What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

CDZ Fiduciary Duties of Government...liability and obligations.

shockedcanadian

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2012
Messages
15,261
Reaction score
12,422
Points
2,405
Hello all,

I will give some background along with the debate question if you don't mind.

So, I know I live in Canada, a drastically different system than America, though I wonder if any of you have personally experienced, or know of someone who has experienced government abuse. As I have and I am, I ask this vital debate question.

"Is there a moral and legal fiduciary duty of government to not impede on individuals pursuits, and to engage civil with it's citizens? Or, is government within it's powers to engage as they please without recourse and base it on their own whims?"

In a nutshell, the abuses against my wife and I have been excessive, it became even more abusive when I contacted the abusers at the RCMP, their surrogates and demanded they essentially "cease and desist" from the abuses against me, in particular employment interference, the threats I have experienced, and other abuses.

As I've stated on here before, the response was not what I expected, in fact, the abuses became worst. I was detained at the border with my wife, I've been threatened, we had vehicles outside our home at various hours, someone leaving a bag of dog excrement outside our door (having to open a small back gate to gain access) the same night my father in law passed, it was the first thing we saw when we returned home from the hospital. Worse, and most intrusive, interference into my career pursuits and general liberty and life. All of this, even with no criminal record, allegations or wrongdoing on my part.

Even if I had engaged in some, I would have my day in court, would I not (I first reached out to the government in 2006!)? Of course they have no allegations as they know that this is about them attempting to silence me for blowing the whistle on them.

Thanks for your time and any input.
 

Ringel05

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2009
Messages
59,352
Reaction score
15,359
Points
2,180
Location
Duke City
Hello all,

I will give some background along with the debate question if you don't mind.

So, I know I live in Canada, a drastically different system than America, though I wonder if any of you have personally experienced, or know of someone who has experienced government abuse. As I have and I am, I ask this vital debate question.

"Is there a moral and legal fiduciary duty of government to not impede on individuals pursuits, and to engage civil with it's citizens? Or, is government within it's powers to engage as they please without recourse and base it on their own whims?"

In a nutshell, the abuses against my wife and I have been excessive, it became even more abusive when I contacted the abusers at the RCMP, their surrogates and demanded they essentially "cease and desist" from the abuses against me, in particular employment interference, the threats I have experienced, and other abuses.

As I've stated on here before, the response was not what I expected, in fact, the abuses became worst. I was detained at the border with my wife, I've been threatened, we had vehicles outside our home at various hours, someone leaving a bag of dog excrement outside our door (having to open a small back gate to gain access) the same night my father in law passed, it was the first thing we saw when we returned home from the hospital. Worse, and most intrusive, interference into my career pursuits and general liberty and life. All of this, even with no criminal record, allegations or wrongdoing on my part.

Even if I had engaged in some, I would have my day in court, would I not (I first reached out to the government in 2006!)? Of course they have no allegations as they know that this is about them attempting to silence me for blowing the whistle on them.

Thanks for your time and any input.
Soooooooo, what kind of criminal activity did you say you were involved in? I mean the one they haven't been able to prove yet..........
 

Ringel05

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2009
Messages
59,352
Reaction score
15,359
Points
2,180
Location
Duke City
Hello all,

I will give some background along with the debate question if you don't mind.

So, I know I live in Canada, a drastically different system than America, though I wonder if any of you have personally experienced, or know of someone who has experienced government abuse. As I have and I am, I ask this vital debate question.

"Is there a moral and legal fiduciary duty of government to not impede on individuals pursuits, and to engage civil with it's citizens? Or, is government within it's powers to engage as they please without recourse and base it on their own whims?"

In a nutshell, the abuses against my wife and I have been excessive, it became even more abusive when I contacted the abusers at the RCMP, their surrogates and demanded they essentially "cease and desist" from the abuses against me, in particular employment interference, the threats I have experienced, and other abuses.

As I've stated on here before, the response was not what I expected, in fact, the abuses became worst. I was detained at the border with my wife, I've been threatened, we had vehicles outside our home at various hours, someone leaving a bag of dog excrement outside our door (having to open a small back gate to gain access) the same night my father in law passed, it was the first thing we saw when we returned home from the hospital. Worse, and most intrusive, interference into my career pursuits and general liberty and life. All of this, even with no criminal record, allegations or wrongdoing on my part.

Even if I had engaged in some, I would have my day in court, would I not (I first reached out to the government in 2006!)? Of course they have no allegations as they know that this is about them attempting to silence me for blowing the whistle on them.

Thanks for your time and any input.
Soooooooo, what kind of criminal activity did you say you were involved in? I mean the one they haven't been able to prove yet..........
Don't get me wrong but the police don't just randomly pick individuals to continually harass. If your not lying about the whole thing or are truly paranoid and imagining most of it then there has to be a valid reason to "harass" you.
 
OP
shockedcanadian

shockedcanadian

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2012
Messages
15,261
Reaction score
12,422
Points
2,405
Hello all,

I will give some background along with the debate question if you don't mind.

So, I know I live in Canada, a drastically different system than America, though I wonder if any of you have personally experienced, or know of someone who has experienced government abuse. As I have and I am, I ask this vital debate question.

