit, to vilify, and to criminalize two especially vulnerable members of the community. Human beings operating “in trust” for the rest of us can, perhaps, stoop lower … but none of us, I think, wants to hear … how.
Failure to act – by the responsible people named at the top of this letter – can only mean they approve of the criminal activity undertaken as the major structure of “Operation Souvenir”.
I am, respectfully,
(1) Justice Catherine Bruce. 2016/07/29, Docket 26392, Registry Vancouver, “Regina v. John Stuart Nuttall and Amanda Marie Korody”.
(2) Barry Zwicker, “Brief to House of Commons Standing
Committee on Public Safety and National Security”,
Common Ground, November 2016, pp. 5 and 22.
March 26, 2017.
Justin Trudeau, The Right Honourable, Prime Minister, Hill Office, House of Commons, Ottawa. K1A 0A6.
Jody Wilson-Raybould, The Honourable, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, 284 Wellington Street, Ottawa, K1A 0H8
Suzanne Anton, Attorney General of British Columbia, Ministry of Justice, PO Box 9280, STN Prov. Govt., Victoria, B.C., V8W 9J7
Dear Mr. Trudeau, Ms. Wilson-Raybould, and Ms. Anton:
This letter is an open letter and will be distributed widely in Canada.
I wrote to you, Prime Minister, and to responsible others on January 30, 2017, in relation to the assault upon law and justice undertaken in B.C. (and Ottawa) in what appears to be an active criminal conspiracy on the part of a large, organized body of members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. They acted, one may believe, to violate the law and – specifically – to entrap converts to Islam: “impoverished recovering heroin addicts with mental health challenges” (1), John Stuart Nuttall and Amanda Marie Korody in the elaborate production of a false and fraudulent Islamic Terrorist Event in Victoria, B.C., July 1, 2013.
The assault upon law and justice is meticulously recorded by the Honourable Madam Justice Catherine Bruce in the Supreme Court of British Columbia. Justice Bruce writes in her judgement: 2016/07/29, Docket 26392, Registry Vancouver, “Regina v. John Stuart Nuttall and Amanda Marie Korody” paragraph 769: “Based on the evidence before me, I am satisfied that the RCMP knowingly exploited the demonstrated vulnerabilities of the defendants in order to induce them to commit the offences”. Justice Bruce writes, paragraph 770, “Not only did the police take over the leadership, but they committed illegal acts to enable the defendants to play their small part in the plan”. And she writes, paragraph 775, “This is truly a case where the RCMP manufactured the crime; this is not a situation where the police simply ‘instigated, originated or brought about’ the offence”.
Madam Justice Bruce writes earlier, paragraph 63, “From the outset of the planning for Project Souvenir [the name given to the Nuttall/Korody entrapment] it was apparent that the RCMP at the National Headquarters level considered the investigation to be urgent and a national priority”. She goes on: “Senior officers at RCMP Headquarters E-INSET Division were regularly briefed on the progress of the investigation”.
The seriously considered evidence and judgement by Justice Bruce which I placed before you Mr. Trudeau and Ms. Wilson-Raybould required (A) a response to me, and (B) publicly announced action to investigate in order to confirm the facts Justice Bruce placed on the court record, and to pursue prosecution of RCMP officers involved in the alleged criminal activities … as part of an overall and full review of RCMP operations.
The replies I received – written anonymously – and purporting to be from (a) a B.C. Ministry of Justice office and (b) from the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP were confused and – as I read them – intended to mislead. Since no one signed the letters, I could only believe they were fraudulent – and so I chose to regard them as frivolous. They read as if they are frivolously intended.
Your refusals to reply to me, Mr. Trudeau and Ms. Wilson-Raybould I take to be demonstrations of cowardice. I believe that you can only be considered (by reasonable and prudent Canadians) to be accessories to whatever crimes have been committed because of your failure to fulfill the responsibilities that your oaths of office and your positions – held in trust for all Canadians – require of you.
Your cowardice strengthens the alleged criminal position of the RCMP – individually, and as an institution – presenting an increased danger to the Peace, Order, and Good Government of Canada.
Your cowardice recalls the actions of Liberal Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau in all the matters relating to the October Crisis of 1970. Careful investigators allege that (with a small group of insider others) he released the RCMP from the requirement to act within the law, and bore serious responsibility for the murders of Pierre Laporte and Mario Bachand, as well as for countless criminal acts engaged in by the RCMP.
