Chat or Talk in the INReview Discussion Forum Chat or Talk in the INReview Discussion Forum
 
register chat members links refer search home
INReview INReview > The Scuttlebutt Lounge > Politics & Government > Law > most accurate test on US?s ?democracy? for people in world: CNN?s iReport
Search this Thread:
  Print Version | Email Page | Bookmark | Subscribe to Thread
Author
Thread Post New Thread   
freedomfighter5
Qualified Rookie

offline
Registered: May 2006
Local time: 11:39 PM
Location: Canada
Posts: 13

most accurate test on US?s ?democracy? for people in world: CNN?s iReport post #1  quote:



The following is what I published on some forums in China, and some people have tested and found what I said is true - the CNN sets a hidden filter on its purportedly un-moderated iReport forum to filter out my post that reveals the racial/political persecution by the US and Canadian governments. Now it is clear how hypocritical of the US's "freedom of speech" is. While the US attacks China for "restricting free speech of Chinese people on Internet", it itself is doing the same but just UNDERGROUND.:




I have published my story on some Chinese forums in China about how the US and Canadian governments commit racial/political persecution on me. Yet many Chinese did not believe my story because of their ever so strong faith in Western ?democracy?.

Learning that from China people can view US?s CNN Website, I found a most direct and accurate way for the Chinese in China to test the US ?democracy? by their own experience ? try to publish my story on CNN?s ?iREport?. As claimed by CNN, every one can post stories that she/he considers a news in this section, and all users at iReport can share each other?s news stories even though the CNN does not pick up these stories as news and report them.

On October 22, 2006, I tried to publish my story to iReport. However, each time when I finished and pressed the ?submit? button, a white page turned up with a message: ?You are not authorized to view this page??. Even if I changed my user name, still the same happened. Yet when I only wrote one word ?test?, it got published right away when I pressed the ?submit? button. Obviously the CNN, one of the major media in US, the leader of the world?s ?democracy? cause, had already set up a filter to filter out my story ? whenever my name or certain key words of my story appear, the post is automatically blocked. Then I played a little trick ? used a nick name, wrote up a simple message without my real name and URL of my Web page, but in stead used a link to my post on a Chinese forum <LINK REMOVED> , and when I pressed the button, it was successfully submitted! Although from the link people on iReport at that moment could only see mostly Chinese, but there is some English writing about my story there and the URL of my English Web page is there. This is kind of ?black humor? indeed.

This was the first time I tried to publish my story with CNN. Years ago, I only tried to get my story published by NEW YORK TIMES, WASHINGTON POST etc. newspapers, and I also tried to do that on HAVE YOUR SAY of NEW YORK TIMES. But of course got no response at all and my message on HAVE YOUR SAY of NEW YORK TIMES was deleted moments later. It was years ago and I have never contacted the CNN in anyway. It is incredible that CNN would already anticipate my attempt to publish my story on its iReport and had already set up a filter awaiting for me. Apparently this is a government operation. Otherwise it is hard to believe all the US media would have the same knowledge about my story and act in the same way to block its exposure.

Now here I would like to invite all friends on the Chinese forums to test the American ?democracy? by their own personal experience. First, use the English version of my story or any of my complaints, to the US Congress or the United Nations? Office of High Commissioner for Human Rights, plus the URL of my Web pages: <LINK REMOVED> , put down a whatever name and try to publish it. The subject line must be in English such as ?Chinese immigrant in Canada complains to the US Congress against abuse of rights by US government?, etc. (Some Chinese people have already tested out and found the filter). (Please make sure to check back few minutes or hours later to see if it is still there in case your post got published.) And then try to publish a story about some kind of news in China or anywhere else. (Must be true story just in case). There should be no my name and Web page in it. Now you will see the difference and understand the so called ?democracy? of the US. If you need any English version of my story, go to my Blog on Sina.com, <LINK REMOVED>


Old Post 12-11-2006 12:10 AM
Click here to Send freedomfighter5 a Private Message Find more posts by freedomfighter5 Add freedomfighter5 to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore freedomfighter5 REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

Diamond Member
Lawless
All About Brad!

offline
Registered: Jun 2003
Local time: 03:39 PM
Location: Freezing in Colorado
Posts: 27144

post #2  quote:

Do not advertize other boards, etc... on INReview. Please see the forum rules for further information if you need to understand this better.

Old Post 12-11-2006 12:16 AM
Click here to Send Lawless a Private Message View Lawless's Journal Visit Lawless's homepage! Find more posts by Lawless Add Lawless to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore Lawless REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

freedomfighter5
Qualified Rookie

offline
Registered: May 2006
Local time: 11:39 PM
Location: Canada
Posts: 13

post #3  quote:

I am sorry about that. It will not happen again.

quote:
Lawless said this in post #2 :
Do not advertize other boards, etc... on INReview. Please see the forum rules for further information if you need to understand this better.


Old Post 12-11-2006 12:34 AM
Click here to Send freedomfighter5 a Private Message Find more posts by freedomfighter5 Add freedomfighter5 to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore freedomfighter5 REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

Gold Member
Whidden
KANSAS LAW DOG

offline
Registered: May 2003
Local time: 05:39 PM
Location: Yon Woady Pump
Posts: 16676

post #4  quote:

quote:
freedomfighter5 said this in post #3 :
I am sorry about that. It will not happen again.




You can copy and paste your writings here in this thread if you want, that way people can read it here.


Old Post 12-11-2006 12:37 AM
Click here to Send Whidden a Private Message View Whidden's Journal Find more posts by Whidden Add Whidden to your buddy list Send an AIM message to Whidden Whidden's MSN ID is whidden1@cox.net Click Here to Ignore Whidden REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

Diamond Member
Lawless
All About Brad!

offline
Registered: Jun 2003
Local time: 03:39 PM
Location: Freezing in Colorado
Posts: 27144

post #5  quote:

We aren't against links... but they can't be to other boards. And they can't be for something that is blatently personal advertizing, or to make money. So, just do as Whidden suggested, by doing copy and paste on things, and post them here.

Old Post 12-11-2006 12:41 AM
Click here to Send Lawless a Private Message View Lawless's Journal Visit Lawless's homepage! Find more posts by Lawless Add Lawless to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore Lawless REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

freedomfighter5
Qualified Rookie

offline
Registered: May 2006
Local time: 11:39 PM
Location: Canada
Posts: 13

Thanks a lot! post #6  quote:

So there are still some Americans who truely believe in democracy!

quote:
Whidden said this in post #4 :



You can copy and paste your writings here in this thread if you want, that way people can read it here.


Old Post 12-13-2006 01:01 AM
Click here to Send freedomfighter5 a Private Message Find more posts by freedomfighter5 Add freedomfighter5 to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore freedomfighter5 REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

freedomfighter5
Qualified Rookie

offline
Registered: May 2006
Local time: 11:39 PM
Location: Canada
Posts: 13

Thanks a lot for your tolerance and I see real democracy here! post #7  quote:

quote:
Lawless said this in post #2 :
Do not advertize other boards, etc... on INReview. Please see the forum rules for further information if you need to understand this better.