"Is there a moral and legal fiduciary duty of government to not impede on individuals pursuits, and to engage civil with it's citizens? Or, is government within it's powers to engage as they please without recourse and base it on their own whims?"

In a nutshell, the abuses against my wife and I have been excessive, it became even more abusive when I contacted the abusers at the RCMP, their surrogates and demanded they essentially "cease and desist" from the abuses against me, in particular employment interference, the threats I have experienced, and other abuses.

As I've stated on here before, the response was not what I expected, in fact, the abuses became worst. I was detained at the border with my wife, I've been threatened, we had vehicles outside our home at various hours, someone leaving a bag of dog excrement outside our door (having to open a small back gate to gain access) the same night my father in law passed, it was the first thing we saw when we returned home from the hospital. Worse, and most intrusive, interference into my career pursuits and general liberty and life. All of this, even with no criminal record, allegations or wrongdoing on my part.

Even if I had engaged in some, I would have my day in court, would I not (I first reached out to the government in 2006!)? Of course they have no allegations as they know that this is about them attempting to silence me for blowing the whistle on them.

Thanks for your time and any input.
Soooooooo, what kind of criminal activity did you say you were involved in? I mean the one they haven't been able to prove yet..........

I didn't say I was involved in criminal activity, if I was I wouldn't have been bondable and worked at a bank. Even if I had, I would want my day in court, especially in Canada where police do not follow due process, rule of law and engage in ",manufacturing crimes" (judges words to the RCMP not mine).

Unless of course, you think the Minority Report was a great movie to be put in practice. If so, I say "you first".

Now back to the debate question: "Is there a moral and legal fiduciary duty of government to not impede on individuals pursuits, and to engage civil with it's citizens? Or, is government within it's powers to engage as they please without recourse and base it on their own whims?"
 
OP
shockedcanadian

shockedcanadian

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2012
Messages
15,261
Reaction score
12,422
Points
2,405
Hello all,

I will give some background along with the debate question if you don't mind.

So, I know I live in Canada, a drastically different system than America, though I wonder if any of you have personally experienced, or know of someone who has experienced government abuse. As I have and I am, I ask this vital debate question.

"Is there a moral and legal fiduciary duty of government to not impede on individuals pursuits, and to engage civil with it's citizens? Or, is government within it's powers to engage as they please without recourse and base it on their own whims?"

In a nutshell, the abuses against my wife and I have been excessive, it became even more abusive when I contacted the abusers at the RCMP, their surrogates and demanded they essentially "cease and desist" from the abuses against me, in particular employment interference, the threats I have experienced, and other abuses.

As I've stated on here before, the response was not what I expected, in fact, the abuses became worst. I was detained at the border with my wife, I've been threatened, we had vehicles outside our home at various hours, someone leaving a bag of dog excrement outside our door (having to open a small back gate to gain access) the same night my father in law passed, it was the first thing we saw when we returned home from the hospital. Worse, and most intrusive, interference into my career pursuits and general liberty and life. All of this, even with no criminal record, allegations or wrongdoing on my part.

Even if I had engaged in some, I would have my day in court, would I not (I first reached out to the government in 2006!)? Of course they have no allegations as they know that this is about them attempting to silence me for blowing the whistle on them.

Thanks for your time and any input.
Soooooooo, what kind of criminal activity did you say you were involved in? I mean the one they haven't been able to prove yet..........
Don't get me wrong but the police don't just randomly pick individuals to continually harass. If your not lying about the whole thing or are truly paranoid and imagining most of it then there has to be a valid reason to "harass" you.

You know very little of Canadian policing. It's a racket. In the last week alone, there have been cases in Toronto police ALONE, of the planting of evidence, rape by three officers against a colleague, an off-duty officer chasing a teenager in plain clothes and beating him with a pipe to the face. The police from another force came and arrested the kid, for the privilege of having his eye potentially removed. Noone in the media or the SIU even know of this until 7 months later.

Only recently has the heat been turned way up on policing, because are finally getting a glimmer of courage from Conservatives to regain their roots of libertarianism. They will lose the next election because they rejected the one candidate who represented these principles. Mulroney understood it well, not surprising as he and Reagan were very close in their ideology. He separated the intelligence units from the RCMP because of an excessive litany of human right abuses. In short, they are not the FBI, they are more akin to police in Russia.

A judge recently chastised the RCMP for manufacturing a terror threat. This rabbit hunt not only cost the taxpayer many millions, but it totally ruined two peoples live. Two welfare recipients who had low education, intellectual issues by some standards, and even stated many times during the sting that they weren't really interested in what the undercover dbag was pushing.

Yes, Canadian police can and do entrap and create threats. Worse, they generally don't answer for these abuses. It's changing rapidly. I am doing my part in this regard because these excessive use of power has impacted our economic success and that of our allies. The danger of free trade agreements between a capitalist system in the U.S versus a neo-communist, socialist, intrusive centralized police state.

I could give you many names and details. You can start with Julien Fantino, Zachardelli among many. With any research, the actions of Fantino alone should shock you.
 

Ringel05

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2009
Messages
59,352
Reaction score
15,359
Points
2,180
Location
Duke City
Hello all,

I will give some background along with the debate question if you don't mind.