So alarming was RCMP criminal activity over several years in Quebec that on June 16, 1977, the Quebec government established the Keable Commission to investigate. In rapid response Pierre Trudeau, on July 6, 1977, established, by Order in Council, (thereby being able to avoid parliamentary scrutiny) The McDonald Royal Commission of Inquiry Into Certain Activities of the RCMP to counteract and smother the work of Keable. The McDonald Commission became the most expensive Royal Commission in Canadian history – its three Commissioners all closely connected to the Liberal Party. Francis Fox, then federal Minister of Justice, challenged the work of the Keable Commission to limit it and reduce its effectiveness.
The McDonald Commission created a smokescreen over criminal RCMP activities, examining them only in secrecy and without public report. Pierre Trudeau, some speculate, hastened to create the McDonald Commission in order to protect RCMP officers he released into criminal activity – and to protect himself from scrutiny in the matter.
Your cowardice – Mr. Trudeau and Ms. Wilson-Raybould, in the Nuttall/Korody matter – threatens justice and the rule of law in Canada. It cannot but appear to be tacit approval of the violence done to law and justice by the RCMP. If the RCMP is not to become a fully licensed criminal organization you must act to follow upon the findings of Justice Catherine Bruce. Already … many reasonable Canadians believe the country is moving towards the condition of a Police State – a belief confirmed again and again when police officers undertaking criminal acts are excused as not subject to laws which non-police citizens are held rigidly subject.
Which of you will say the country is not moving to the condition of a Police State when you – by simple observation – are doing nothing about a large body of RCMP officers, spending millions of dollars over many months, operating from Headquarters in Ottawa and E Division in British Columbia in order to commit crimes under the Terrorism Section of the Criminal Code which carry sentences of life imprisonment? Their months-long inhumane victimization of “impoverished recovering heroin addicts with mental health challenges” only reveals the conscienceless brutality of the RCMP members involved.
To the voting population of Canada, your refusal to act, Mr. Trudeau and Ms. Wilson-Raybould, says all that needs to be said about the government to which you belong … and its real intentions for the future of Canadians.
(1) Barry Zwicker, “Brief to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security”.Common Ground, Nov. 2016, pp. 5 and 22.
March 12, 2017.
Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP, P.O. Box 1722, Station B, Ottawa, Ont. K1P 0B3.
The Right Honourable Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada; the Honourable Minister of Justice, Canada, Jody Wilson Raybould; Suzanne Anton, Attorney General, British Columbia.
Dear Sirs, Mesdames:
This letter will be widely distributed to Canadians.
Your reply to me (March 7, 2017) is an insult to all Canadians.
As with the reply to me directed by Suzanne Anton, Attorney General of British Columbia, you have sent me an anonymous letter. I record that I conclude you are fully aware the matter of the letter sent to me, apparently from the Commission, is intended to absolve the Commission and the RCMP of any responsibility to the rule of law in Canada – and so no one in your employ will put his or her name to the tatter of disinformation included.
Briefly: that is a fascist action. It is, that is to say, the response of a body completely confident that it is in a dominant (rather than a responsible) position in relation to the population – and so can respond as an irresponsible, faceless voice … anonymously to anyone.
Madame Justice Catherine Bruce – in her judgement to which I referred you – points (most Canadians will agree) to what I am confident is the criminal nature of (at least a very large part of) the RCMP. As an arm of that body, you will do anything, it appears, to cover for the Force.
Your statement that the Commission will only “address those elements” not dealt with in the criminal trial is a resignation of responsibility that is perfectly consistent with the anonymous nature of your letter. A full and fair investigation of the activities of the RCMP in the Nuttall/Korody matter would go to the roots and beginnings of the undertaking (in Ottawa) and would accept no restrictions on scope. Your self-applied limitations say ALL that needs to be said about your role. It is, I conclude, to act as an obstructer of any move to make the RCMP an organization responsible to Canadians and to the rule of law.
Your statement that Justice Bruce entered a stay of proceedings “due to an abuse of process” is mostly incorrect in fact (as well as in grammatical construction). She acted to erase the conviction of the two hapless victims because she was convinced (and makes it plainly clear) members of the RCMP repeatedly engaged in highly improper behaviour. Indeed, anyone studying the “terrorism” section of the Criminal Code will see, clearly, that officers of the RCMP (according to the evidence discussed by Justice Bruce) are in peril under clauses carrying life sentences as well as under many,many other clauses involving lesser terms.
