To the Government of CanadaTo the Right Honourable Prime Minister of Canada, Stephen Harper MP firstname.lastname@example.orgTo the honourable V Toews, Government of Canada, Justice Minister Toews.V@parl.gc.caTo the honourable Stockwell Day, Government of Canada, Federal Security Minister Day.S@parl.gc.caHere is a real good recent example of the unacceptable tip of the iceberg, of the Professional Hypocrisy and the Professional Injustices, the showing of false partiality by the police, administrators, politicians to the so called "professionals", and it does still happen still much too much in Canada. Don't believe just recall one too many lying lawyers, accountants we do have still now in politics and in the courts."Former judge gets 5 years for hospital fraud scheme Last Updated Fri, 31 Mar 2006 20:37:27 CBC News A former New Brunswick judge was sentenced to five years in prison after being convicted of defrauding the Miramichi hospital corporation of nearly $1 million. Drew Stymiest and three former hospital executives were found guilty in February of 40 counts of fraud and breach of trust. Former New Brunswick judge Drew Stymiest leaves his fraud sentencing hearing Friday in what was called a simple case of 'greed.' Their scheme diverted cash away from the hospital corporation through shell companies, double billing, inflated bonuses and kickbacks between 1994 and 2000. In handing down sentence, Judge Stephen McNally reserved his harshest words for Stymiest, saying he was an "embarrassment to the judiciary" and that Canadians expect judges to uphold and administer the law. "Stymiest's sole motivation in committing these crimes seems to be simple greed. The community trusts and expects judges to respect the law as they administer it." Former CEO John Tucker was sentenced to four and half years and ordered to pay more than $600,000. Ian Jamieson, former vice-president of finance, and Darrel Doucette, former vice-president of support service, were each given two and half years in jail. The four had written and cashed illegal cheques that were supposed to be used to recruit new doctors, wrote phoney invoices and diverted hospital funds into their private accounts, their trial was told. All were ordered to pay back money to the hospital. Stymiest's portion was more than $200,000. McNally said the crime went undetected for so long because of the men's high professional and social status. ""We also do have a vital interest in staying informed about how well justice is delivered. "Unfortunately, the judicial system is as susceptible as the other branches of government to reflexive secrecy. The courts are under enormous pressure to keep a vast array of information out of the sight — and thus away from oversight — of ordinary citizens. In the course of trying criminals and refereeing disputes between private parties, judges at the local, state and federal levels constantly are called on to protect personal safety and privacy. In addition, they worry about revealing national security information, disrupting ongoing law enforcement investigations or exposing corporate secrets. So they shut the public out in many important ways. Judges regularly seal confidential information about defendants, plaintiffs, informants, witnesses and jurors. They issue orders muzzling the parties to legal action, they keep information off the public docket and they deny access to discovery material and settlements. They close courtrooms. It would be reassuring if each decision to hide information were rendered only after due consideration of the citizens’ right of access to information about the government institutions that influence every aspect of their lives. That is not always the case, however, given the pressure on judges to clear dockets and to be responsive to the wishes of the contending parties. Just how many sealed cases lurk in the bowels of the judicial system is, of course, unknown. Thousands of cases remain beyond public view in state courts, some under secrecy programs long ago obsolete. Even domestic matters, such as divorce cases, get caught up in the sealing frenzy. The rich and famous and the politically aspiring frequently seek to hide divorce records from public view. Now, corporations whose executives are involved in divorce proceedings are shouldering their way into the courtroom with demands that judges seal information having to do with assets, compensation and other matters. Ordinary citizens are largely unaware of the extent of court secrecy, but many judges don’t know how pervasive secrecy is in the judiciary either. The way such cases take place without any sort of public awareness is breathtaking.If there is a docket entry at all, there is no case number, no parties listed, no facts presented and the names of judges and attorneys are not revealed. The court computer records are altered to hide the case’s existence. Defendants and their attorneys are put under a gag order. Proceedings take place behind closed doors. Even years later, the federal court database contains no clues that justice was rendered and lives altered in secret. Such cases come to public attention only when someone in the system makes a mistake. Secrecy not only covers up mistakes, it obstructs accountability. Indeed, both court decisions and court rules recognize that public access to the judicial system flows from common law In addition to those internal considerations, the courts today are subject to an unnerving amount of external concerns. Political officials loudly and loutishly challenge the judiciary’s power as well as its decisions. Judges are removed from cases because of their real or perceived political beliefs. Nominees to the bench are judged on their politics rather than their judicial temperament or constitutional acumen. Too much secrecy is a challenge to justice " Paul K. McMasters