So, I know I live in Canada, a drastically different system than America, though I wonder if any of you have personally experienced, or know of someone who has experienced government abuse. As I have and I am, I ask this vital debate question.

"Is there a moral and legal fiduciary duty of government to not impede on individuals pursuits, and to engage civil with it's citizens? Or, is government within it's powers to engage as they please without recourse and base it on their own whims?"

In a nutshell, the abuses against my wife and I have been excessive, it became even more abusive when I contacted the abusers at the RCMP, their surrogates and demanded they essentially "cease and desist" from the abuses against me, in particular employment interference, the threats I have experienced, and other abuses.

As I've stated on here before, the response was not what I expected, in fact, the abuses became worst. I was detained at the border with my wife, I've been threatened, we had vehicles outside our home at various hours, someone leaving a bag of dog excrement outside our door (having to open a small back gate to gain access) the same night my father in law passed, it was the first thing we saw when we returned home from the hospital. Worse, and most intrusive, interference into my career pursuits and general liberty and life. All of this, even with no criminal record, allegations or wrongdoing on my part.

Even if I had engaged in some, I would have my day in court, would I not (I first reached out to the government in 2006!)? Of course they have no allegations as they know that this is about them attempting to silence me for blowing the whistle on them.

Thanks for your time and any input.
Soooooooo, what kind of criminal activity did you say you were involved in? I mean the one they haven't been able to prove yet..........
Don't get me wrong but the police don't just randomly pick individuals to continually harass. If your not lying about the whole thing or are truly paranoid and imagining most of it then there has to be a valid reason to "harass" you.

You know very little of Canadian policing. It's a racket. In the last week alone, there have been cases in Toronto police ALONE, of the planting of evidence, rape by three officers against a colleague, an off-duty officer chasing a teenager in plain clothes and beating him with a pipe to the face. The police from another force came and arrested the kid, for the privilege of having his eye potentially removed. Noone in the media or the SIU even know of this until 7 months later.

Only recently has the heat been turned way up on policing, because are finally getting a glimmer of courage from Conservatives to regain their roots of libertarianism. They will lose the next election because they rejected the one candidate who represented these principles. Mulroney understood it well, not surprising as he and Reagan were very close in their ideology. He separated the intelligence units from the RCMP because of an excessive litany of human right abuses. In short, they are not the FBI, they are more akin to police in Russia.

A judge recently chastised the RCMP for manufacturing a terror threat. This rabbit hunt not only cost the taxpayer many millions, but it totally ruined two peoples live. Two welfare recipients who had low education, intellectual issues by some standards, and even stated many times during the sting that they weren't really interested in what the undercover dbag was pushing.

Yes, Canadian police can and do entrap and create threats. Worse, they generally don't answer for these abuses. It's changing rapidly. I am doing my part in this regard because these excessive use of power has impacted our economic success and that of our allies. The danger of free trade agreements between a capitalist system in the U.S versus a neo-communist, socialist, intrusive centralized police state.
Soooooo basically it appears you focus on the bad apples and claim the whole tree is rotten............ Kinda like the anti cops in this country are doing........ Got it.
 
OP
shockedcanadian

shockedcanadian

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2012
Messages
15,261
Reaction score
12,422
Points
2,405
Hello all,

I will give some background along with the debate question if you don't mind.

So, I know I live in Canada, a drastically different system than America, though I wonder if any of you have personally experienced, or know of someone who has experienced government abuse. As I have and I am, I ask this vital debate question.

"Is there a moral and legal fiduciary duty of government to not impede on individuals pursuits, and to engage civil with it's citizens? Or, is government within it's powers to engage as they please without recourse and base it on their own whims?"

In a nutshell, the abuses against my wife and I have been excessive, it became even more abusive when I contacted the abusers at the RCMP, their surrogates and demanded they essentially "cease and desist" from the abuses against me, in particular employment interference, the threats I have experienced, and other abuses.

As I've stated on here before, the response was not what I expected, in fact, the abuses became worst. I was detained at the border with my wife, I've been threatened, we had vehicles outside our home at various hours, someone leaving a bag of dog excrement outside our door (having to open a small back gate to gain access) the same night my father in law passed, it was the first thing we saw when we returned home from the hospital. Worse, and most intrusive, interference into my career pursuits and general liberty and life. All of this, even with no criminal record, allegations or wrongdoing on my part.

Even if I had engaged in some, I would have my day in court, would I not (I first reached out to the government in 2006!)? Of course they have no allegations as they know that this is about them attempting to silence me for blowing the whistle on them.

Thanks for your time and any input.
Soooooooo, what kind of criminal activity did you say you were involved in? I mean the one they haven't been able to prove yet..........
Don't get me wrong but the police don't just randomly pick individuals to continually harass. If your not lying about the whole thing or are truly paranoid and imagining most of it then there has to be a valid reason to "harass" you.

You know very little of Canadian policing. It's a racket. In the last week alone, there have been cases in Toronto police ALONE, of the planting of evidence, rape by three officers against a colleague, an off-duty officer chasing a teenager in plain clothes and beating him with a pipe to the face. The police from another force came and arrested the kid, for the privilege of having his eye potentially removed. Noone in the media or the SIU even know of this until 7 months later.