Old Post 12-13-2006 01:02 AM
Click here to Send freedomfighter5 a Private Message Find more posts by freedomfighter5 Add freedomfighter5 to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore freedomfighter5 REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

freedomfighter5
Qualified Rookie

offline
Registered: May 2006
Local time: 11:39 PM
Location: Canada
Posts: 13

post #8  quote:

LIAO'S HUMAN RIGHTS CASE IN CANADA AND USA:
Wanxia Liao

Summary of Content:
{ I }. The infringement of my right to academic freedom by a professor's racial harassment consisted of serious fraud at the University of Toronto, Canada.
{ II }.The conspiracy of U of T, Ontario Human Rights Commission, and a professor of University of California at Berkeley, US, to cover up for the fraud of the racial harassment.
{ III }.The conspiracy of the OHRC, U of T and the UC professor to set me up for criminal prosecution on a fabricated crime to suppress my pursuit of my human rights complaint at the OHRC. The Canadian criminal justice system joined in the persecution and criminalized me for this bogus crime.
{ IV }. The Canadian and US civil and criminal justice systems' refusal of all my fundamental legal rights :
 Refuse my legal right to redress indictable crimes against me committed by agents of Canadian and US governments.
 I am completely barred from access to court in Canada and partly in US for my civil rights cases against the both governments and the courts denied all my due process rights.
{ V }. Suppression of my right to freedom of expression for cover up for the Canadian and US governments.
{ VI }. Canadian and US cover up at UN.
{ VII }. Updates on the development of my cases.

I am a Chinese immigrant residing in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. My human rights case started with an academic dispute between a professor David Waterhouse of the University of Toronto (U of T) and me about whether "the concept of beauty" is a "European concept", and developed into a brutal political/racial persecution on me organized by the Canadian and US Governments. This persecution was purposed to cover up the fraud committed by Waterhouse in his retaliation against me for loss of his argument on the "concept of beauty". It involved a conspiracy of the Ontario Human Rights Commission (the OHRC), the U of T and a professor, James Cahill of the University of California at Berkeley (UC) to set me up for criminal prosecution on a fabricated crime plotted by an entrapment using the "confidentiality rule" of the Commission. The Canadian criminal court criminalized me for this bogus crime. And in the meantime, both the Canadian and US criminal systems denied my most fundamental legal right to redress true crimes against me committed by agents of the both governments, such as perjuries committed by an OHRC officer at my criminal trial, Cahill?s perjuries against my civil rights case against him in US, a court supervisor of California?s forgery of court document, etc., despite these crimes are all proven on written documents. The US government even refuses to investigate public death threat on Internet by agent of its government which threatened that the government would make me "disappear". Meanwhile the civil courts both in California, USA, and in Canada are actively engaging themselves in the oppression of my litigation against the perpetrators of my human rights case. This engagement in US even involves the California Court of Appeal judges? conspiracy with the defendants of my civil rights case to fraud California laws to deceive me and on that basis to dismiss my case. California Superior Court supervisor went as far as to commit criminal fraud to forge court document to set me up for the defendant of my case to prosecute me as ?vexatious litigant? for purpose to bar me from access to court, etc. In Canada, I have already been unlawfully barred from access to court by court order, and all my due process rights were literally denied by courts, in that I was not even allowed to oppose the defendants of my civil rights cases ? to argue with them in anyway the law provides. With compelled exclusion of my participation in my cases, the court decided on my cases one-sidedly with the Defendants to dismiss all my cases. I have to publish my story on the Internet since virtually all Canadian and U.S. main stream media declined to publish my story, and those so-called "human rights groups" such as the "Human Rights Watch", etc. ignored my request for investigation. Further more, the cover ups for Canada and US have expanded to the United Nations so that my access to international human rights community has also been blocked by Canada and US. As the Office of ?High Commissioner for Human Rights? of UN, headed by Louise Arbour, a former judge of Supreme Court of Canada, seized all the complaints I sent to UN?s human rights bodies, in violation of the UN?s human rights complaint procedures. It is a best illustration of hypocrisy of the "Western democracy and freedom".

{ I }. The racial harassment at U of T
In 1991, when I was a MA student at the University of Toronto, Canada, I had an academic dispute with a professor in East Asian Studies Dept., David Waterhouse. Waterhouse made a finding that "beautiful" is a European concept and Asians did not have the concept in history, because it was the "first aesthetic response in history" that Adam and Eve in Bible story found the trees "pleasant to sight", yet the Japanese word and Indian word "beautiful" did not originally mean what Adam and Eve felt. Waterhouse then called to establish a "biological/racial approach" to art history studies that stemmed out from an art history theory formulated in 1930's Germany which was criticized by American Jewish art historian Schapiro as "significantly promoted race feelings" in history.

I asked Waterhouse about the origin of English word "beautiful" and he checked out that it was borrowed from Latin language; I submitted to him that the Chinese word "beautiful" originally meant "pleasant to sight". Then I found myself being subject to Waterhouse's prejudice that "Poor Chinese still want to claim historical inventions". In response I provided him in my term paper with material evidences not only from the Chinese but some other sources to prove that the concept of "beautiful" is universal to all human beings in history. I also questioned his "biological approach" theory.

While admitting to me by writing that he had to agree with my findings on the concept of beauty, Waterhouse took a reprisal harassment against me that was purposed to interfere with my Ph.D application and that consisted of a series of fraud, in violation of the university's grading systems, and academic regulations. The violations so far known to me are: a). Waterhouse frauded a B as final grade of the course for me while the course was still in progress and submitted it to the Graduate School and the department admission committee for its admission and scholarship ranking meeting; b). when submitting this fraudulent grade, Waterhouse bypassed the Chair of the department for grade reviewing as required by the university's grading policy, and the then Chair is Asian in ethnicity (Korean); c). Waterhouse provided a reference letter for my Ph.D application in that he fraudulently identified himself as my program supervisor to magnify his capacity in his objection of my application; d). his objection to my application was based on an erroneous ground since as an art history course instructor, Waterhouse had no academic capacity to make the judgement that my academic preparation for another academic field - Chinese literature studies was inadequate.