Laughingly and ridiculously – in any genuine understanding of the rule of law – you are operating under conditions demanding that “a public complaint concerning the conduct of a member of the RCMP shall be made within a year after the day on which the conduct is alleged to have occurred”. Only an organization acting in defiance of the fundamental organization and values of democratic society could operate with that utterly absurd demand. Your refusal to accept – under that nonsensical prohibition – my complaint simply underscores the fact that you exist (as many, many Canadians would attest) as an (expensive) repressive organization set in place without popular assent, and – consciously or not – you make up a part of the power in Canada increasingly cut loose from responsibility to the Canadian population and increasingly made the instrument of criminal corporate action, so-called ’international capital’, and what professor Anthony Hall has termed “imperial globalization”. [Emphasis added]
Subject: Amanda Korody/John Nuttall/RCMP
Date: February 26, 2017 at 9:59:40 PM PST
This communication is being sent also to The Public Prosecution Service of Canada and The Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP.
It is written as an Open Letter. Its contents are, I believe, important to Canadians, with special relevance to British Columbians in whose province the bold, expensive, complex, and possibly criminal entrapment of persons was undertaken by an apparently elaborate organization within the RCMP in order to create a false Islamic Terrorist Action.
The letter written to me in response to mine on the subject – to the Prime Minister and the Attorney General and Minister of Justice of Canada and to the Attorney General and Minister of Justice of British Columbia purports to be a response driven by the copy of my letter received by the Honourable Suzanne Anton, B.C.’s Justice Minister. Ms. Anton didn’t write the letter of reply, but sent it for reply, it would seem, to an irrelevant office – the Criminal Justice Branch – which could excuse itself, and does, as irrelevant to the matter … and then refers me to the Public Prosecution Office which would probably write me that it, too, is irrelevant to the matter … and suggest I direct my correspondence to another office…. The letter also suggests I might wish to make a complaint to the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP – an office in fact controlled by the RCMP but posing as a wholly independent body. Since the Commission often uses RCMP officers to investigate complaints against the RCMP … nothing more need be said. Nonetheless, I have already complained formally to that organization. It has not acknowledged my complaint.
Neither the Prime Minister nor the federal Minister of Justice/Attorney General nor their offices have acknowledged my letter.
Since the reply to me from the B.C. Ministry of Justice, Criminal Justice Branch (at the behest of Suzanne Anton) is the only reply I have received, I conclude it was the agreed upon respondent to my letter. The letter addressed to me is, quite simply, a sham, intended – I believe – to prevent the matter from going any farther. It may be, moreover, a disguised attempt to defend improper, probably criminal RCMP behaviour. It is a remarkable, confusing, and misleading letter. AND it is sent anonymously. Its anonymous nature assures that no person can be confronted because of the strange inadequacy of the letter … because … no one, apparently, wrote it. The letter takes pains to convey unclearly the idea that Ms. Anton has been wrongly approached on the subject of the Korody/Nuttall entrapment by the RCMP, as if she is only vaguely connected to issues involving the RCMP. The letter seems to suggest she is the wrong person to approach on the many matters involving individual freedom and public safety raised by the alleged RCMP entrapment. But contracts in the Western provinces of Canada with the RCMP are effected by the Attorneys General. And the RCMP in those provinces is answerable to the Attorneys General. On her legislative site, moreover, Ms. Anton is declared to be “responsible for justice issues for the government of British Columbia, and must ensure that the administration of public affairs is in accordance with the law”. The RCMP is a public body engaged in affairs of concern to the public – and responsible to the Attorney General. Ms. Anton has, in fact, power to act forcibly in the Korody/Nuttall matter as, perhaps, the most relevant responder. But …her behaviour, in relation to the RCMP, though not acceptable, is not – historically – unusual.
As will become clear, the RCMP in apparent cooperation with B.C. Liberal forces has given strong hints over some years that it may have acted and may act improperly and perhaps criminally.