Only recently has the heat been turned way up on policing, because are finally getting a glimmer of courage from Conservatives to regain their roots of libertarianism. They will lose the next election because they rejected the one candidate who represented these principles. Mulroney understood it well, not surprising as he and Reagan were very close in their ideology. He separated the intelligence units from the RCMP because of an excessive litany of human right abuses. In short, they are not the FBI, they are more akin to police in Russia.

A judge recently chastised the RCMP for manufacturing a terror threat. This rabbit hunt not only cost the taxpayer many millions, but it totally ruined two peoples live. Two welfare recipients who had low education, intellectual issues by some standards, and even stated many times during the sting that they weren't really interested in what the undercover dbag was pushing.

Yes, Canadian police can and do entrap and create threats. Worse, they generally don't answer for these abuses. It's changing rapidly. I am doing my part in this regard because these excessive use of power has impacted our economic success and that of our allies. The danger of free trade agreements between a capitalist system in the U.S versus a neo-communist, socialist, intrusive centralized police state.
Soooooo basically it appears you focus on the bad apples and claim the whole tree is rotten............ Kinda like the anti cops in this country are doing........ Got it.

No, not at all. In fact, I have stated I would be the first to come to the assistance of a uniformed officer in harm. In my experiences, the vast majority of uniformed officers do a good job and are fit for the position. The unions are often forced to defend the indefensible, presenting a major problem for the rank and file who are good apples.

The real culture problem comes from those who "create" threats. The covert operatives, investigators, C.I's and the like.

Regardless, Do you have an opinion about obligations of government?
 

Ringel05

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2009
Messages
59,352
Reaction score
15,359
Points
2,180
Location
Duke City
Hello all,

I will give some background along with the debate question if you don't mind.

So, I know I live in Canada, a drastically different system than America, though I wonder if any of you have personally experienced, or know of someone who has experienced government abuse. As I have and I am, I ask this vital debate question.

"Is there a moral and legal fiduciary duty of government to not impede on individuals pursuits, and to engage civil with it's citizens? Or, is government within it's powers to engage as they please without recourse and base it on their own whims?"

In a nutshell, the abuses against my wife and I have been excessive, it became even more abusive when I contacted the abusers at the RCMP, their surrogates and demanded they essentially "cease and desist" from the abuses against me, in particular employment interference, the threats I have experienced, and other abuses.

As I've stated on here before, the response was not what I expected, in fact, the abuses became worst. I was detained at the border with my wife, I've been threatened, we had vehicles outside our home at various hours, someone leaving a bag of dog excrement outside our door (having to open a small back gate to gain access) the same night my father in law passed, it was the first thing we saw when we returned home from the hospital. Worse, and most intrusive, interference into my career pursuits and general liberty and life. All of this, even with no criminal record, allegations or wrongdoing on my part.

Even if I had engaged in some, I would have my day in court, would I not (I first reached out to the government in 2006!)? Of course they have no allegations as they know that this is about them attempting to silence me for blowing the whistle on them.

Thanks for your time and any input.
Soooooooo, what kind of criminal activity did you say you were involved in? I mean the one they haven't been able to prove yet..........
Don't get me wrong but the police don't just randomly pick individuals to continually harass. If your not lying about the whole thing or are truly paranoid and imagining most of it then there has to be a valid reason to "harass" you.

You know very little of Canadian policing. It's a racket. In the last week alone, there have been cases in Toronto police ALONE, of the planting of evidence, rape by three officers against a colleague, an off-duty officer chasing a teenager in plain clothes and beating him with a pipe to the face. The police from another force came and arrested the kid, for the privilege of having his eye potentially removed. Noone in the media or the SIU even know of this until 7 months later.

Only recently has the heat been turned way up on policing, because are finally getting a glimmer of courage from Conservatives to regain their roots of libertarianism. They will lose the next election because they rejected the one candidate who represented these principles. Mulroney understood it well, not surprising as he and Reagan were very close in their ideology. He separated the intelligence units from the RCMP because of an excessive litany of human right abuses. In short, they are not the FBI, they are more akin to police in Russia.

A judge recently chastised the RCMP for manufacturing a terror threat. This rabbit hunt not only cost the taxpayer many millions, but it totally ruined two peoples live. Two welfare recipients who had low education, intellectual issues by some standards, and even stated many times during the sting that they weren't really interested in what the undercover dbag was pushing.

Yes, Canadian police can and do entrap and create threats. Worse, they generally don't answer for these abuses. It's changing rapidly. I am doing my part in this regard because these excessive use of power has impacted our economic success and that of our allies. The danger of free trade agreements between a capitalist system in the U.S versus a neo-communist, socialist, intrusive centralized police state.
Soooooo basically it appears you focus on the bad apples and claim the whole tree is rotten............ Kinda like the anti cops in this country are doing........ Got it.

No, not at all. In fact, I have stated I would be the first to come to the assistance of a uniformed officer in harm. In my experiences, the vast majority of uniformed officers do a good job and are fit for the position. The unions are often forced to defend the indefensible, presenting a major problem for the rank and file who are good apples.

The real culture problem comes from those who "create" threats. The covert operatives, investigators, C.I's and the like.