In addition, there are evidences surrounding this erroneous grade that contradict what the U of T's claim that it was a innocent "mistake" resulting from some "confusions" on Waterhouse and the University's part. For instance, although when submitting the grade, Waterhouse changed the course designation title, the grade was entered by the grade processing clerk in the Student Records Office of the School of Graduate Studies. Waterhouse and U of T claim that the clerk "assumed" the change of the course designation by Waterhouse was only a clerical error, then changed it back and entered it without verifying it with Waterhouse and the Department as the grading system of the University requires. However, the material evidences known to me in my academic files in the Department and the Student Records Office show that, before this grade was entered, there was a communication between the clerk and the Department about the grade which indicates that the Department (the Graduate Coordinator) had already become aware of this change of the course designation at the Student Records Office. Meanwhile, when changing the designation of the course title and entering the grade, the clerk made a note on the Grade Submission Form: "See attached" which apparently indicates the reason for the change and entry. However, The content of that communication, including the clerk's "Attached" note (e.g. whether that was a verification of the grade with Waterhouse) has been kept as a secret by the U of T, as the U of T refused my inquiry about this communication in the process to investigate my complaint against this grade and Waterhouse. The U of T further denied my right under the university's official policy on access to student academic record to examine my academic files both at the Student Records Office and the Department so that the content of that communication remainsed as a secret.

However, based on evidences, it is clear what happened is that the clerk at the Student Record Office of the Graduate School noticed the incorrect submission of Waterhouse's grade submission form when entering this grade, since it did not match my course designation recorded in her computer. She then contacted the Graduate Coordinator of the Dept. Prof. Ward, who in turn contacted Waterhouse to clarify this matter. Waterhouse then confirmed his fraud to the Dept., and that caused the entry of this fraudulent grade. This is a very serious fraud and by the University's policy, such intentional violation of grading policy would subject Waterhouse to serious sanction. But since I was a racial minority student to the University, the university violated its own official policy to cover up the fraud for Waterhouse, a White member of the privileged class.

This cover up for Waterhouse's fraud is the very reason for all the brutal persecutions on me by the U of T, joined by the Ontario Human Rights Commission, and the civil and criminal justice systems. At the time, since I was not aware of the official policy and so the serious consequence of this fraud to Waterhouse, and since the University and Waterhouse refused to correct the wrongs done to me by Waterhouse, in order to prove Waterhouse's retaliation, I kept pursuing appeal, persistently attempting to access to my academic file at the University under the University's official policy, the Ontario Information and Privacy Act, the discovery process of the civil court. And this motivated the whole Canadian White justice system to oppress my pursuit by persecution.

As a result of this harassment, my Ph.D application was rejected by the departmental admission Committee at U of T. I then lost my best and last chance to study for Ph.D. When my complaint continued to the OHRC after the U of T dismissed it, I was fired by the university from my counter help position at the university's cafeteria without even an explanation. I lost my income and suffered tremendous financial difficulties in that time of serious economic recession in Canada. As a result I could not even complete my MA program and had to drop out of the school, and consequently lost all my opportunities to enter a Ph. D program. I then lost my entire academic career.

{ II }.The conspiracy of the Ontario Human Rights Commission and U of T to cover up the fraud

I brought a human rights complaint to the OHRC. However, the Commission conspired with the U of T to sabotage my human rights case. There are material evidences that the Commission and the U of T worked tightly together against my case, and the U of T lawyer even edited the paper works of the Commission on my case -

In a letter dated on April 5, 1995, U of T's lawyer Margot Blight wrote to OHRC officer Strojin: (subjected under "RE: Liao Human Rights Complaint") "Further to our telephone conversation of today's date, please find enclosed proposed revisions to your draft agreement to remark faxed to me on February 21, 1995." It is very clear that the U of T cooperated intimately with OHRC to plot the outcome of my case. The human rights process was supposed to be "neutral", but this draft agreement has never been provided to me by the OHRC and its content is until now still unknown to me. Clearly the collusion between the University and OHRC against me had been formed. Moreover, as indicated in Blightss Statement to the police, by April 5th, 1995, U of T had already known that the "final result" of my complaint at the OHRC would be negative to me.

During the investigation process, the OHRC obtained my academic file at the U of T so had acquired full knowledge on what had transpired at U of T about the grade. However, not only did the OHRC never disclose the content of that communication to me, but also it actively covered up all other relevant evidences surrounding this grade for the Defendants. For instance, the OHRC refused to disclose to me the substantial investigation results such as the key documentary evidences in my academic file, the interview results with key witnesses of the misreported grade in the Department - the then Chair, Prof. Beck, the then Graduate Coordinator, Prof. Ward, etc. The Commission even concealed the information to me that the interviews had been conducted. The Commission then dismissed my complaint against this grade in 1997 only on basis of a suggestion that the issue of the grade was a "question of credibility".

This conspiracy also involved a professor, James Cahill of the Art Dept. of UC at Berkeley, US, who played a key role in this conspiracy acting as a Chinese art history expert and professor of UC. Cahill breached the "confidential, objective, and independent rereading" rule provided by the U of T's external rereading of graduate students' works policy to take his own initiative to inquire about the political background of this rereading at the OHRC. After learning the background, Cahill asked for reviewing Waterhouse's article in dispute. Then his initial oral assessment of my paper "Quite good" before the learning of the political background of this grade became the same grade B+ that Waterhouse gave to me on grounds self-confessedly same as that of Waterhouse. He also says that I "misunderstood" Waterhouse's article because of my "poor English". Cahill even deliberately disclosed in this Opinion about his breach of the rereading policy and his political consideration for this opinion, acknowledging: ?some knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the paper and the grade certainty complicates the matter?.


(to be contunued to next post)


Old Post 12-13-2006 01:25 AM
Click here to Send freedomfighter5 a Private Message Find more posts by freedomfighter5 Add freedomfighter5 to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore freedomfighter5 REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

freedomfighter5
Qualified Rookie

offline
Registered: May 2006
Local time: 11:39 PM
Location: Canada
Posts: 13

post #9  quote:

The Commission then dismissed my complaint solely on basis of this "Expert Opinion", and bypassed the issue of the grade by a vogue opinion that it was a "question of credibility".