Moreover, governments in Ottawa have used the RCMP for apparently grossly improper purposes. The RCMP did the major investigations upon which the thirty-one criminal charges were laid against senator Mike Duffy. At his trial in 2015 not one of the thirty-one charges could hold up in fair trial. Crying out for Public Inquiry, the sham case against Mike Duffy has been carefully avoided by the new Liberal government led by Justin Trudeau.
Looking historically, the best authorities on the October Crisis of 1970 in Quebec – with its imposition of the War Measures Act – are convinced that Pierre Trudeau and his small cabinet committee on Security and Intelligence employed the RCMP to engage in criminal acts to achieve Liberal political ends at the time. RCMP criminal acts were, in fact, the galvanizing force in the creation of the Quebec Keable Commission, the parallel McDonald Royal Commission Inquiry Into Certain Actions of the RCMP (1977-1981), and the the Jean-Francois Duchaine (Quebec) Inquiry. Indeed, the McDonald Commission – created by Order-in-Council (meaning ‘avoiding parliament’) – worked to prevent the effectiveness of the Keable Commission – confronting it in Court more than once in order to curtail its ability to discover RCMP wrong-doing. David Cargill McDonald, chief of three Commissioners was, at a point in the 1960s, head of the Liberal Association of Alberta. Top RCMP officers were alarmed when others in the force began to be confronted in civilian court with charges of serious criminality. They knew the Keable Commission would be unrelenting. And so they proposed a federal Commission. One may conclude that Trudeau’s willingness to create the McDonald Commission stemmed from his desire to protect RCMP officers he had led into criminal acts. He may also have foreseen a situation in which many fingers would be pointed at him. John Starnes, Trudeau’s appointee as director general of Intelligence and Security within the RCMP (1969), expressed anger to confidants at the attack on RCMP officers, saying they only ever acted on orders from the highest sources.
British Columbia’s history is depressing.
In the 1995-97 so-called Gustafsen Lake Standoff the role, behaviour, conduct, and misuse of power by RCMP actors is judged by many who were present, or observing, or later researching to have been summed up by the RCMP officer caught on a training film at the site claiming that “we” (the RCMP) “are specialists in smear and disinformation”. Attorney General at the time was Ujjal Dosanjh. He asked in the Canadian army for support. Many thoughtful British Columbians believe the Gustafsen Lake operation was one of the most barbarous criminal actions taken in modern Canadian history against indigenous people by the RCMP backed by Canadian armed forces.
Until his recent death one of the most pilloried of indigenous leaders, Wolverine, joined with many others to call for a full and impartial Public Inquiry into the incidents at Gustafsen Lake … and the aftermath court cases and convictions. No B.C. Liberal Attorney General has ever supported that just and reasonable request.
A major actor in the Gustafsen Lake matter was Sgt. Peter Montague, the official RCMP press spokesman who supported the banning of press representatives in the area and who fed “information” to the outside world. He is alleged to have faked a crisis and gained a CBC broadcast into the area on illegitimate grounds. The Republic (Vol 2, No. 46) reports that in an inquiry following Gustafsen Lake, Peter Montague “blurted out that he was in charge of smear campaigns and that Gustafsen Lake Indians were his target.” A wealth of information is gathered about “the Standoff” in the book by John Boncore Hill (“Splitting the Sky”) and Sandra Bruderer: From Attica to Gustafsen Lake, 2001.
Following hard upon Gustafsen Lake came the attack upon premier Glen Clark for what proved to be – in the 136 day trial – baseless accusations of wrong-doing. A chief investigator in the case – recorded in the court proceedings as (a) close to the Liberal Party, (b) to major personalities in the Party, and (c) to have been asked twice by Gordon Campbell, Liberal leader, to run for office, was Sergeant Peter Montague of the RCMP. Clark’s lawyer, David Gibbons asked the judge, Justice Elizabeth Bennett, on more than one occasion to close the trial – there being no cause of action in the accusations brought against Clark. Justice Bennett refused … and at the close of the trial declared there was no basis for the accusations against Clark. She alone can say why she permitted the trial to continue for 136 days, during which the press and media of British Columbia (though not all of it) ravaged decency and the character of Glen Clark in a fashion only worthy of a fascist state. (See the book by Judi Tyabji, Daggers Unsheathed:The Political Assassination of Glen Clark, Heritage House, 2002.)