Regardless, Do you have an opinion about obligations of government?
No because based on your OP I can only assume you're involved in or had been involved in something illegal, You're a paranoid schizophrenic or your lying. I would expect what you detailed from a third world country/dictatorship but not Canada.
 
OP
shockedcanadian

shockedcanadian

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2012
Messages
15,261
Reaction score
12,422
Points
2,405
Soooooooo, what kind of criminal activity did you say you were involved in? I mean the one they haven't been able to prove yet..........
Don't get me wrong but the police don't just randomly pick individuals to continually harass. If your not lying about the whole thing or are truly paranoid and imagining most of it then there has to be a valid reason to "harass" you.

You know very little of Canadian policing. It's a racket. In the last week alone, there have been cases in Toronto police ALONE, of the planting of evidence, rape by three officers against a colleague, an off-duty officer chasing a teenager in plain clothes and beating him with a pipe to the face. The police from another force came and arrested the kid, for the privilege of having his eye potentially removed. Noone in the media or the SIU even know of this until 7 months later.

Only recently has the heat been turned way up on policing, because are finally getting a glimmer of courage from Conservatives to regain their roots of libertarianism. They will lose the next election because they rejected the one candidate who represented these principles. Mulroney understood it well, not surprising as he and Reagan were very close in their ideology. He separated the intelligence units from the RCMP because of an excessive litany of human right abuses. In short, they are not the FBI, they are more akin to police in Russia.

A judge recently chastised the RCMP for manufacturing a terror threat. This rabbit hunt not only cost the taxpayer many millions, but it totally ruined two peoples live. Two welfare recipients who had low education, intellectual issues by some standards, and even stated many times during the sting that they weren't really interested in what the undercover dbag was pushing.

Yes, Canadian police can and do entrap and create threats. Worse, they generally don't answer for these abuses. It's changing rapidly. I am doing my part in this regard because these excessive use of power has impacted our economic success and that of our allies. The danger of free trade agreements between a capitalist system in the U.S versus a neo-communist, socialist, intrusive centralized police state.
Soooooo basically it appears you focus on the bad apples and claim the whole tree is rotten............ Kinda like the anti cops in this country are doing........ Got it.

No, not at all. In fact, I have stated I would be the first to come to the assistance of a uniformed officer in harm. In my experiences, the vast majority of uniformed officers do a good job and are fit for the position. The unions are often forced to defend the indefensible, presenting a major problem for the rank and file who are good apples.

The real culture problem comes from those who "create" threats. The covert operatives, investigators, C.I's and the like.

Regardless, Do you have an opinion about obligations of government?
No because based on your OP I can only assume you're involved in or had been involved in something illegal, You're a paranoid schizophrenic or your lying. I would expect what you detailed from a third world country/dictatorship but not Canada.

How do you make that assumption? Even if you did, how does it justify a decade+ of employment interference, threats and abuses most readily found in a Communist country. I repeat for effect, I have no criminal record nor allegations against me and in fact I have been an open book in my search for justice. We will lose our home, my retirement will be non-existent and my desire for a life destroyed. Do you not think I am motivated?

I have done my job well, and made sure Canadas cards are on the table in the NAFTA negotiations and undercover back stabbers exposed for our allies to see. America will now be able to negotiate against Canadian state abuses with more details and awareness than they had at their disposal in the past.

First Ontario will get dealt with swiftly with manufacturing and the auto industry, I was all over this even before Trump won the elect. Furthermore, Canada's protectionism that exceeds any in the West will be made a liability for Canada.

If the addressing of abuses in NAFTA didn't happen with this administration it would happen in the future, it was just a matter of time. As long as I have air in my lungs and the courage to confront these cowards all will go as it should. It's easy to bully citizens and get the assistance of cowardly "good little Germans", quite another animal altogether to confront the United States with similar undermining tactics.
 

Ringel05

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2009
Messages
59,352
Reaction score
15,359
Points
2,180
Location
Duke City
Don't get me wrong but the police don't just randomly pick individuals to continually harass. If your not lying about the whole thing or are truly paranoid and imagining most of it then there has to be a valid reason to "harass" you.

You know very little of Canadian policing. It's a racket. In the last week alone, there have been cases in Toronto police ALONE, of the planting of evidence, rape by three officers against a colleague, an off-duty officer chasing a teenager in plain clothes and beating him with a pipe to the face. The police from another force came and arrested the kid, for the privilege of having his eye potentially removed. Noone in the media or the SIU even know of this until 7 months later.

Only recently has the heat been turned way up on policing, because are finally getting a glimmer of courage from Conservatives to regain their roots of libertarianism. They will lose the next election because they rejected the one candidate who represented these principles. Mulroney understood it well, not surprising as he and Reagan were very close in their ideology. He separated the intelligence units from the RCMP because of an excessive litany of human right abuses. In short, they are not the FBI, they are more akin to police in Russia.

A judge recently chastised the RCMP for manufacturing a terror threat. This rabbit hunt not only cost the taxpayer many millions, but it totally ruined two peoples live. Two welfare recipients who had low education, intellectual issues by some standards, and even stated many times during the sting that they weren't really interested in what the undercover dbag was pushing.