{ III }.The conspiracy to entrap me for criminal prosecution

( A ) Planned entrapment to prosecute me for purpose of my human rights case

In order to suppress my still persistent pursuit of the discovery, the OHRC conspired with the U of T for a brutal criminal prosecution on me by plotting an entrapment. The Commission fist deceived me by telling me that under the Commission's confidentiality rule: "Everything you tell the Commission is only between you and the Commission", and that I had the duty to tell the Commission "everything true". Then the investigator Strojin used my trust on this confidentiality rule to frequently solicit my angry expressions by asking me incriminating questions over our telephone conversations. Then the prosecution was directly initiated in April of 1995 by Cahill's Opinion. In it, while backing up Waterhouse, Cahill admitted his violation of the rereading rules, indicated the valuable academic merits of my paper and problems of Waterhouse's article, and acknowledged his political consideration for this Opinion. All of these were to hint his collusion with the U of T and the OHRC to me to provoke my anticipated anger. (As the letter written by U of T lawyer Blight indicates that the U of T and the OHRC had already prepared for my anger to the Opinion shortly before it arrived). Then Strojin, when informing me about this Opinion over the phone, asked me "What are you gonna do now?" Then he passed my angry crying "If they are going to kill me, I'm going to kill them, too" to U of T party, charging me with a criminal offence of "Uttering Death Threat to Waterhouse" The police laid the charge against me after the U of T's complaint in May of 1995. The OHRC, U of T, the police and the prosecutors in fact all knew that I did not pose any real threat to any one, as even the informant Strojin testified to the police at my first arrest that I "does not pose a real threat to the victim", and I assured the police at the same time that I would not do such a thing, and I was only angry when I answered Strojin's questions.
This political persecution was set up by an entrapment that is unlawful under the Canadian laws. S. 13 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides the right against self-incrimination: "A witness who testifies in any proceedings has the right not to have any incriminating evidence so given used to incriminate that witness in any other proceedings, except in a prosecution for perjury or for the giving of contradictory evidence". My alleged "threats" were made in reply to the OHRC's questioning, then such testimony cannot be used to incriminate me at law, since I was not prosecuted for perjury. Yet the court found me guilty and so endorsed that the Canadian government with one hand actually induced my conduct that it prosecutes as illegal with the other hand. My case has posted a menace to human rights complainants in Canada. As Strojin testified at the trial, he had ?regularly? witnessed the OHRC?s complainants making ?death threats?. Now my conviction obviously sets a precedent at law and a threat to those human rights complainants in Canada that they maybe justifiably set up for criminal prosecution by government if their cases are really perceived as a threat to the Whites? privileges.

Further, this political persecution had a specific political purpose to directly interfere with my then ongoing human rights case at the OHRC - to cut off my then persistent pursuit of my case. This can be best demonstrated by the "bail condition" that was imposed on me by the police on May 10, 1995 at the arbitrary detention of me. It reads that I "Can not initiate any contact with any member of the Ontario Human Rights Commission". I appealed to the Ontario Judicial Review Council against this condition on grounds that it deprived my human right guaranteed by Ontario Human Rights Code, since under the Code, every person in Ontario, even a convicted criminal would have human rights and would be afforded with a legal means of redress whenever he believes that his human right was infringed; and the only legal channel for such redress was supposed to be the OHRC. However, my appeal was dismissed without even a hearing. This condition remained standing throughout the whole process of the prosecution on me for a period of 5 years.

Considering that my alleged victim of "Uttering Death Threat" was not at the OHRC, and except Strojin, all other "any member of the Ontario Human Rights Commission" were irrelevant to the alleged offence, so that can not be considered as witnesses to the prosecution, there was certainly no need to "ensure the safety and security of any victim or witness to the offence" (intended by the Criminal Code). The purpose of this bail condition was very clear: to halt my then persistent pursuit of the discovery for my human rights case at the OHRC. And it did effectively cut off my pursuit of the discovery for my case at OHRC since then because of the loss of contact with the OHRC, (the OHRC never contacted me for my case). Consequently it enabled the OHRC to continue its cover up for Waterhouse, and dismiss my complaint as a result in 1997.

For such purpose, the OHRC would persecute me even by its officer Strojin committing crimes such as perjury in my criminal trial - when I was first arrested by the police, the only "information" the police had was that I made "threats" to Waterhouse at the Commission, as shown by the audio tap the police made of the first conversation the police had with me at my arrest, and as recorded by the police initial "General Occurrence". This "General Occurrence" recorded that the initial "information" was reported to the police by the then Associate Dean of Graduate School John Baird, that alleges "The victim reported that he has received several death threats from a third party. The third party being an officer of Ontario Human Rights Commission". After I protested to the police at my arrest that they could not use the confidential information about me at the Commission to prosecute me since the Commission guaranteed me of the "confidentiality", John Baird and U of T's lawyer Margot Blight suddenly "discovered" that they themselves also witnessed my "threats" at a conference with the OHRC. The OHRC and the U of T both fabricated this "evidence" using the fact that I had no witness for the conference since all other participants besides me at that conference were the U of T party and the OHRC investigator Strojin.

In Strojin's first Statement to the police at my arrest, the only "evidence" about my "threat" was also my words to him at the Commission; then after my protest to the police, he issued a second "statement" in that the "evidence" became the threats were "mainly committed at the Commission" but "in addition" also committed at the conference; after I complained about this prosecution to Court, Strojin issued an "Affidavit" in that the "most overt threat" I "committed" was at the conference, not at the Commission. And the "facts" about my "threat" at the conference testified by the U of T party and Strojin are inconsistent themselves. The prosecutor elected "summary trial" (trial by a judge, not jury) as the prosecution's privilege provided by Canadian law. My trial spread out for seven days over a period from January to June, 2000, and was completed on June 29th. I was found guilty by Judge Knazan on the second count of ?Uttering Death Threats causing Waterhouse to receive threats?, (while the first count of same charge was dismissed), and was sentenced to a Conditional Discharge.

At the trial, John Baird only testified to have received the information about my alleged threats from Strojin at OHRC. The fabricated evidence about the "Feb. conference" fell into part when Baird testified that at the conference "she did not make any specific threats against any individual but she was plainly in a state of anger and misery". This was probably a result of that I publicized my findings on the Net that when he called the police to charge me, he did not provide the information about the February conference that was supposedly his first hand information, and also his moral conscience woke up. However, Margo Blight and Strojin continued to give testimonies about the conference as they did five years ago. This evidence was dismissed at the trial.

( B ) Criminalizing me for a fabricated ?crime?
I was criminalized for a fabricated crime ? a crime that had not even happened as fact. After my complaint was transferred to be handled by Strojin at the OHRC, he began to solicit my replies by asking incriminating questions, and in desperation caused by U of T?s retaliation such as being fired by U of T for no reason so lost the only income source, I made angry expressions to him. In April of 1995, when I was first time charged, same as all my previous ones, the angry expression was still only randomly made, not targeting any specific person. These facts were all not in dispute at trial. Yet I was charged for ?Uttering death threat causing Waterhouse to receive threat?.

This is a fabricated ?crime?, as my alleged ?criminal acts? as stated in the charge never happened. 1) As an undisputed fact at trial, I did not specify any specific person in my alleged ?threats?, including Waterhouse. Therefore I threatened no any specific person, including Waterhouse. The act alleged in the charge that I threatened Waterhouse did not exist as fact. 2) Also as undisputed fact at trial is that Waterhouse was not aware of the alleged threats until I was charged for causing him to receive threats. Therefore, the fact alleged in the charge that I caused Waterhouse to receive death threats, also did not exist as fact.

The next day after I was arrested for the first count of charge, I telephoned Strojin to inquire about why the police would allege me ?uttering death threats? at the OHRC. Strojin told me a lie that he knew nothing but heard some of my ?colleagues at U of T? told the police. Strojin used this deceit to further provoke my anger to instill my angry expression and indeed achieved his purpose. I never had any ?colleagues? at U of T, so I believed some people at the U of T had set me up for criminal persecution for my case at the OHRC. In a great rage and desperation, I said: ?If I was only angry before, when I got out of jail, it?s real time to kill!? Strojin again called the U of T, I was charged with a second count of ?Uttering death threat causing Waterhouse to receive death threat?.