IMPORTANT. The behaviour of the RCMP in the Glen Clark matter- giving the appearance of creating a criminal case on an almost wholly false gathering of so-called “evidentiary material” appears to have become a mode of procedure for that body. Much discussion was in play at the time about apparent irregularities in RCMP investigation techniques. I asked the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP to review the RCMP practices in the matter. Soon after, RCMP officers closed the review – an action subsequently described by the Commission as “improper”. In their note to me the officers reported they had gathered twenty-eight volumes of evidentiary material to present to the prosecution. After 136 days of trial, the material was judged to be without merit. In 2015 – apparently the same kind of investigation was conducted in the Senator Mike Duffy affair. Enough, we were led to believe, was unearthed to support thirty-one criminal charges against the senator. At the end of a two month trial not one of the thirty-one criminal charges based on RCMP “evidentiary material” could stand up in court. Are we witnessing a new means of destroying political enemies in Canada…?
Both the Glen Clark case and the Mike Duffy case require full-scale Public Inquiries if Canadian democracy is to be protected. The failure to establish Inquiries casts the integrity of the relevant attorneys general into question.
In British Columbia in 2003 – in relation to what is called The BC Rail Scandal (the corrupt transfer of BC Rail from public ownership to the CNR now headquartered in Texas) the Attorney General and Minister of Justice for B.C., Geoff Plant appointed a Special Crown Prosecutor, William Bernardino, in flagrant violation of the legislation covering the appointment of Special Crown Prosecutors. Bernardino worked until 2010 in the position, helping the RCMP fashion the charges against three Sikh civil servants: Dave Basi, Bob Virk, and Aneal Basi. And he conducted the trial against them. The illegitimate appointment of William Bernardino was based upon his seven years as partner and colleague of Attorney General Plant and his eleven years as partner and colleague of the Deputy Attorney General, Allan Seckel. Gordon Campbell was so pleased with Allan Seckel that, in 2009, he raised him to the highest civil service position in government: head of the BC Public Service.
At the time of the Attorney Generalship of Mike de Jong (2009 -10), presently Minister of Finance, I wrote to the Attorney General reporting the illegitimate appointment of the Special Crown Prosecutor which – in effect – made the whole trial and pre-trial conducted by Bernardino utterly illegitimate. The Attorney General refused to reply to me, though I wrote him twice, formally. Instead, I received a letter from the Assistant Deputy Attorney General informing me that no action could be taken because the matter was sub judice,
It wasn’t. Willam Bernardino was acting (illegitimately) as Special Crown Prosecutor in the case against Basi, Virk, and Basi. But NOTHING relating to his illegitimate appointment was being adjudicated. I responded with that information to the Assistant Deputy Attorney General … receiving no response whatever.
When the BC Rail Scandal trial against Basi, Virk, and Basi came to a dramatic end with the BC government offering to pay the six million dollars of the costs facing the accused if they would agree to immediate termination of the trial, British Columbians wanted to know who could “buy off” the accused with that huge sum drawn from the taxpayers of B.C. The situation in court had reached the point at which more than two dozen people, many of whom were believed to have been major in the dark dealings leading to the loss of BC Rail by British Columbians, were lined up to face cross-examination by Defence lawyers. The first two were made to look like incompetent human beings who could hardly remember their own names. Their exposure was devastating…and another two dozen were to follow – any one of whom could make an accidental statement that would blow the trial sky-high.
Astounding as it may seem, the prosecution was in very, very deep trouble … and was willing to pay six million dollars (as well as dropping all serious charges against the accused) to get out of court … quickly. That all happened.
British Columbians wanted to know whose signature was on the order to pay six million dollars to the accused. No one would tell. Gordon Campbell stepped down as leader. Christie Clark became premier with Shirley Bond on her arm as Attorney General. The Auditor General of B.C. also wanted to know who had permitted six million dollars of taxpayers’ money to be used – in effect – to buy off the accused in the case so it could be shut down.
While professing cooperation in every way, Shirley Bond, chief law officer of the Crown, B.C. Attorney General, did everything she could, with Christie Clark, to deny the Auditor General and the people of British Columbia information they had every right to possess. The information was never given up by Shirley Bond or Christie Clark. Ms. Bond was acting in opposition to every value the Attorney General of British Columbia is expected to possess.