Yes, Canadian police can and do entrap and create threats. Worse, they generally don't answer for these abuses. It's changing rapidly. I am doing my part in this regard because these excessive use of power has impacted our economic success and that of our allies. The danger of free trade agreements between a capitalist system in the U.S versus a neo-communist, socialist, intrusive centralized police state.
Soooooo basically it appears you focus on the bad apples and claim the whole tree is rotten............ Kinda like the anti cops in this country are doing........ Got it.

No, not at all. In fact, I have stated I would be the first to come to the assistance of a uniformed officer in harm. In my experiences, the vast majority of uniformed officers do a good job and are fit for the position. The unions are often forced to defend the indefensible, presenting a major problem for the rank and file who are good apples.

The real culture problem comes from those who "create" threats. The covert operatives, investigators, C.I's and the like.

Regardless, Do you have an opinion about obligations of government?
No because based on your OP I can only assume you're involved in or had been involved in something illegal, You're a paranoid schizophrenic or your lying. I would expect what you detailed from a third world country/dictatorship but not Canada.

How do you make that assumption? Even if you did, how does it justify a decade+ of employment interference, threats and abuses most readily found in a Communist country. I repeat for effect, I have no criminal record nor allegations against me and in fact I have been an open book in my search for justice. We will lose our home, my retirement will be non-existent and my desire for a life destroyed. Do you not think I am motivated?

I have done my job well, and made sure Canadas cards are on the table in the NAFTA negotiations and undercover back stabbers exposed for our allies to see. America will now be able to negotiate against Canadian state abuses with more details and awareness than they had at their disposal in the past.

First Ontario will get dealt with swiftly with manufacturing and the auto industry, I was all over this even before Trump won the elect. Furthermore, Canada's protectionism that exceeds any in the West will be made a liability for Canada.

If the addressing of abuses in NAFTA didn't happen with this administration it would happen in the future, it was just a matter of time. As long as I have air in my lungs and the courage to confront these cowards all will go as it should. It's easy to bully citizens and get the assistance of cowardly "good little Germans", quite another animal altogether to confront the United States with similar undermining tactics.
Uuummmmm, okay....... Which mental hospital did you escape from again? :dunno:
 
OP
shockedcanadian

shockedcanadian

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2012
Messages
15,261
Reaction score
12,422
Points
2,405
You know very little of Canadian policing. It's a racket. In the last week alone, there have been cases in Toronto police ALONE, of the planting of evidence, rape by three officers against a colleague, an off-duty officer chasing a teenager in plain clothes and beating him with a pipe to the face. The police from another force came and arrested the kid, for the privilege of having his eye potentially removed. Noone in the media or the SIU even know of this until 7 months later.

Only recently has the heat been turned way up on policing, because are finally getting a glimmer of courage from Conservatives to regain their roots of libertarianism. They will lose the next election because they rejected the one candidate who represented these principles. Mulroney understood it well, not surprising as he and Reagan were very close in their ideology. He separated the intelligence units from the RCMP because of an excessive litany of human right abuses. In short, they are not the FBI, they are more akin to police in Russia.

A judge recently chastised the RCMP for manufacturing a terror threat. This rabbit hunt not only cost the taxpayer many millions, but it totally ruined two peoples live. Two welfare recipients who had low education, intellectual issues by some standards, and even stated many times during the sting that they weren't really interested in what the undercover dbag was pushing.

Yes, Canadian police can and do entrap and create threats. Worse, they generally don't answer for these abuses. It's changing rapidly. I am doing my part in this regard because these excessive use of power has impacted our economic success and that of our allies. The danger of free trade agreements between a capitalist system in the U.S versus a neo-communist, socialist, intrusive centralized police state.
Soooooo basically it appears you focus on the bad apples and claim the whole tree is rotten............ Kinda like the anti cops in this country are doing........ Got it.

No, not at all. In fact, I have stated I would be the first to come to the assistance of a uniformed officer in harm. In my experiences, the vast majority of uniformed officers do a good job and are fit for the position. The unions are often forced to defend the indefensible, presenting a major problem for the rank and file who are good apples.

The real culture problem comes from those who "create" threats. The covert operatives, investigators, C.I's and the like.

Regardless, Do you have an opinion about obligations of government?
No because based on your OP I can only assume you're involved in or had been involved in something illegal, You're a paranoid schizophrenic or your lying. I would expect what you detailed from a third world country/dictatorship but not Canada.

How do you make that assumption? Even if you did, how does it justify a decade+ of employment interference, threats and abuses most readily found in a Communist country. I repeat for effect, I have no criminal record nor allegations against me and in fact I have been an open book in my search for justice. We will lose our home, my retirement will be non-existent and my desire for a life destroyed. Do you not think I am motivated?

I have done my job well, and made sure Canadas cards are on the table in the NAFTA negotiations and undercover back stabbers exposed for our allies to see. America will now be able to negotiate against Canadian state abuses with more details and awareness than they had at their disposal in the past.

First Ontario will get dealt with swiftly with manufacturing and the auto industry, I was all over this even before Trump won the elect. Furthermore, Canada's protectionism that exceeds any in the West will be made a liability for Canada.