I was found guilty on this second count of charge. I testified at trial that when I allegedly committed this second count, I was merely venting my rage at those unknown ?colleagues? who as I thought (as a result of Strojin?s deceit) had set me up for prosecution to police. I did not have Waterhouse on my mind because the conversation I had with Strojin was to find out that who called the police to get me charged. I only learned it was some unknown ?colleagues?, not Waterhouse, and I knew by that time, it was the whole institution of U of T that had already joined the persecution on me. However, even I myself did not know any identifiable target of my ?threat? in my mind at that time, the judge knew. Judge Knazan said: ?But she is not the best witness as to what was in her mind in May of 1995.? He found it was Waterhouse in my mind merely by an ?inference?: ?she meant Waterhouse?, and said ?a court can find facts based on inferences?. This finding of what I ?meant? was contrary to what really in my mind at the time, so it was not ?inference? but fabrication.

However, even though Judge Knazan were the real ?witness? to my mind than myself when I allegedly committed the crime, he only witnessed what in my ?mind?, he did not find that he witnessed my physical acts of threatening Waterhouse. Clearly the court convicted me merely for what I thought, not for what I actually did. The Canadian law only punishes criminal conducts. Without actual criminal acts (?guilty deeds?), criminal minds (?guilty minds?) are not punishable by law. The alleged crime did not happen, therefore it is clearly I was only criminalized on basis of a fabricated crime by the government of Canada. This is unprecedented in Canadian legal history, as no Canadian case laws show such a case that a person has ever been charged and convicted for a crime that had not actually happened.

Moreover, in finding me guilty on the second count of the charge, the court not only did not prove the actual crime ? my ?guilty act? as charged, had occurred, but also, it did not prove the other basic element of a crime ? the ?guilty mind? of me as accused. The "subjective fault element" is also mandatory requirement under the Criminal Code for proving the crime of ?uttering death threat?, that one must "knowingly" cause others to receive threats. As admitted by the Judge that when I allegedly committed the second count of charge, because of Strojin's lies, I still had not discovered the fact that the OHRC had already breached its unconditional confidentiality guaranty to me. As a result, it was still not foreseeable for me that my words at the OHRC could be passed to the alleged victim to cause "threat". Without perceiving that such a consequence of my words could be possible, it was logically impossible for me to form an intention to achieve this consequence. Therefore, even if some ?criminal acts? had been committed, I could not have committed it ?knowingly?. There is no basis at law to convict me for that. This prosecution is doubtlessly unlawful, and is a politically motivated racial/political persecution.

This is a Fascist white terror of racial persecution. Only because I exerted my fundamental human right to freedom of expression and academic freedom in an academic dispute, have I been made a criminal in Canada, a country that poses as one of the leaders in world's human rights cause. My case has proven that the government of Canada and US can actively take lead in persecuting racial minorities of this multi-racial/cultural society with Fascist means. And this persecution is participated by both the civil and criminal justice systems. The governments of Canada and US have no hesitation in committing the most vicious human rights violations when it comes to racial minorities' human rights.


Old Post 12-13-2006 01:28 AM
Click here to Send freedomfighter5 a Private Message Find more posts by freedomfighter5 Add freedomfighter5 to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore freedomfighter5 REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

freedomfighter5
Qualified Rookie

offline
Registered: May 2006
Local time: 11:39 PM
Location: Canada
Posts: 13

post #10  quote:

{ IV }.The denial of my due process rights and protection of law

The Canadian and US courts and the prosecutions are taking a leading role in the persecution organized by Canadian government that denied my most fundamental human rights.

In Canada:
While prosecuting me on a bogus crime, the Canadian government refuses to prosecute crimes committed against me despite such crimes are already proven by undisputed facts and law. The prosecution refused to prosecute the crime of perjury and fabricating evidence committed by Strojin against me during the proceeding. The perjuries were committed in forms of written statement to the police and testimonies at my trial (that I had made written death threats). The fact that Strojin perjured evidences was substantiated by direct evidences such as police documentation and was very serious in nature since the crime against me was committed in a criminal proceeding. Under s. 15 of the Charter, I have the right to equal protection of law, and the government failed to provide any reason not to proceed with my complaint. There was no legitimate purpose that this ?prosecution discretion? could achieve at law. In fact, it is well documented that the government has prosecuted perjuries that were even only committed in civil matters, including lies in application for legal aid, etc.

In civil courts, I have been barred from access to court to "commence and continue any court proceedings" by a court order, so been deprived the right to access to justice to redress the persecution. And when my cases were ongoing in the court, the court openly refused virtually all my due process rights provided by Ontario Rules of Civil Procedures. For example, I was not even allowed the most basic legal right - to dismiss the defendants? defense by default proceedings, since I was forbidden to dismiss the defense of the Canadian government and the prosecutor for their failure to file the mandatory statement of defense, and to dismiss the U of T?s defense for failure to implement the mandatory discovery procedure. And not only was I forbidden to dismiss my opponents? defense, but also I was even not allowed to oppose their move to dismiss my cases - not allowed to make arguments to oppose the Defendants even by filing responding motion materials to argue against the Defendants' motions to dismiss my actions. I was also forbidden to gather and then adduce evidences for my arguments through Affidavit of Documents, cross-examination on Affidavits and examination of witnesses. I was virtually forbidden to oppose the Defendants and all of these forbiddance were by court order. The court even deliberately made fraudulent misrepresentation of my motion in its order dismissing my motion. And the court openly deprived my legal rights at most of the times, without even bothering to provide any reason. With the compelled exclusion of my participation, the court decided on my cases one-sidedly with the Defendants. My actions were dismissed and I am barred from the court altogether by court order.

In US:
The US criminal justice system also refuses my right for lawful protection against crimes against me. So far I have requested the prosecution to investigate and prosecute that (1), perjury that Cahill committed against me in civil proceedings; (2), criminal forgery that the California Superior Court supervisor Maura Ramiraz committed against me; (3) public Internet death threat that an apparent US government agent made against me (see the following paragraph for details). But the US government has so far ignored all my complaint and refuses to investigate and prosecute.