Public exposure and prosecution of the guilty serves everyone's best interest still too. Most every bad guy who set out to do something awful wanted to do it in secret and keep it secret so he or she unlawfully could keep their false gains too. The citizens have a right to be informed about government actions, and nothing should be done in secret. Too many officials in Ottawa, and the other governments,, Civil and public services still do things that they don't want the citizens to know about. They do things they know are wrong. If our elected officials feel it is a too heavy burden for the citizens to know how they conduct business, they clearly do now need to find another career. Clearly the Citizens respect and trust of our elected leaders still relies on an open government. Secrecy moves us all down the path of distrust. Openness enables the public to trust that government and their agents, agencies are really doing the best they can now for all of the taxpayers, each and every citizen.Now about those much too many bad cops, bad RCMP, bad lawyers, bad accountants, bad politicians, bad judges, bad doctors, bad evangelical pastors too that I wrote about to the federal government already even for years what are you doing about it good and where can we see it or when? RSVPYou should know by know I do not shut up, I am persistent, vocal, and I still always rightly expect every single issue, every single letter of mine to be replied to, acknowledged too or I will next also make it my full time job to remove any of you out of office too. I have had many years of experiences in this now too.
>> "And under the new intolerant PM of Canada his governmental abuses go on and on and on" And being an useless, wasteful elected or career official is also the same wrong doing as being secretive. Openness is still the well known basics of any good government in Canada now too. Having an open-government laws have proven to be an aid to good government. The Citizens can use the governments 's liberal public-records laws to uncover secret documents, or keep officials from falsely meeting in secret, and doing wrongs. The secret exemptions all have one thing in common: They wrongfully do shut the public out of the public's business. Keeping the sun shining on government should be a priority of us all.
"Maybe it is time that we hauled off in handcuffs reporters that fabricate stories, or twist information and even falsely accuse citizens. We know this will never happen because the media would cry 'censorship,' 'authoritarian state,' and all would be aghast, but the truth is we need ethical leadership from the media too!" British Columbia Conservative MP Colin Mayes, the new MP for Okanagan-Shuswap has apologized, "I sincerely do apologize for using that analogy [of imprisoning journalists],Mr. Mayes's statement says he retracts the comments "without reservation" and that he sincerely apologizes for any disrespect or ill feelings that they may have caused." after he was contacted by the Prime Minister's Office, for saying it may be time for journalists to be "hauled off in handcuffs" for writing misleading stories.
as I had predicted the Conservatives are unacceptably next Living up to their redneck image set by their leader Stephen Harper who wrongfully invokes himself firstly already the 'censorship,'and an 'authoritarian state.
"I think it has be seen in the context of an increasing pattern to hide from legitimate democratic scrutiny." Liberal MP Dominic LeBlanc. PM Mr. Harper when you were in the opposition party you would have said the same thing but louder too.
PM Mr. Harper when it comes to such prideful, sinful behavior there is no such thing as little bit pregnant, or a little bit acceptable abuses of democracy, freedom, human rights.
And where is my own personal rightful apology from those oppressive, undemocratic , dictatorial, abusive persons of the BC James Moore- M.P and the NDP John Nilson MLA who wrongfully do not let me as an ordinary Canadian citizen express myself to Canada's elected persons in office. NDP Jack Layton also better not complain about the Conservative dictators for sure.----- Original Message -----
From: Moore, James - M.P.
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 12:58 PM
Please remove this email address from your distribution lists.
----- Original Message -----
From: john nilson mla
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 11:52 AM
Please take me off your mailing list.
I'm not interested in your opiniions.