If the addressing of abuses in NAFTA didn't happen with this administration it would happen in the future, it was just a matter of time. As long as I have air in my lungs and the courage to confront these cowards all will go as it should. It's easy to bully citizens and get the assistance of cowardly "good little Germans", quite another animal altogether to confront the United States with similar undermining tactics.
Uuummmmm, okay....... Which mental hospital did you escape from again? :dunno:

You sound like a government employee. We are done here.
 

usmbguest5318

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2017
Messages
10,923
Reaction score
1,618
Points
290
Location
D.C.
"Is there a moral and legal fiduciary duty of government to not impede on individuals pursuits, and to engage civil with it's citizens? Or, is government within it's powers to engage as they please without recourse and base it on their own whims?"

The answer depends how the government is constituted. Seeing as you live in Canada, and I don't know how Canada's government is constituted or how goes Canadian constitutional legal theory, I cannot, for the most part, credibly and comprehensively answer either question.

I suspect the Canadian government is based in large part on the rule of law. If that is so, whim has nothing to do with how the Canadian government pursues whatever actions it does.

I wonder if any of you have personally experienced, or know of someone who has experienced government abuse.

I'm sure people feel as though they have. Some, for example, would say that the speed limit and speeding tickets constitute governmental imposition.

My housekeeper and her husband care for her father who is in his dotage and, of late, has frequently gone to the hospital (eight emergency visits in two months). The doctors there filed a "suspicion of neglect" with Adult Protective Services, and now she and her husband are having to demonstrate that they are not neglecting her father and are instead doing the best they can given their and his circumstances and her father's wishes.

The core reason the man has been going to the hospital is that among them, they don't have the financial means to provide 24 skilled nusing at home and the man's health has deteriorated to the point where the only choices they (he) have are:
  • Home hospice care, whereby the man will be made comfortable, but not treated, thus effectively "left to die," albeit at home. To do that is apparently in contravention with the man's tenets and practice of his Roman Catholic faith.
  • Send him to the hospital when his condition worsens, let the hospital get him "back to normal" (as normal as he's going to be given his age and health status), and then have him return home.
  • Put him in a nursing home or some other kind of extended care facility. (This is something that, so I'm told, throughout the better days of his seniority, the man explicitly stated he doesn't want.)
 
Last edited:

usmbguest5318

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2017
Messages
10,923
Reaction score
1,618
Points
290
Location
D.C.
Uuummmmm, okay....... Which mental hospital did you escape from again? :dunno:

Apologies for the "funny" rating. I know you are less trying to be funny and more trying to share that you find absurd the remarks to which you responded. Seeing your comment before reading the passages you quoted just did make me laugh, so I ticked "funny."
 

Ringel05

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2009
Messages
59,352
Reaction score
15,359
Points
2,180
Location
Duke City
Uuummmmm, okay....... Which mental hospital did you escape from again? :dunno:

Apologies for the "funny" rating. I know you are less trying to be funny and more trying to share that you find absurd the remarks to which you responded. Seeing your comment before reading the passages you quoted just did make me laugh, so I ticked "funny."
Obviously he thinks he's being perfectly logical......... But almost all psychiatric patients think that........ And given the fact he called me a government employee speaks volumes. Unfortunately I have to suspect some degree of early psychosis.
 

usmbguest5318

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2017
Messages
10,923
Reaction score
1,618
Points
290
Location
D.C.
Uuummmmm, okay....... Which mental hospital did you escape from again? :dunno:

Apologies for the "funny" rating. I know you are less trying to be funny and more trying to share that you find absurd the remarks to which you responded. Seeing your comment before reading the passages you quoted just did make me laugh, so I ticked "funny."
Obviously he thinks he's being perfectly logical......... But almost all psychiatric patients think that........ And given the fact he called me a government employee speaks volumes. Unfortunately I have to suspect some degree of early psychosis.
But almost all psychiatric patients think that........

True.

And given the fact he called me a government employee speaks volumes. Unfortunately I have to suspect some degree of early psychosis.

That need not be and probably isn't the only or most likely reason for his remark to that effect. People will say all sort of things when they either wont' or haven't a substantive retort to something they simply don't like to hear/see. Such responses derive from pathos, not from logos. Making such remarks doesn't necessarily bode for one's being psychotic, but neither do they militate for one's being a calm and resolutely rational being.
 

Ringel05

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2009
Messages
59,352
Reaction score
15,359
Points
2,180
Location
Duke City
Uuummmmm, okay....... Which mental hospital did you escape from again? :dunno:

Apologies for the "funny" rating. I know you are less trying to be funny and more trying to share that you find absurd the remarks to which you responded. Seeing your comment before reading the passages you quoted just did make me laugh, so I ticked "funny."
Obviously he thinks he's being perfectly logical......... But almost all psychiatric patients think that........ And given the fact he called me a government employee speaks volumes. Unfortunately I have to suspect some degree of early psychosis.
But almost all psychiatric patients think that........

True.

And given the fact he called me a government employee speaks volumes. Unfortunately I have to suspect some degree of early psychosis.