In the proceedings of my civil rights cases in California state court and in US federal court, I am also denied all my due process rights. A court supervisor of the California State Superior Court even committed crime in violation of California criminal statute to forge court document, a Summons, in conspiracy with the defendant of my civil rights case. It was plotted to set me up for ?vexatious litigant? prosecution and hence bar me from access of the court. Three California Court of Appeal Judges committed fraud in a conspiracy with the Respondent of my appeal ? they all made same materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statements or representations about California state law on civil procedure and then material facts of my case in purpose to deceive me into giving up my civil rights complaint. My civil rights complaint was against California Superior Court judges for denying my due process rights in dismissing my action. As two California Superior Court judges committed unlawful conducts, knowingly acted in complete absence of all jurisdiction to dismiss my civil rights case with prejudice and to bar me from access to court, in violation of my rights to due process, to equal protection, to access to court, to impartial tribunal as guaranteed by fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution. My civil rights case in federal court against Cahill is also dismissed and the dismissal was based on a fraud, despite the fraud committed by Cahill, even though this fraud was not even disputed by Cahill.

{ V }. Suppression of my right to freedom of expression

1). Cover up by media
Both the Canadian and US media joined this persecution by willful cooperation with the governments to cover up all these abuses of my human rights. The press in Canada is not ?independent?, but always cooperate with the government, as testified by my case. Since 1999, I have made publication requests to the mainstream local newspapers in Canada. However, although the local Chinese community newspapers had extensive coverage on my story, these mainstream news papers ignored my requests with the only exception that the Globe and Mail published a short story once in 2000 on my case, but this publication had the basic facts of my case missing. Moreover, when I posted my story to the "Have your say" message board of the Toronto Star's Web site, the link I made to my Web site on my case was cut off immediately. I believe that this was cause by the Canadian government?s banning or restriction order to the media, or at the very least it was ?a high degree of self-censorship?, in that the media acted on its own willful and tacit cooperation with the government. Be it forced or voluntary, this is apparently a media censorship motivated by political reasons.

And same political censorship happened in my case by the US media. My publication requests to the major newspapers such as New York Times and Washington Post were all ignored without a response. I posted my story on Washington Post?s Web site, but immediately my post was deleted.

The US Department of State annually publishes ?Country Human Rights Practice Report?, in which it has a strong criticism on China for denying its people?s right to free speech. Its? 2005 Report cited individual cases in China and alleges that the Chinese government criminally prosecuted people and journalists for their free speech under guise of other crimes such as financial crimes. Nevertheless, apparently the Report does not allege that the crimes those Chinese individuals been convicted for were fabricated crimes, or not substantiated by facts and Chinese laws. So even if these Chinese individuals were in fact convicted on these crimes for real reason of their free speech, at the very least, their crimes as charged were proven true on facts and law and so they were convicted legitimately. Yet for my case, I was convicted for a bogus crime that never even happened, I was prosecuted only because I had exercised my right to free speech to challenge an academic theory of White supremacy. This is the real brutal criminal persecution for reason of free speech and expression, and it happened in Canada, joined by the US.

2). Death threat on Internet

After unsuccessful effort to publish my story by mainstream media, I realized that a cover up had been imposed on my case for the both US and Canadian governments by the media, and that the both US and Canadian governments are committing such brutal abuses of my human rights so boldly only because they had organized such an effective cover up. Then the only way for me to make my story public would be the Internet. I set up my own Web site at Yahoo?s free Internet Web space hosting, Georcities.com, and started posting my story onto the Internet news groups and message boards.

Then the government cover up operation escalated. On December 19, 2005, while I was posting on Yahoo?s Message Board to reveal my case, I received a death threat that told me: ?neither america nor canada is afraid of ?disappearing? people who they think actually pose a threat to them. So the fact that you are here and not gitmo, some yukon cell, or six feet under ALONE should tell you that they jut don't give a damn about what you think. Your lawsuit isn't some global conspiracy.?

This poster was undoubtedly speaking for the US and Canadian governments and did so as a knowledgeable insider of the governments. To make people ?disappear? is most known Fascist means by Fascist governments towards their political dissidents.

I brought a complaint to the Secretary of State and to the US Attorney General. However, it has been proven ineffective. The US Attorney General so far has never responded to my complaint while the Chief of Civil Rights Division of the Department of State, Mr. Gregory Smith has written to me to decline to investigate on grounds that ?The U.S. Department of State is a foreign affairs agency responsible for diplomatic affairs with foreign countries, and therefore has no jurisdiction to assist you with this matter.? This is a blatant lie since it is already a common knowledge to the whole world and stated in the official policies about the jurisdictions of the Department of State that ?protection? and ?supporting? of human rights and individual human rights complainants in a foreign country is within one of the most important jurisdictions for the Department of State. Just recently, the Department published, again, its annual ?2005 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices report? on human rights situations of other nations, and again, lodged serious criticism on other none-Western nations. I wrote back to Mr. Smith:

{It is why there is a special Bureau of Democracy, uman Rights, and Labor in your Department, and every year your Department would publish human rights report on rights situations in foreign countries. In these reports, your Department publicly admonishes other nation, especially focused on the Third World nations, for alleged human rights abuses, citing many individual human rights abuse cases as evidence. And that is not all. Every Secretary of the State when touring the world for ?diplomatic? reasons, would always speak out to directly intervene those other nations? ?human rights abuses? on their own citizens, even take economic sanctions to press those nations for your desired result of those individual cases. For instance, this has been always happening to China. Your Department apparently has had JURISDICTION over EACH individual human rights complainant against Chinese government, and taken cared of individual Chinese rights complainant?s plight and pressed the Chinese government to do what you intended.

I am also a Chinese individual, a citizen of a foreign country, and have a human rights complaint against the government of the country, like those human rights complainants in China. Why, then, the U.S. Department of State would have no ?jurisdiction? over my human rights complaint? And you do not ?Hold governments accountable? and promote freedom of expression any more? But you got a ?jurisdictional issue?? Obviously the real reason for your Department?s refusal to investigate is not a jurisdictional one, but because your government would not hold itself accountable for human rights abuse and promote racial minority people?s freedom of expression.}

I have never received a response to this letter so far. I also contacted the FBI but so far received no response. I believe that all of these are an admission that this threat was a US government operation. As only so would the government of US not investigate to clarify this matter, as it knows that it cannot vindicate itself on this public death threat.

This threat further proves that what the US and Canadian governments truly concerned in fact is not Chinese people?s (and other peoples?) rights to freedom of expression and human rights. For like those people in China, I am also a Chinese. What they are truly concerned is not whether a Chinese enjoys the right to ?freedom of expression? or not, but whether a Chinese enjoys his/her ?freedom of expression? against his/her own Chinese government. When a Chinese?s free speech is not against China, but against themselves, in their own jurisdiction, revealing their own Fascist violations of human rights, the US and Canadian governments would even use the most extreme Fascist terrorist means to suffocate this Chinese?s free speech.

3). American Internet companies joined the cover up

Aside from the government actions, the US based Internet companies such as Yahoo, Google, also joined the cover up. In March of 2006, the Congress, the highest law making authority of the US, launched a campaign to intervene those major US based Internet private companies? conducts to restrict Chinese people?s rights to freedom of expression on Internet communications in China. A was held to investigate and Congress men Mr. Smith and Santos etc. publicly condemned the conducts of those companies, Yahoo, Google, MSN, etc., who have helped the Chinese government restrict Chinese people?s rights to freedom of expression on Internet. Further, the Congress is in a process to make laws to regulate these companies? conducts in China to comply with US?s values on human rights, particularly, freedom of expression.