And now, in the position of Attorney General and Minister of Justice for British Columbia is Suzanne Anton. In reply to my letter to her requesting investigation of prima facie illegal acts by the RCMP, she had an anonymous writer send me a letter containing what I believe to be deliberately misleading information. My letter was straightforward and reasonable. I requested full investigation of the matters set down plainly by Justice Catherine Bruce that point clearly to the strong possibility of improper action by members of the RCMP. Investigation would lead to charges being laid or not laid. And then “the conduct and supervision of any criminal prosecution would fall to the Criminal Justice Branch”.
I urged “that a Public Commission of Inquiry be struck to review ALL the offices, All the directions, All the positions held in the Force, and ALL the activities of the RCMP in Canada with a view to a major reconstruction of the Force, making it fully and completely responsible to ALL of parliament through on-going and revolving parliamentary committees with unimpeded powers to summon, to question, to receive information from RCMP members, and to report regularly and fully to Canadians.
I claim that Suzanne Anton is deliberately refusing to fulfill her obligations as Attorney General and Minister of Justice. She has spawned an anonymous letter to me to prevent any identifiable person from being held responsible for statements made there, in fact, on behalf of Suzanne Anton who – for reasons of her own – does not want to take responsibility for the statements. Unless significant public action is taken concerning the calculated entrapment of John Nuttall and Amanda Korody by the RCMP – then Canadians may believe the dark and ugly treatment those two were subjected to has the full support of the last and present Prime Ministers of Canada and the federal Minister of Justice under Stephen Harper and now under Justin Trudeau. With the continuing willingness in British Columbia of Attorneys General to support any vicious irregularity engaged in by the RCMP (only some of that history has been repeated here) British Columbians may expect to witness (and perhaps suffer from) an unbridled RCMP engaging in criminal activity in flagrant contradiction of the expectations British Columbians and all other Canadians have of their so-called “National Police Force”.
That is the picture in relation to what is almost certainly gross behaviour of the RCMP in pursuit of an insane project to create a terrorist action out of thin air.
But the apparent knitting together of politicians in power and the RCMP is damaging on a much larger and much less evident landscape than dealt with above. Just for instance: in the thick of the BC Rail Scandal trial evidence was produced that pointed to what many suspected: active Breach of Trust by a designated section of a major Ministry to weaken, to undercut, to block sustainability, to sell off profitable fragments so that BC Rail could be claimed to be a negative asset, losing more and more money … and so ripe for dumping. I asked the top RCMP officer to investigate the evidence readily available … and he refused to do so. By the same token, right now, the budget making of the Christie Clark government may well contain what will be exposed in coming years as criminal deceptions, discreditable and dishonest accounting practices, sleight-of-hand buryings of what ordinary British Columbians would call “debts” but are kept off the balance sheet by naming them different names that, in effect, hide secret contracts (with Independent Power Producers, for instance) that are skyrocketing “obligations”, future requirements to pay gigantic sums – but kept off what British Columbians would think have absolutely to be reported and absolutely to appear on the balance sheets as DEBT. In addition “forecasting” of power needs in the future (falsely) suggests revenue that will never appear to manage multiple forms of indebtedness – though only some part of future indebtedness is reported.
The game of doing what ordinary British Columbians would call “faking the books” goes on all the time in B.C. and with particular intensity with regard to anything that is done in, around, or through BC Hydro (which many informed observers believe is a more sophisticated way than happened with BC Rail to bundle it for “dumping” to, probably, out-of-country sale and a painful, long-term knee-capping of British Columbians and the B.C. economy. Why would the government in power do that? you ask. The answer is another question: Why did Gordon Campbell and his circle destroy a profitable railroad that was contributing wealth and stability to the BC economy and dump it in the lap of (now U.S.) CN Rail? When you answer that question, you will have the answer to the on-going, planned, heart-breaking wreckage of BC Hydro.
If the RCMP was what it should be in British Columbia, dependable and informed British Columbians could go to it and say: “We want to talk to a few of your specialists on Corporate Crime”. And after a time the rule of law could be introduced to BC Hydro. I do not believe it is operating there now. But with the RCMP (as it appears to me) tucked in the waistband of Christie Clark’s golfing jacket, there is nowhere for deeply concerned people to go to get some action to check the ever-deepening rot in BC Hydro. If I remember correctly, it was shortly after Christie Clark became premier that the RCMP was given a renewed twenty year contract to police B.C. [Emphasis added]