That need not be and probably isn't the only or most likely reason for his remark to that effect. People will say all sort of things when they either wont' or haven't a substantive retort to something they simply don't like to hear/see. Such responses derive from pathos, not from logos. Making such remarks doesn't necessarily bode for one's being psychotic, but neither do they militate for one's being a calm and resolutely rational being.
That was the least of my reasons for making that "diagnosis" as I'm quite aware how and why people respond the way they do.
 

usmbguest5318

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2017
Messages
10,923
Reaction score
1,618
Points
290
Location
D.C.
Uuummmmm, okay....... Which mental hospital did you escape from again? :dunno:

Apologies for the "funny" rating. I know you are less trying to be funny and more trying to share that you find absurd the remarks to which you responded. Seeing your comment before reading the passages you quoted just did make me laugh, so I ticked "funny."
Obviously he thinks he's being perfectly logical......... But almost all psychiatric patients think that........ And given the fact he called me a government employee speaks volumes. Unfortunately I have to suspect some degree of early psychosis.
But almost all psychiatric patients think that........

True.

And given the fact he called me a government employee speaks volumes. Unfortunately I have to suspect some degree of early psychosis.

That need not be and probably isn't the only or most likely reason for his remark to that effect. People will say all sort of things when they either wont' or haven't a substantive retort to something they simply don't like to hear/see. Such responses derive from pathos, not from logos. Making such remarks doesn't necessarily bode for one's being psychotic, but neither do they militate for one's being a calm and resolutely rational being.
That was the least of my reasons for making that "diagnosis" as I'm quite aware how and why people respond the way they do.
??? Now, you're not making sense to me either. Why was "the least" of your reasons for your "diagnosis" the one you chose to highlight? I have to ask for discursively, rhetorically and argumentatively, one's least powerful reason(s) supporting one's conclusions are not the best one's to present or highlight/present solely.
 

Ringel05

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2009
Messages
59,352
Reaction score
15,359
Points
2,180
Location
Duke City
Uuummmmm, okay....... Which mental hospital did you escape from again? :dunno:

Apologies for the "funny" rating. I know you are less trying to be funny and more trying to share that you find absurd the remarks to which you responded. Seeing your comment before reading the passages you quoted just did make me laugh, so I ticked "funny."
Obviously he thinks he's being perfectly logical......... But almost all psychiatric patients think that........ And given the fact he called me a government employee speaks volumes. Unfortunately I have to suspect some degree of early psychosis.
But almost all psychiatric patients think that........

True.

And given the fact he called me a government employee speaks volumes. Unfortunately I have to suspect some degree of early psychosis.

That need not be and probably isn't the only or most likely reason for his remark to that effect. People will say all sort of things when they either wont' or haven't a substantive retort to something they simply don't like to hear/see. Such responses derive from pathos, not from logos. Making such remarks doesn't necessarily bode for one's being psychotic, but neither do they militate for one's being a calm and resolutely rational being.
That was the least of my reasons for making that "diagnosis" as I'm quite aware how and why people respond the way they do.
??? Now, you're not making sense to me either. Why was "the least" of your reasons for your "diagnosis" the one you chose to highlight? I have to ask for discursively, rhetorically and argumentatively, one's least powerful reason(s) supporting one's conclusions are not the best one's to present or highlight/present solely.
I highlighted something? I was referring to his saying I worked for the government as being the least. What tangent are you off on? :dunno:
 

usmbguest5318

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2017
Messages
10,923
Reaction score
1,618
Points
290
Location
D.C.
Uuummmmm, okay....... Which mental hospital did you escape from again? :dunno:

Apologies for the "funny" rating. I know you are less trying to be funny and more trying to share that you find absurd the remarks to which you responded. Seeing your comment before reading the passages you quoted just did make me laugh, so I ticked "funny."
Obviously he thinks he's being perfectly logical......... But almost all psychiatric patients think that........ And given the fact he called me a government employee speaks volumes. Unfortunately I have to suspect some degree of early psychosis.
But almost all psychiatric patients think that........

True.

And given the fact he called me a government employee speaks volumes. Unfortunately I have to suspect some degree of early psychosis.

That need not be and probably isn't the only or most likely reason for his remark to that effect. People will say all sort of things when they either wont' or haven't a substantive retort to something they simply don't like to hear/see. Such responses derive from pathos, not from logos. Making such remarks doesn't necessarily bode for one's being psychotic, but neither do they militate for one's being a calm and resolutely rational being.
That was the least of my reasons for making that "diagnosis" as I'm quite aware how and why people respond the way they do.
??? Now, you're not making sense to me either. Why was "the least" of your reasons for your "diagnosis" the one you chose to highlight? I have to ask for discursively, rhetorically and argumentatively, one's least powerful reason(s) supporting one's conclusions are not the best one's to present or highlight/present solely.
I highlighted something? I was referring to his saying I worked for the government as being the least. What tangent are you off on? :dunno:

Yes, you highlighted something. You highlighted exactly what you have noted, his calling your a government employee. You highlighted it by citing it, along with your generality about psychiatric patients, albeit a contextually accurate one, as the two sole reasons for your "diagnosis."

Have no other reasons? Is his epithet of lesser importance in your analysis than is the general theory of psychosis you've articulated (very high level) and applied, or is it merely an illustration of it, thus not a reason on its own?
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$350.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top