Yet these exactly same American Internet companies, Yahoo, Google, and other American based message boards, etc. are restricting my freedom of expression on the Internet. From 2001, I set up my own Web site at Yahoo?s free Internet Web space hosting, Georcities.com, ...and started posting my story onto the Internet news groups and message boards.

(To be continued to next post)


Old Post 12-13-2006 01:36 AM
Click here to Send freedomfighter5 a Private Message Find more posts by freedomfighter5 Add freedomfighter5 to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore freedomfighter5 REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

freedomfighter5
Qualified Rookie

offline
Registered: May 2006
Local time: 11:39 PM
Location: Canada
Posts: 13

post #11  quote:

In about early 2003, after I had joined the discussion and posted to Yahoo?s Message Boards about my story for few days, Yahoo started deleting my posts. Within few minutes or few hours my posts were all disappeared. But all other people?s posts were still intact despite they contained abundant racial slurs, course languages, off topic discussions, inciting hatred towards other ethnic groups or individuals, etc. When I still continued my posting to other news groups, Yahoo shut down my Web site, in or about November, 2004, and cancelled my Yahoo account without even a prior warning. I did not even have the chance to retrieve my mails. I wrote inquiry and protest letters to Yahoo?s administration, but so far have never received any response. After that, I created my Web page on few other free Web page hosts, soon my pages on ......were all shut down without a notice and an explanation.

I encountered the same restriction at Google. In January of 2006, I posted my story to Google?s Usenet groups. I only posted to 5 groups that were US, Canada and China based before the Google found my posts and imposed filter on my posting. I tried to post by different user names but all in vain. My posts would never appear on any of the news groups like before. These Use Net newsgroups are all identified as ?un-moderated?, but I was the exception. This is blatant political censorship and violation of my right to free speech. This time I did not bother to write to Google to complain as I did to Yahoo. As I knew all my complaint would receive no response.

And most of the America based message boards and forums on MSN and on Internet are doing the same to me. For groups on MSN, the most ironic is that the ?Free Speech America? MSN group was the first one to ban my post and bar me from access to the group. Following that, Canadian Politics and Issues, Canadian Politics 2000, News (UK based), World Wide Unity, Conspiracy Theory, etc. ? all did the same thing. I registered different user names to return to these groups. The largest news group News, barred me again and shut down my account.

On other independent message boards, the same thing also happened to me. My posts were deleted or locked so they sunk soon and disappeared from the forum since no discussion on going. Some forums even deleted my post right at the spot where the heated discussion was going on with enthusiastic participants. On Off Topic, my post was locked without providing any reason, and the site administrator when locking my post, even told me: ?Use this as more evidence of the fascist white supremicist plot against you?. On another forum, my post was deleted for reason that it was a ?troll?. I complained by another post, it was again deleted for public complaint about administrator. Some other boards removed my posts just for I allegedly did ?copy and paste? from other sites, as if a poster is only allowed to publish the same story on one site.

In any of the above situations, what I had done was merely as same as what other people did in the same circumstances. Yet those people did not have their Web sites shut down and Yahoo accounts closed or been banned from posting by these companies. Apparently these companies did so to me for political reasons ? they perceived the posting of my human rights case as a real threat to the US and Canadian governments as my case is too powerfully revealing about the brutal human rights abuse on racial minorities by these governments, and so as to their shameful hypocrisy. This is then a censorship based on political consideration, just like what these companies do in China, albeit this time they do so for the US and Canadian governments, not the Chinese government.

I believe that this political censorship by these American Internet companies is to comply with the US governments? banning order on publication of my case. In the alternative, even these American Internet companies committed the cover up on their own willful cooperation with the US government for its abuse of racial minorities? human rights, it is as same as what they are doing in China ? to willfully comply with the Chinese government?s Internet political censorship needs. This political censorship restricting Internet free communications, by the US Congress? definition, is a violation of the most fundamental human rights - freedom of expression, contrary to the provisions of the Universal Covenant of Civil and Political Rights of the UN.

{ VI }. Canadian and US cover up at UN

Canada and US governments, through their agents at UN in fact have usurped the power of the international organization, the UN, making it their own political tool, especially with respect to human rights. Here I just cite passages of my complaint letter to the UN?s ?High Commissioner for Human Rights:
Click here to read my letter to Arbour

To: Ms. Louise Arbour
HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
Office of High Commissioner for Human rights
United Nations Office
CH-1211 GENEVE 10
By fax: (41-22)917 9022
Dear Ms. Louise Arbour:
Re: My human rights complaints against government of Canada to UN
My name is Wanxia Liao, a Chinese immigrant in Ontario, Canada, where you were a judge sitting at the Supreme Court of Canada, Ontario Court of Justice and Ontario Court of Appeal before you became the High Commissioner for Human Rights. I am writing to you again to protest your Office's continuing cover up of my complaint against government of Canada for brutal Fascist racial/political persecution on me to the UN's human rights bodies, since it has seized all the complaints that I sent to the UN's various human rights complaint channels. This is an intentional denial of my access to the international human rights bodies at the UN. I am here questioning your impartiality and integrity in your position as the highest human rights official of the UN. I am also request that you recuse your self and your office from handling my case on grounds of conflict of interests, since my complaint is against the government and its courts that each of them you served as a judge.

My complaint is against the Canadian government (in collusion with the U.S.A.) in that they organized a brutal Fascist persecution against me. I was incriminated by a conspiracy led by Canadian government?s ?human rights committee? for criminal prosecution, was subjected to arbitrary detention, have been literally (by court order of the Ontario Superior Court) barred to access to courts to seek redress, etc. All of these only resulted in from an academic dispute that I had with a professor when I was a MA graduate student at the University of Toronto, in that the professor lost his White race supremacy art history theory to my challenge, and I filed a human rights complaint against this professor for racist reprisal. (See my Web site for more info: ......)

Since 1999, I have been sending my complaint to the UN's human rights bodies but never reached them. In April of 2004, I faxed my complaint to the Human Rights Committee again, because the revised policy of the committee provides that whether an individual complaint should be registered with the Committee will be decided by a "Special Rapporteur" of the Committee, not by a staff of your Office. However, my complaint was returned promptly by ?Secretary? of the Human Rights Committee, Mr. Markus Schmidt. (It is your Office to be responsible for Mr. Scmidt's conduct since this morning he called me and told me that he is "assigned" to my case in your Office, and "you don't expect this Office will assist you"). The reason for returning is (1), I have not ?exhausted domestic remedies?, (2), the Committee is not generally in a position to review a sentence imposed by national courts, nor can it review the question of innocence or guilt", (3), I did not provide "sufficient facts" of my case or how my "rights under the relevant treaty have been violated".

It is a serious violation of the procedural rules of the Human Rights Committee. By Rules of the Procedure of the Human Rights Committee and by the guidelines for individual complaints provided by UN's Fact Sheet No. 7, Mr. Markus Schmidt and your Office have NO such authority to refuse my complaint. First, it should have been the Special Rapporteur, not your staff such as Mr. Schmidt to decide whether to register my case. Second, the UN's procedure on individual complaints that provides: "If your complaint contains the essential elements outlined above, your case is registered, that is to say formally listed as a case for consideration by the relevant committee." A review of my enclosed Complaint will show that my Complaint clearly contains EVERY element as listed on this procedure. Canada is a party that signed the treaty and recognized the competence of the Human Rights Committee. My Complaint contains all detailed identity information about me, and was signed. There was no reason for your Office not to transmit my complaint to the Special Rapporteur for consideration of registration, and by doing so, you have violated the Committee's rules.
?
In October of 2004, I filed a complaint against your Office and Mr. Schmidt with the President of General Assembly. However, my complaint was transferred to your Office by Secretary of the President's Office, Tony Gallagher of the US, without consulting with any officials of the President's Cabinet, for reason that "the President's Office does not have the function to handle this kind of complaint". I wrote a letter to your Office on October 6, 2004, requesting your office to forward my complaint back to the President's Office or the Secretary-General, Mr. Annan, on grounds that my complaint against your Office to be handled by your Office is a conflict of interests. Further, it is a serious abuse of Tony Gallagher's administrative duty for her to transmit my complaint to you without consulting any official of the Cabinet. However, so far it has been more than half year, I have never received any response from your Office.

By this refusal, your Office has in fact taken over the power of the President of the General Assembly and his Cabinet. As one of the functions of the General Assembly is: "To discuss, with the same exception, and make recommendations on any questions within the scope of the Charter or affecting the powers and functions of any organ of the United Nations". And the human rights bodies, including your Office, are one of the most important organs of the UN, whose practice shall be monitored by the General Assembly for any dysfunction that affects the UN's impartial power. Since the UN has the function to serve individual human rights complainants through its human rights bodies, an individual then is entitled to complain to the higher authorities at UN when the individual is refused to be served or is improperly served by these human rights bodies. I therefore have this right to complain to the high UN officials, like the President of the General Assembly or the Secretary General. Your Office's interference with this right of mine is a gross abuse of the UN system and an intentional cover up of Canada and US's brutal abuse of racial minority's human rights.

I am here also to inquire the handling of the complaints that I sent since March 2004 to the Commission on Human Rights under its 1503 procedure and the Special Rapporteur on Racism, Mr. Duoduo Diene at your Office, since I understand that all these complaints would have to go through your Office first, since their mailing addresses and fax numbers are all same and within your office. So far I have never received even an acknowledgement of receipt of these complaints.

I am entitled to know how you disposed of my complaints at your Office. If you never transmitted my complaints to their designated recipients, the Commission on Human Rights and Mr. Diene, what was the reason for you to do so? And why would you not inform me the disposition and the reason? If you do not transmit my complaints to their recipients and do not give me an acknowledgement of receipt of my complaints, does that mean that your Office in fact has seized all my complaints, (except the one to Human Rights Committee, that has been repeatedly sent back to me by Mr. Schmidt)? Which rule of the UN authorizes you to do so?

Further, this cover up for the Canadian government by you is continuing. As I sent you a letter of protest for your cover up for Canada, and resent my complaint to the Human Rights Committee at UN on April 5 and 6, 2005, Mr. Schmidt called me this morning, April 7, 2005, and told me that "you don't expect this Office will assist you", and that he was "assigned" to my case at your Office. As I advised him that I did not expect your office would assist me. I only can reveal this cover up to the world public and that is what I will do.

Dear Ms. Louise Arbour, while you, as the highest human rights official at UN, are touring the world and censoring other countries' human rights abuses, don't you think it is so ironic that you covered up the human rights violation complaint to UN that is against your country Canada, and the government and the courts that you personally served for? Would it be more appropriate for you to censor your own country as well or first for human rights abuses? As a judge, you must know well the principle of an adjudicator's self-recusal when there is conflict of interests in the matter before you. I request you to recuse yourself and your Office from handling my complaints to UN's human rights bodies from now on. Otherwise, all of your "leadership" in world's human rights cause is only a vicious hypocrisy and by that you greatly disrepute the UN.


Old Post 12-13-2006 01:47 AM
Click here to Send freedomfighter5 a Private Message Find more posts by freedomfighter5 Add freedomfighter5 to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore freedomfighter5 REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

freedomfighter5
Qualified Rookie

offline
Registered: May 2006
Local time: 11:39 PM
Location: Canada
Posts: 13

post #12  quote:

On May 5, 2006, I also wrote to the US Congress, requesting the Congress to investigate my human rights complaints like it does to other human rights complaints from China. But the Congress did not even bother to give me a response. When I called, I was told they receive too many complaint every day and could not respond to all of them. This is apparently not the case when they deal with the complaints from China and other "un-democratic" countries.

Old Post 12-13-2006 01:58 AM
Click here to Send freedomfighter5 a Private Message Find more posts by freedomfighter5 Add freedomfighter5 to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore freedomfighter5 REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

freedomfighter5
Qualified Rookie

offline
Registered: May 2006
Local time: 11:39 PM
Location: Canada
Posts: 13

No one interested? post #13  quote:

Looks like American people are only interested in human rights records of other nations...

Old Post 12-29-2006 01:26 AM
Click here to Send freedomfighter5 a Private Message Find more posts by freedomfighter5 Add freedomfighter5 to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore freedomfighter5 REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

stopwatch
Rookie

offline
Registered: Sep 2007
Local time: 06:39 PM
Location: Canada
Posts: 1

Supporters post #14  quote:

You should have your supporters indicate why the Professor's article was racist? Then post their statements beside yours. Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean that they are not out to get you. After the UN you could try to sue God but I am not sure who has jurisdiction over it, him, her.

Old Post 09-19-2007 04:47 PM
Click here to Send stopwatch a Private Message Find more posts by stopwatch Add stopwatch to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore stopwatch REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote
Time: 11:39 PM Post New Thread   
  Print Version | Email Page | Bookmark | Subscribe to Thread
INReview INReview > The Scuttlebutt Lounge > Politics & Government > Law > most accurate test on US?s ?democracy? for people in world: CNN?s iReport
Search this Thread:
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is OFF
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
Forum Policies Explained
 
Rate This Thread:

< >

Copyright ?2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited
Page generated in 0.08453393 seconds (91.99% PHP - 8.01% MySQL) with 37 queries.

ADS

© 2018, INReview.com.   Popular Forums  All Forums   Web Hosting by Psyphire.
INReview.com: Back to Home